Go onâŚ
You still got your nice reply mate so take that and move on
Looked at closely, the doping case involving Munsterâs James Cronin throws up far more questions than answers
November 23 last should have been a good day in the life of the Ireland and Munster prop James Cronin. His provincial team were at home to Racing 92 in the Heineken Champions Cup, 25,600 people were crammed into Thomond Park and later that Saturday evening, he would get around to celebrating his 29th birthday.
Now he will remember the day not so much for the excitement of Andrew Conwayâs late try that earned Munster a 21-21 draw in a riveting game but for the drugs test that followed.
To be the one asked to pee into the UCV (urine collection vessel) at a Heineken Cup game, you generally have to be unlucky. The testers turn up at one game in four, maybe even one in five. Then, from the 23-man matchday squads, they select two players from each side. Until recently European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR) chose players at random. Now it may target individuals.
Nobody knows whether Cronin was targeted that evening or chosen at random. His bad luck was to be tested, though that piece of ill-fortune didnât compare with what happened the previous day.
On the Friday, Cronin walked into his local pharmacy in Cork to pick up antibiotics prescribed for him by Jamie Kearns, Munster Rugbyâs team doctor. He had used this pharmacy on several occasions and even collected the same antibiotic previously.
Early that afternoon, Cronin opened the package and realised it contained two drugs, not one. As well as the antibiotic amoxicillin (trade name: Germentin), there was a second drug, Prednesol. At 2pm Cronin took five 5mg tablets of Prednesol, as he was advised to do by the instructions on the package. The leaflet inside stated that Prednesol was a steroid medication.
At 9am on the day of the Racing 92 game, Cronin took another four Prednesol. Coming off the bench in the 48th minute at Thomond Park that evening, he was a positive test waiting to happen. At the Cologne laboratory, they didnât have the slightest doubt. They found prednisolone and prednisone, both banned substances, in Croninâs sample.
Three months later, EPCR officially charged Cronin with an anti-doping violation. Prednisolone and prednisone are corticosteroids permissible if the athlete has a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). Cronin did not have a TUE. Instead, he admitted taking Prednesol, containing prednisolone and predisone, but said that it had been in error.
In his defence, he submitted a statement from Kearns, a copy of the doctorâs prescription, video footage of the player collecting the prescription at the pharmacy and, perhaps most convincing of all, a statement from the pharmacy confirming that it had made the mistake. It said the player had been given a prescription meant for another James Cronin.
EPCR engaged the London law firm Bird & Bird to handle the case. They considered Croninâs evidence and were convinced by it. By the time the case file was passed to Antony Davies, the EPCR judicial panel member, it was certain that Cronin would not be treated harshly.
Both the Bird & Bird lawyers and Davies believed that the player bore âno significant faultâ. He was given a one-month ban on April 20.
Munster Rugby would prefer that the story is now consigned to history. Rugby is uncomfortable talking about drugs and especially the widespread abuse within the game of painkillers, anti-inflammatories and sleeping tablets.
Looked at closely, the Cronin case throws up far more questions than answers. The robustness of Bird & Birdâs investigation appears questionable. Lawyers did not cross-examine Cronin and therefore did not ask him what he thought when he saw two separate drugs in his package. He had been expecting one.
Then there was the difference between the two medications. Amoxicillin tablets are relatively big, Prednesol tablets tiny. Did he assume that Prednesol was also an antibiotic?
Given that the pharmacy admitted making what Davies called âa very serious (and unexpected) mistakeâ, might it not have been useful to speak to its staff and get them to explain exactly how it happened? To be fully confident in the explanation offered by the player and the pharmacy, more evidence was surely needed.
Consider how unlikely it is that on the day before the biggest game of the season, a rugby player is given a wrong prescription that contains a performance-enhancing drug. Maybe improbable while also being possible.
