Rugby's greatest cover up?

Sri Lanka's rugby coach George Simpkin has returned with a dramatic 'U' turn. Contrary to what had really taken place according to eyewitness reports, Simpkin now states he did not face any death threats.

Meanwhile, in a letter to Kandy Sports Club's rugby chairman Siva Subramaniam, SLRFU Executive Director Dilroy Fernando has stated; "Rugby Union wish to state that George Simpkin has not lodged any complaint against Nalaka Weerakkody as he has not been threatened by Weerakkody as appeared in the newspapers".

If we are to go by the latest 'back division move' of the SLRFU, then Simpkin has to answer as to why he left the team and skipped the all-important Hong Kong Sevens tour. If there had not been any threats, why did he quit the team when he had to be with the team for the Hong Kong Sevens and World Cup rugby qualifiers?

According to the SLRFU, Simpkin is paid USD 2,000 a month (over Rs. 200,000/-). Then how could a contracted employee of the SLRFU vanish when his duties are needed the most? Now that Simpkin says there was no death threat, the SLRFU should call for explanations from him as to why he quit the team suddenly. He should be fined, if found guilty.

Earlier, the SLRFU Executive Director admitted of such an incident, but said they could not take any action as Simpkin had made only a verbal complaint. Furthermore, he said they wanted Simpkin to make a written complaint on the alleged threats but the coach didn't do so.

Instead, Simpkin wrote to the SLRFU stating that he is quitting due to 'personal reasons', packed his baggage and left four days before the national team's departure to Hong Kong. Hence, Simpkin has committed an irresponsible act not befitting an international coach of his repute.

If there had not been any such incident, why did the SLRFU Council meet to discuss the matter? Furthermore the SLRFU Executive Director told us that they could not take the matter forward due to lack of evidence as well as Simpkin's unwillingness to put his original verbal complaint in writing.

We also cannot understand the purpose of SLRFU Executive Director writing a letter to a rugby committee chairman of a member club, defending a player. The SLRFU, being the supreme governing body, need not go to such an extent.

What we reliably understand is that the return of Simpkin is a result of 23 Sri Lanka national poolists writing to President Mahinda Rajapakse on the matter. Fearing any top level investigation or dissolution, the SLRFU hurriedly negotiated to get Simpkin back with just one condition, obvious to all of us.

Hence, Simpkin has been tight lipped. At least he should have the decency to tell the rugby loving public of this country as to why he quit the team. Could even a club coach commit such an irresponsible act? If Simpkin had left fearing death threats, it is understandable. But now that Simpkin comes out with a 'new episode' stating there had not been such threats, he is answerable.

It is pity that the manager, the best source of independent information to management at any level, is not opening his mouth to tell the truth. Obviously, that's the best way to secure one's job - the 'yes sir' theory.

All those connected with this whole episode should understand that the purpose of our exposing these strange happenings is for the best interest of rugby here; for the benefit of the rugby loving public and big time sponsors like Caltex, Dialog Telekom and Singer, who spend millions each year to promote the game. We do not intend to bring disrepute to anyone, unless they do it by themselves through their irresponsible acts.

Our sole interest is on rugby and its promotion. Be it in sports or otherwise, discipline should come first. A player threatening a coach could not be tolerated at any level. It looks like the controlling body too is trying to cover up things. It is definitely a bad example but tolerating such an act is a crime.

These are the areas on which the National Sports Law should be strengthened so that the Sports Minister, Director General of Sports and the Chairman of the National Sports Council could have more powers to take immediate action against the offending body. Welcome back Mr. Simpkin, but don't work it 'on the blind side'!