The fine line between nature and cheating

This is a column which should have been written when it was first announced that Cobus Visagie had been cleared to play again after testing positive for nandrolone.

But there is a reason I have picked over it for the best part of four days. You see, I have battled to make up my mind on the line that should be taken. For while it is tempting to celebrate unreservedly the return of what Western Province official Rob Wagner called the most valuable right shoulder in South African rugby, there are surely times when the issues go far deeper than a player's importance to the team.

It all seemed so easy last Thursday afternoon. A press conference was called at Newlands. Visagie went in front of the media. An honest, sincere man who was moved to tears by the emotion of the moment, it was hard not to feel pleased for him.

After all, here was a man who had spent the best part of R500 000, or so it is rumoured, on his defence. As I said to Stormers coach Alan Solomons when I first heard he had been cleared, a person who fights so hard must be innocent.

I still believe that.

Understandably Wagner, who directs an organisation that relies on a winning team for its success, was elated. Visagie, quite clearly, is every bit as important to both WP and South Africa as Wagner suggests he is.

Those sitting through the media conference would have battled to fight the feeling that Visagie had been done a grave injustice. Evidence appears to be coming forward that nandrolone can be produced in the body naturally and is not necessarily wilfully placed there through wrong-doing.

The medical research is ongoing. Indeed, it is so current that certain things which were of a "speculative nature" - according to Visagie's lawyer, Brian Biebuyck - during the initial trial had in fact been proved to be probable by the time the appeal started little more than a month later.

According to the medical lobby which has batted for Visagie over the past few months, the prop conforms to at least two of the conditions which can contribute to the natural production of nandrolone in the body. Those conditions were body mass of over 80 kilograms, trauma, stress, fatigue and dehydration. Remember, Visagie was tested 30 minutes after leaving the field in a Currie Cup match in which he broke his wrist.

From what we know about the Visagie case, there are several questions which require answering by Sarfu. Chief among those is why they chose to impose the strict liability demanded by the IRB when their own doping regulations, and those of Sanzar for that matter, do not require it?

And in light of the recent decision by Fifa not to conform to the IOC regulations on nandrolone, is it not time now for rugby to recognise the debate which is raging around the sporting world? As Visagie said, if Fifa are in doubt over whether nandrolone can be produced naturally, why should he or any other rugby player sign a contract which demands strict liability in the event of a positive test for the substance.

With all of this doubt, it does seem that the blow sustained to his integrity, which he regards as a bigger loss than his material losses, was a high price to pay.

But through all of this, a statement made by his lawyer in a radio interview and a conversation with someone who knows a lot more about drugs in sport than I do has kept nagging away at my sub-concious.

Biebuyck, when asked by a radio reporter how he was feeling, responded that it was good that "Cobus has been granted the benefit of the doubt". It is important to remember that Visagie's exoneration goes no further than that. He got off not because it was proved he did not wilfully take nandrolone, but because of a technicality.

I am not trying to cast aspersions on Visagie's integrity. He has always struck me as an honest person. When I first heard he had tested positive, I found it hard to believe. I still do.

But it is important to remember that the discovery that nandrolone can be produced naturally does not preclude the possibility of it being placed in your blood through unnatural means.

I know little about drugs in sport in comparison with some others who fear that sport scientists, through their angle of research and at times their loyalty to sports people who have transgressed, may be working too hard at creating loopholes which should not exist.

Again, I am not saying that Visagie, or anyone involved with him, is guilty of this. But we should not lose sight of the fact that a short while ago drug abuse was a very real problem in South African rugby.

Perhaps that is what concerns me most. I well remember how incensed medical people and sports scientists were when South African players tested positive in the early 1990s and were either let off or were handed punishments which were inadequate. At the time, I accused the administration of "whitewashing" a potential crisis.

My informed source tells me that while it is possible for nandrolone to be produced naturally, in most instances where a player tests positive this will not be the case. Is there now an opportunity for players to deliberately transgress because they know a loophole has been created for them?

The best way to sum up my own dilemma is to say that there are bigger issues at stake here than whether Visagie might be able to provide a right shoulder to the Springbok scrum.

Clearly the Visagie issue was mishandled and there are enough questions over nandrolone and the testing procedures for him to be given the benefit of the doubt. Yes, we should be pleased for the individual.

But I am not so sure we should be pleased about the wider message that may be sent out.

To celebrate Visagie's return on the basis that he is a nice guy and important player to have in your team would be to do so for the wrong reasons.

Drugs in sport remains a serious problem which needs to be stamped out and which should always transcend other considerations.

The sooner the sports scientists find a way to distinguish between those who deliberately cheat and those who simply fall foul through freakish genetics, like Visagie may have, so much the better for the sport.