That is absolutely ridiculous. The whole disciplinary system in rugby is utterly corrupt and unfair.
Don't get me wrong, I've got no sympathy with Attoub, nor have I got sympathy with Dupuy or Burger or anyone else. They made the decision to gouge and have to accept the consequences.
However, the iRB needs to take a serious review of the system.
There are 2 types of gouging. The rake across the face, and the far nastier sustained poking in the eye. The latter is clearly more uncomfortable for the recipient, and should be punished accordingly.
Schalk Burger, Attoub, etc. were all guilty of the worst kind of gouging. An isolated incident of this should carry a straight up 26 week (6 month) ban. However, previous misconduct should be taken into account - I would propose that the ban be increased by a further 4 weeks for every previous ban served.
By this system, Attoub would get the 26 week ban. Schalk Burger has had disciplinary issues before, and would recieve 34 weeks. How is it that Attoub gets 70 and Burger got 8???
Furthermore, Julien Dupuy committed, in my opinion, a far less serious crime. I'd suggest a 13 week ban for this type of gouging. Alan Quinlan got 12 weeks for this type of offence, which was pretty much fair. Buy why does Dupuy get 23 weeks??? Compared to Quinlan, that is ridiculous. Compared to Burger, that is farcical.
Let's have a look at a list of recent eye gouge bans who I can find video evidence for:
Neil Best gets 18 weeks for a rake across Haskell's face. IMO too harsh by 5 weeks, but not bad.
Alan Quinlan gets 12 weeks for pretty much the same thing.
Sergio Parisse gets 8 weeks for a blatant 1st degree gouge. Should have got 26.
Shane Jennings gets 12 for basically nothing.
Julien Dupuy gets 23 for a rake. Far too harsh.
David Attoub gets 70 weeks for a bad one. Still too harsh.
Anything to notice? 1) French players are being made an example of. 2) If you're a world star, your ban is tiny. 3) If you're not needed for internationals, and you're not French, then you'll also recieve a very harsh ban.
Now let's move on to drug offences. As far as I'm concerned, performance enhancing drugs should be dealt with as they do in athletics. In other words, a 2 year ban. Fortunately, hardly anyone is into this in rugby (that we know of). On the other hand, recreational drugs, as far as I'm concerned, should carry no ban. They don't affect anyone but the user, they don't give him an unfair advantage... However, for the sake of the game/ club's image, fining is a sufficient punishment, since a professional sportsmen should not do anything to jeopardise his health. And those that fail to turn up to tests for whatever reason, should be considered guilty.
So, Matt Stevens & Wendell Sailor. 2 years for cocaine. 2 years too many in my opinion - a fine would have done just as well.
But if they got 2 years, how about Justin Harrison? If it were down to me, he too would recieve no more than a fine. As it is, in the interests of fairness, he should have got 2 years. But he gets 8 months. Why is this?
At least Lipman, Higgins and Crockett recieved the same punishment as each other. However, it was for not turning up to a test. By doing this, you are admitting guilt. And since no one could know what they were guilty of because they obstructed the system, we must assume the worst - performance enhancers. So although in all likelihood they were using cocaine, I would ban them each for 2 years.
The iRB really needs to fix up. My system sound fair?
