Saru’s Super Rugby call delayed … again
6 Jul 2012
Saru announced that its general meeting has been postponed on the request from the majority of the provincial unions.
Saru’s general meeting was scheduled for 13 July. A final call on South Africa’s Super Rugby debacle was to be made at this gathering.
However, the provincial unions have asked for the annual meeting to be held at a later date, delaying a final call on the issue. Saru has accepted this request.
This will give all parties more time to resolve the issue of accommodating the Southern Kings (along with the other five South African franchises) in the 15-team tournament format next season.
44 Comments
5 Jul 2012, 21:15 pm
Late dragons!
5 Jul 2012, 21:15 pm
still plotting how to shaft the Kings…de klerk out there lobbying.
5 Jul 2012, 21:39 pm
Still passing the hat around for Cheeky’s magic number.
5 Jul 2012, 23:08 pm
Were the Lions to be spared at the last minute, they would perform worse next year since some players have hedged their bets & signed elsewhere
5 Jul 2012, 23:26 pm
@Transie, nope no way they’ll be shafting the Kings again… Fikile will f@rk up regan / saru from here to ponte tower and back again! They dont want that
6 Jul 2012, 00:27 am
Gutless pr1cks. A complete lack of leadership and accountability. Forget accusing O’Niell for SA’s being screwed by Sanzar. These gormless overpaid eunuchs are suffocating our game with their incompetence and lack of responsibilty.
6 Jul 2012, 00:37 am
Delaying tactics include:
waiting so long it is unfeasable to change anything, ie. the next superugby comp has already started.
Hoping that a meteor wipes out Gauteng or E Cape, thereby removing the need to make a decision.
The Western Cape declares independence.
Anything rather than be responsible for a decision.
6 Jul 2012, 00:48 am
hiw can you shaft someone that doesnt deserve feck all? kings shouldnt even be in the reckoning for being anything in rugby. theyll get what they want tough cause in sa handouts are a way of life.
6 Jul 2012, 00:51 am
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-7:
Or if they wait long enough, JZ’s going to reduce the provinces from 9 to 6 and merging the Western and Eastern Cape
Solve two problems at once, get rid of Zille and the Kings problem
The Stormkings could play half their matches in Mandela Bay, and the other half
in //Hui!Gaeb
And Puke as captain
6 Jul 2012, 06:14 am
The longer this is dragged out, the less likely it becomes that the kings will play next year. Kings or lions next year makes no difference though. Both teams are going to be bad. At least the kings will have the “first season” excuse which is understandable. The lions however… not so much.
6 Jul 2012, 06:25 am
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-6: Well said, Sir.
6 Jul 2012, 06:33 am
Who was the doos at SARU who made the political promise to include those King comrades.
No way in hell will Satan’s children be allowed to play superrugby based only on a promise.
6 Jul 2012, 07:00 am
@stormer in a teacup(stormer in a teacup)-6:
agreed, and some…
6 Jul 2012, 07:13 am
@slow114(slow114)-10:
disagree
the kings would certainly be the best thing that could ever happen to the sharks, and to a slightly lesser extent the stormers, and to a much lesser extent the bulls (but an extent all the same).
think about it, just about guaranteed 5 pointers without much risk of injury for the sa franchises in a system geared towards local derbies, meaning the sa teams play them more often than the australasians do (so less easy points for them).
whereas the lions are more likely to run the top franchises harder thus risking injury and even throw the spanner in one, maybe two franchises works (lions-sharks recent game a perfect example of this).
in a weird way, and i kid you not… this will in fact strengthen sa rugby for the next two or three years at least, in the super rugby competition.
which is a good thing considering the cheating and deceit we have to endure from the australasians.
6 Jul 2012, 07:38 am
@galileo, roundness, union, coach…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-14: Is that why there’s so much use of Australasian coaching expertise in SA teams, to maybe teach them how to be “more deceiful and bigger cheats?”
Get a life, mate.