Yet Croninâs bad luck was not confined to simply being given a namesakeâs prescription. According to EPCRâs judgment: âThe labels on the product packaging in each case included only the playerâs name and dosage instructions.â
It is a legal requirement in Ireland that the address of the recipient is included alongside his or her name. Had the address of the other James Cronin been included on the package, there is a good chance the rugby player would have noticed it and realised the mistake. The EPCR lawyer cannot force the pharmacy to co-operate but in the light of its negligence, it would be a surprise if the staff did not want to do what they could for Cronin.
It would also be interesting to discover if the pharmacy uses an MPS dispensing system, a programme designed to lessen the chance of human error and which highlights the existence of two customers with the same name. Given the damage done to Croninâs reputation, did the pharmacy consider asking the other James Cronin to provide a statement confirming that the Prednesol was meant for him?
None of these questions was asked. The narrative is agreed. Pharmacy messed up. Player is the unlucky victim. Everyone moves on.
So far, there have been no public complaints about the pharmacy from either the player or Munster Rugby. No suggestion that the club are reviewing their relationships with the pharmacy. Perhaps if he had been cross-examined, Cronin would have made plain his anger. We donât know if he is thinking of taking legal action against the pharmacy.
So far, there is no suggestion that he will. Munster say it is a matter for the player to decide. No more to say than that. The story is on the EPCR website but not prominent. It wants us to forget it. That is not going to happen. As is routine when a pharmacy gives a prescription to the wrong customer, the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland is investigating. If it is confirmed that the packaging did not have an address, that too will be an issue for the regulatory body.
Neither is it certain that sporting authorities are done with the case. Last week the Sport Ireland chief executive, John Treacy, said that he believed the one-month ban was too lenient. Sport Ireland, World Rugby and the World Anti-Doping Agency have until tomorrow to appeal against the EPCRâs one-month sanction.
Though appeals calling for greater punishment are uncommon in doping cases, it would be a surprise if Croninâs ban is not subject to an appeal.
In a more transparent world, the player would already have spoken about how his career almost went down the tubes by accident. The pharmacy would have offered up the detail on how it almost ended Croninâs career. As for the second James Cronin, he would have come forward and reassured us the Prednesol was meant for him.
In general, anti-doping officials like to look at a case and ask whether it âpasses the smell test?â
So far, this investigation doesnât.
10 Likes
I look forward to chants of âthereâs only 2 James Croninsâ next year from the brave and the faithful.
13 Likes
Very lax doping protocols for a professional sport
Name and shame the pharmacy
Not so long ago, and it may still be the case, in the NBA, you could only be tested a certain amount of times (I believe it was 4). Once tested 4 times in a season, you were free from testing again.
You reckon thatâs much better? Professional sport doesnât want drug testing. If you test for drugs you may find them.
Exactly. I always think itâs mad how few lads test positive in football considering how much money is involved. And also how happy fifa are to pronounce the game drug free.
Bizarre, the explanation is fairly improbable. But at the same time would a professional who was doping , just be collecting his steroids in the local pharmacy.
Eeek
Eh, the belief is he was on something. The pharmacy story is the cover up.
If a pharmacy gave out a wrong prescription it could kill someone.
1 Like
Absolutely. Very dangerous altogether
Thank god it was a performance enhancing drug they gave the rugby player eh?
6 Likes
Understood, he just happened to collect a different prescription the day before?
Awfully unfortunate wasnât it
Any repercussions for the pharmacy?
Name
And
Shame
Sure you saw the way they shut down the investigation in Spain once they had the cyclists got for fear it would damage football.
Thereâs fellas take performance enhancing drugs to be amateur weight lifters. Thereâs no chance any professional sport isnât riddled with it
1 Like
James doesnât have to prove anything to anyone . Took 5 shitty tablets a day before a game that he was a sub in ffs . Hardly lance Armstrong stuff now is it . He probably did get the wrong medication the two names things is bullshit but thatâs the pharmacy not him saying that .