A few weeks ago, I watched Matt Stevens’ most revealing interview ever on SKY Sports News. Despite his admissions, I gained respect for a player I had never really followed, aside from seeing him turn out for England on occasions. To admit to be in the wrong, and to do so in such a public domain, is something many other players would fail to do. Footballer Paul Merson did a similar thing in the 1990s, when admitting his problems.
Stevens was this week handed a two year ban from rugby union. Is this fair?
There are always people who argue that drug abusers in sport should be banned for life, and that they can never be “clean”. But Stevens was tested positive for a social drug, rather than a performance-enhancing one. In fact, he and his coaches admitted to seeing a drop in his standards as a player, and undoubted side effect of his drug abuse.
Of course, if you were in the workplace of a regular job, if you were tested positive for cocaine, or whatever it may be, you would be sacked. But would you be denied employment for a further two years after that?
Is the solution to Stevens’ problem denying him the right to earn a living over the next 24 months? Surely support and rehabilitation is a more suitable approach, give him some time out, and then allow him to return to union when he has recovered from something that has gripped his recent life.
But maybe this attitude has been provoked by a clever, emotive PR set from Stevens and his crew. Who knows. He seemed genuine to me, but there are cynics out there who believe otherwise.
It will be interesting to see how Bath deal with the situation. What’s for sure though is that it will be a low two years for Stevens as he recovers and reflects from his mistakes. The question is, whether he’ll be able to return to the top of his game on his comeback to union in 2011.