6 Jul 2012, 08:01 am
@Blitzbok(Blitzbok)-8: And you say this based on what ? The Lions got more handouts than anyone else at this stage.
6 Jul 2012, 08:07 am
A few days after interviewing Lance Armstrong in Austin, Texas, for this magazine on the occasion of his comeback, in late 2008, I got The Call.
It’s not unusual for me to contact interviewees after we’ve spoken. In the course of transcribing an interview and writing a feature, it’s sometimes necessary to follow up and check a couple of facts, or explore a line of inquiry that we didn’t have time for.
This one was different.
Number withheld.
“Hey Ed, it’s Lance Armstrong,” said the voice at the other end. “How’s your kid?”
I fought the urge to go upstairs and check he was still asleep in his cot. Armstrong hadn’t called to make small talk, however. He wanted to discuss our interview, although to describe it as a discussion would be to overplay my part in the conversation.
“Your questions came from a very negative place,” he informed me.
I like to think I gave as good as I got. Armstrong chewed me out for obsessing about doping, while I lectured him about the sport needing to be built on ethical foundations and integrity, or it would have no meaning at all. This went on for a good half hour.
Then things turned a bit weird.
“OK then, if I cheated to win all those Tours, how did I do it?” Armstrong asked, challenge in his voice.
I was gobsmacked. The situation reminded me of OJ Simpson’s book If I did it. I was silent for a long time while my amazement found expression.
“Well, I don’t know,” was the best I could manage.
***
The letter that the United States Anti-Doping Agency recently sent to Lance Armstrong, his manager Johan Bruyneel and four others (Michele Ferrari, Pedro Celaya, Luis Garcia del Moral and Pepe Marti), is as incendiary a communication as cycling has ever seen. On June 12, USADA informed the six recipients of the letter that formal action was being opened against them for violations of the UCI’s anti-doping rules. Each would be charged with the following five rule violations:
- Possession of prohibited substances – Trafficking of prohibited substances – Administration of prohibited substances – Aiding, abetting and complicity in covering up the rule violations – Aggravating circumstances
And Armstrong, the only rider in the six, was also accused of:
- Use of prohibited substances
There were a couple of moments of accidental levity. We were reminded that the slang for EPO within the anglophone peloton was “Edgar Allen Poe”, while testosterone was referred to as “oil”. In a specifically, and typically, Italian twist, it was said that Michele Ferrari, also one of the six, mixed testosterone with olive oil. Groundnut oil just wouldn’t have been the same.
But the allegations were extremely serious. USADA were accusing six individuals of no less than a conspiracy stretching over more than a decade, going back to 1998. (The World Anti-Doping Agency’s statute of limitations is eight years, but USADA’s argument is that the activities occurred within the last eight years and that evidence of wrongdoing going back a further six years is relevant to the case).
Armstrong himself would have to defend himself on multiple fronts –many ex-team-mates and acquaintances of the Texan will testify to his guilt, the unresolved issue of an alleged positive EPO test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland, said to have been subsequently covered up, would be investigated, and USADA also think they can see data consistent with blood manipulation from tests done after Armstrong’s comeback, in 2009 and 2010.
Armstrong was given 10 days to respond, with the case then going to a review board to decide whether to open charges, or to close the case.
Note: since publication of the original article, the review board has given the go-ahead for USADA to open charges.
Armstrong did what comes so naturally to him, he doesn’t even understand that there might be another way: he kicked back, hard. On his website, he rehearsed rebuttals familiar to all those who follow his career: the accusations were motivated by spite. He’d never tested positive.
“I have competed as an endurance athlete for 25 years with no spike in performance,” he said.
***
Armstrong’s a genius with language. He has a gift for concocting memorable phrases seemingly off the cuff, and if he goes into politics, heaven help his opponents in debates.
His denials have always sounded plausible, as long as you don’t think about them too hard, like some of his more fervent supporters. But examine them, and you’ll notice that he often redefines the parameters of the accusation. Rather than deny doping, in the past, he’s wheeled out the “never tested positive” line: it’s a guaranteed floor-filler. He calls the tune, and his supporters dance to it.
This is problematic, because, as we all know, he has tested positive. Once, officially, at the Tour de France in 1999, when a backdated therapeutic use exemption certificate was produced after corticosteroids appeared in his sample. (Oddly, when I interviewed him, he seemed to forget himself and claimed never to have had a TUE in his career – when I mentioned the 1999 cortisone TUE, he relented, saying, “well, there was the cortisone”). He’s also unofficially tested positive, after samples taken in 1999 allegedly tested positive for EPO in the course of the development of a test for the substance. An enterprising L’Equipe journalist managed to get hold of a match between the code numbers for the samples, and for the riders’ names.
But never mind that – the issue is not whether these unsanctionable offences are concrete evidence of his guilt, but that he has shifted the attention away from whether he actually doped or not.
Instead of proclaiming his innocence, he merely redefines innocence as simply not having been caught,
And that’s why he was clever to point out that there had been no spike in his performance. There hasn’t. His athletic performances were more of a plateau, and his accusers certainly think they know how he got to that level, but that’s not the point. Armstrong first planted the seed in the mind of the reader that spikes in performance are suspicious (and, yes, they can be), and then cheerfully pointed out that he hadn’t had one. Move along now, nothing to see here.
***
The success of USADA’s case will be based on their ability to build enough evidence to support a “non-analytical positive” – proof of doping that doesn’t rely on a positive test. Although there may be some crossover in terms of evidence that was gathered by the recently-closed federal criminal investigation led by Jeff Novitsky, USADA have been quite clear that this is a separate case. USADA’s head, Travis Tygart co-operated with Novitsky’s investigation, but apparently the evidence has not yet been shared.
USADA’s burden of proof is lower than that in a federal case. Novitsky’s failure to secure an indictment shouldn’t necessarily be seen as an indication the USADA case won’t find Armstrong guilty.
Will USADA be able to secure a non-analytical positive? And if they do, will it cause the fall of Lance Armstrong?
All USADA can do is strip him of his Tour wins and ban him from competition. He’s retired from cycling, so it won’t make much difference, and there are many previous Tour winners whose disqualification wouldn’t make much difference anyway, because the guy in second was also doped to the gills. Stripping Armstrong of his Tour wins merely leads to the parlour game of finding the first clean rider behind him.
There will be financial ramifications – Armstrong collected a five million dollar bonus from the SCA Promotions insurance company for his winning streak at the Tour, and given that they only handed it over after a protracted legal battle following the 2005 L’Equipe doping allegations, they’re likely to want it back. That’s still a lot less intimidating than what faced him when the criminal investigation was still going on – prison.
But the real consequence for Armstrong may be far more serious. He can deal with admiration. He is also extremely comfortable with hate – he feeds off it. But Lance Armstrong’s worst nightmare is irrelevance. If he’s found guilty, everything he has built on the foundations of his success as a cyclist will be brought into question.
What’s noticeable from the reaction to the latest investigation is how willing more and more people seem to be to speak out against him –the “more than 10 cyclists” cited in USADA’s letter to the Armstrong six, the American press, fans in general.
Armstrong is a natural bully. And he relies on the silent and fearful acquiescence of those around him to get away with it. He bullied Filippo Simeoni live on television during the 2004 Tour. He bullied Christophe Bassons, during the 1999 Tour. He’s bullied journalists in press conferences. He tried to bully me over the telephone. His admirers would have that he bullied cancer into submission.
Witness testimony is the key to USADA’s case. The Tour of Switzerland positive, and the 2009-2010 blood data are relevant in USADA’s eyes, otherwise they wouldn’t have cited them in the letter. But the case against Armstrong will hinge on people who were formerly fearful of turning against him choosing to do so.
Few people know exactly who the “more than 10” cyclists or the team employees who will testify are. You would have to have been living in a cave for the last 10 years not to know which individuals went on the record in David Walsh’s book LA Confidential, or which ex-teammates who have tested positive and turned against Armstrong, have also gone on the record. Those people will certainly be involved.
Armstrong’s tactic against people like Floyd Landis or Tyler Hamilton has been to portray them as bitter cheaters. Armstrong has always done this – he plays the man, not the ball. (In an astonishing display of chutzpah, his lawyers cited a passage from Landis’s book Positively False in their response to USADA – this is the book Landis wrote when he was in the initial stages of denial about having cheated during his cycling career).
But it’s also possible some people who can’t easily be described as bitter, or cheats, have spoken up as well.
Coincidentally with the USADA letter being sent, ESPN reported that four senior American riders had withdrawn themselves from consideration for the London Olympic cycling team. All had been former team-mates of Armstrong. Christian Vande Velde, Levi Leipheimer, David Zabriskie and George Hincapie were the four.
Et tu George? Then fall Armstrong.
***
That an entire generation of cycling has turned out to be deeply tainted is beyond doubt. From the early 1990s through to really quite recently, you have to ask yourself how big race winners did it. Some have tested positive, or have confessed to doping (when trotting out the “never tested positive” line, it’s worth considering that David Millar, Ivan Basso, Jan Ullrich and Bjarne Riis, to take a few examples, never tested positive).
Blood boosting, either by transfusions or ‘Edgar Allen Poe’, give such an unfair advantage to some riders that what results from their usage is not sport. Apart from the fact that such high climbing speeds as were being achieved from the mid-1990s onwards effectively deaden any tactical interest or finesse, these doping techniques aren’t democratic. It’s not the case that the same hierarchy exists with doped riders and non-doped riders – we often hear that it doesn’t matter if everybody is cheating because the strongest riders win anyway. Some riders gain more of an advantage than others from blood manipulation, Bjarne Riis being just one striking example.
There are differing ways of dealing with the existence of the tainted generation. Some, very few these days, still deny it ever existed. It was just a few bad apples, they say. I’m not going to waste ink on explaining why this attitude is so destructive to cycling, but it would be much simpler to describe the peloton of the late 1990s and early 2000s as having a few good apples among an EU food mountain of bad ones.
Others are happy to acknowledge that it existed, but feel it would be best to draw a line under it and move on. While an amnesty sounds appealing for the wellbeing of the sport, it sends the message that as long as you didn’t get caught, it’s fine. If that’s the message cycling wants to send to my children, I’ll direct them towards other activities. Remember that lives have been lost in the turmoil surrounding doping in cycling.
The only other option is full catharsis. Cycling needs to lance the boil.
And the tainted generation have to be the ones to do this. Too many people working in cycling today have secrets in their pasts which might compromise their integrity. Many have privately renounced their past, including individuals who have done extremely well in team management or other aspects of the sport, and whose success is partly down to the contacts and reputations they gained as riders. Putting up a nice building on shaky foundations is bad architectural practice.
This is where the USADA witnesses come in. They’ve been granted anonymity in the process. “USADA sought to give riders an opportunity to be a part of the solution in moving cycling forward by being truthful and honest regarding their past experiences with doping in cycling,” the letter stated. Armstrong’s lawyers predictably made hay with this. “
These riders’ testimonies will be key to the case against Armstrong, but their own debt to cycling doesn’t end with a resolution of the case. If he’s found guilty, they will be open to the accusation that there is one rule for one guilty person, and another for others. If he’s not, and they have testified truthfully against him, can they keep a clear conscience about continuing to hide the past while simultaneously enjoying success in a career that is built on their achievements in cycling?
Fans who have stood for hours in boiling sunshine or pouring rain to see their heroes, or bought the sponsor’s product, are owed an explanation. Come out and tell us what you did, why you understand it was wrong, and then we can get on with the sport.
***
Cycling fans are fairly used to the glacial pace of resolving doping issues – Alberto Contador tested positive in July 2010, and wasn’t sanctioned until February 2012. The Armstrong issue has been a backdrop to cycling for longer than many fans have even been following the sport.
Some of it will be played out in the court of public opinion, and some will be played out behind closed doors with lawyers, scientists and interested parties all arguing over the dots on the is and crosses on the ts.
But while this goes on, there’s something important that needs to be addressed: what Lance Armstrong did was impossible, or so improbable as to be virtually indistinguishable from impossible.
Michele Ferrari, Armstrong’s old coach and one of the six defendants in the USADA action, is on the record as talking about the Texan being able to express a sustained power output of 6.7 watts per kilogram of body weight when he was winning the Tour.
The late Aldo Sassi, who was respected as one of the best cycling coaches and whose reputation was spotless, concluded that a sustained 6.2 watts per kilo was probably the limit of human achievement under normal physiological conditions. Unpredictable variables, such as length of effort, would skew the numbers a little, but figures above 6 are freakish – the absolute limit of human achievement. 6.0 would win a Grand Tour these days (Sassi was quoted in the New York Times as saying that in the 2009 Giro, only one rider – Denis Menchov – got above six). 6.7 is impossible. It’s over 11 per cent more than 6.0, in an elite area of performance where the margins between riders are impossibly thin. It would be the equivalent of a long jumper jumping 9.93 metres (Mike Powell’s world record is 8.95 metres, and that was a pretty freakish jump).
Armstrong rode up Alpe d’Huez in 37-36 in the 2004 Tour de France, one second behind Marco Pantani’s record (although there is debate about the measurements based on where the climb actually starts and finishes). The fastest time last year was 41-21, by Samuel Sanchez. That’s a difference of just under 10 per cent.
The early 2000s were a different era, not just in cycling. The credit boom made us all think that some kind of new paradigm had been invented, one which would make us all richer. It turned out to be built on fresh air – maybe the background of our lives made some people believe more easily the myth that the laws of nature could be broken.
It makes us feel good to ascribe superhuman abilities to humans, to believe that force of will can drive special individuals to incredible achievements. It’s different this time. Armstrong fed this myth, by claiming to train harder. His fans claimed that his battle with cancer gave him the mental fortitude to ride away from his rivals.
But it’s a fairy tale. An individual with the right combination of genetic attributes and physiology might come along with an advantage of one or two per cent over the very best of his rivals. Five per cent? Human beings don’t work like that. 10 per cent or more? Sorry. You’re being lied to.
And that brings us back to the telephone call I received in late November, 2008.
Because I would like Lance Armstrong to answer his own question. How did he do what he did?
The USADA action is important, no matter how many aggressively-worded letters Armstrong’s lawyers send out trying to persuade us of the contrary. The witness testimony may be enough to result in Armstrong being found guilty. But cycling has its first chance in a generation to come to terms with its past, not just brush it under the carpet.
How did you do it, Lance?
6 Jul 2012, 08:09 am
@BrumbiesBoy(BrumbiesBoy)-15:
look, i have a right to voice my views and opinions, but that is all they are…’my views and my opinions’.
i do of course believe them to be absolutely true and am sure a great many others think and feel the same way too.
i think we can agree the australasian coaching expertise in sa isn’t any good. the sharks and lions neither cheat nor win when it matters.
they do flatter to deceive, but thats not what’s expected is it.
6 Jul 2012, 08:17 am
@Mr Black(Mr Black)-17:
yip, this guy’s a scumbag through and through.
6 Jul 2012, 08:29 am
@galileo, roundness, union, coach…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-19:
Very long but very interesting read.
6 Jul 2012, 08:33 am
@galileo, roundness, union, coach…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-19:
More Whitney…
6 Jul 2012, 08:43 am
@Mr Black(Mr Black)-20:
i have suspected him since these rumours fist surrfaced.
same for contador, a despicable man who endured the ignominy of being booed by the crowd at a team presentation during the tour de france.
@Gumboots(Gumboots)-21:
more boots.
hopelik wen die chiefs en bulls
6 Jul 2012, 08:45 am
@galileo, roundness, union, coach…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-22:
Hehehe en Stormers…
6 Jul 2012, 08:49 am
@Gumboots(Gumboots)-23:
ja, but isn’t that a ‘godd given certainty’?
6 Jul 2012, 09:19 am
Excellant article Mr Black… thanks for posting it…
A cyclist i am fairly well acquainted with told me in about 2005 that ‘everybody does it’… he says you simply can’t compete or even reach competition levels unless you do because everyone else is doing it and it’s an open secret amongst them all…
this guy used to compete at a high level including some overseas events… but doesn’t compete anymore…
unfortunately cycling and athletics IMO are pretty much completely rotten… we were chatting about Bolt and Jamaican sprinters the other day… and i reckon they’re all on the juice… we’ve also discussed thins several times over the last few years and i’ve had quite a few guys call me plenty of things because i believe these athletes are crooked…
what i liked about the article and why i’m commenting on it is Armstrong’s response… about “Well how did I do it” and “not being caught”… so many people assume athletics and cycling are clean because they participants haven’t been caught… to which i’ve always responded that because they haven’t been caught yet doesn’t mean they’re not doing it…
a large part of the ‘doping industry…’ i read a 10 or more years ago… is dedicated to creating effective masking agents they disguise or hide drugs in the results…
i also liked his point about just letting everyone take drugs to be fair because they do affect different people differently and people don;t simply take the same doses which are calculated for that individual based on many criteria…
good article…
but who was the writer…? i didn’t see his name…
6 Jul 2012, 09:28 am
also feel there’s the same problem in schoolboy rugby in south africa… there’s so much pressure to compete and if you look at many of these kids they have the bodies of men in their 20s…
no ways 10 or 15 years ago did 17 and 18 year old boys have the bodies of seasoned bodybuilders…
but we’ll all condone it as long as it produces heroes for us to worship…
6 Jul 2012, 09:39 am
@ufo(ufo)-25:
Sorry UFO, should have added it.
Written by Edward Pickering and it appeared in the current edition of Cycle Sport magazine
6 Jul 2012, 09:46 am
interesting to see the guys named in the same newspaper Bruyneel writes for. Speaks of the bullying you highlight – adding stress to the pressure of the Tour – where Lance’s former teammates are still riding. However, if these guys have testified they will have anticipated Armstrong will come out fighting. This conspiracy, if conspiracy it is, is one of the greatest of all time. Gross dishonesty and mind-boggling cynicism, manipulation of mllions of poeple, sporting fraud, moral bankruptcy and hubris almost beyond comprehension. But like any conspiracy, it relies on everyone being equally dishonest, or fearful, forever. If people involved recalibrate their moral compass and show strength of character or downright bravery in the face of intimidation, then the guilty will eventually be brought to book. The Faithful may forever believe, but most freethinking observers smelt the rat years ago. The Simeoni episode exposed Armstrong’s true colours – a shameful episode that he was never truly taken to task for.
6 Jul 2012, 09:50 am
@Mr Black(Mr Black)-28:
A comment on the Lance article
6 Jul 2012, 10:18 am
Hoskins at his best
6 Jul 2012, 11:41 am
Well. If the majority of the unions requested a delay, SARU has no choice.
PS: Provincial Unions, NOT franchises.
Unfortunately there is only one way to include 6 teams which would not affect the rest of the SANZAR partners.
To have all six teams play 2-3 less games (out of 16 = 13/14 games). This would put the franchises under great pressure, and even make it difficult to reach the finals. But, one team from SA will always make it due to the conference system. The two top teams from this year will probably earn the extra game. The only thing the overseas guys would probably dispute would be the automatic 4 points for these 3 games.
ALL the franchises would rather go with this idea than even thinking of a merger.
6 Jul 2012, 12:34 pm
@galileo, roundness, union, coach…(i_love_u_bakkiesbotha)-18: Sure, like me you’re entitled to your opinion as much as anybody else.
The Bulls have had that Aussie backline coach (John McFarland I think his name is) for many years and as far as I know he’s still there.
Then there’s the new Kiwi who’ll be coaching in PE next year.
But what really gets me is the attitude towards Eddie Jones. When he was coaching the Wallabies he was like SA’s public enemy number one. John Robbie (who I’m sure has the utmost respect for Jones) took a cheap shot, maybe in jest, at Eddie (in order to boost Radio 702′s listener ratings) by nicknaming him “Eddie Moans” and the name stuck. There was continual criticism of anything remotely connected with Jones/Wallabies from then on.
Until 2007 of course, when Jake White called him in to assist with the pre-RWC preparations and onwards. Decide for yourself how much Eddie helped the Springboks in those few short months. All of a sudden Eddie wasn’t such a bad oke after all and remains “a good oke” in most South Africans’ eyes.
The double standards and hypocrisy shown by so many SA “fans” irritates me intensely as they jump from side-to-side of the fence as it suits them.
6 Jul 2012, 13:37 pm
@BrumbiesBoy(BrumbiesBoy)-32: they only backed eddie cause they hated jake fact is eddie himself said he disdnt do alot. but they all hate jake in saffer land so eddie is die baas even with his 52% aussie record!
6 Jul 2012, 13:40 pm
@sparticus(sparticus)-16: no they have not. kings are a ***** waste of political anal waste. should be shot n thrown in a ditch.
6 Jul 2012, 15:48 pm
@Blitzbok(Blitzbok)-34: They have not ? They have continually come stone last in super rugby , They have huge financial implications , their legal team is possible the worst in south africa if you look at how waterless their contracts were for Jaque Fourie and co. They paid Jake a lot of money and then just wasted whatever he told them to do , they then hired **** Muir for who knows what reason and then finally get in a proper coach who they summarily suspend after a season in charge. Lets not evens mention the previous coaches and why they were fired due to racist remarks to the players in the change room or the fact that they average 1500 fans per game. lets not even mentions the mismanagement that led to them losing their biggest sponsor last year.
Nooo , the Lions are dam unlucky.
6 Jul 2012, 17:13 pm
All the decision makers on this issue will have to take a shower afterwards. Aaahhh maarra eish….
6 Jul 2012, 17:19 pm
@sparticus(sparticus)-35: you uneducated dimwit – Lions average abour 20000 people per match.
And which sponsor is bigger than MTN?
6 Jul 2012, 17:29 pm
@RL(RL)-37: You know what MTN stands for?
M ore
T ries
N eeded
Sorry mate, couldn’t resist it!!!!!!!!!!
6 Jul 2012, 17:35 pm
So what is new! Embarrassing.
6 Jul 2012, 17:54 pm
@RL(RL)-37: Who are the Kings sponsors ? inkomazi ? KFC ? BMW ? or perhaps Black Label ?
6 Jul 2012, 17:55 pm
@Dusky(Dusky)-40: Or maybe SAAB ?
7 Jul 2012, 13:19 pm
Dont understand the whole fuss about including anyone in super rugby logic says any top four teams in feeder league like currie cup should profess to a higher league any year anytime any province or team that makes the top 4 finish and klaar if kings make top four in currie cup log the they derserve it the politics should b about make sure every has a chance to play in the base league and the rest is sports performance on your way up
8 Jul 2012, 01:55 am
@Slappes(Slappes)-5:
And you clowns keep telling us there is nothing political in the super-kak, corruption-riddled and basket-case Kings’ push for Super Rugby status?
Yeah, right!!!
Pitiful as it may be, you, of course, have the right to choose to believe – and trumpet – your own bullshite. Whatever gets you two (and those of your ilk) through the night…
8 Jul 2012, 10:03 am
Griquas are the only team worthy of a free pass..based on their performances year after year.
In South Africa fairness goes out the window when the brothers are involved..
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.