Jeff Probyn: Alcohol abuse is affecting more players than drugs

The announcement this week of just five positive results out of a total of 617 drug tests in the RFU's anti-doping report for last season, would seem to be a good indicator that the current schedule of testing is working well.
The fact that the testing was ‘out of competition' and the five positive results were for recreational drugs (rather than performing-enhancing drugs) is also encouraging in a strange way, as it appears to show that Premiership players are not taking performance enhancing drugs.
It has always been the case that some young people experiment with all sorts of recreational drugs, whether illicit or just alcohol, but the fear of all Unions is that in trying to achieve the high standards needed to play a professional sport, those just below that standard will be tempted to enhance their performance artificially.
Sadly, it would seem that fear is a reality when the ‘in competition' test figures were revealed as they showed that there were five positives amongst players from National league One and below.
That must be a concern for the union as a number of the players at that level are likely to be those from academies who have either just failed to get professional contracts, or are on dual registration.
I must admit that as a number of young Premiership academy players trade in these lower leagues to gain experience, I would expect that the Championship and National League One are also subject to a high number of tests but I don't know if they are.
Most drug testing is focused on the elite end of sport, in other words those that have already made it to the top of the tree, rather than those climbing the long ladder to success.
Six hundred and seventeen sounds like a substantial number of tests but if you consider that there are approximately 12 teams of 46 players playing each of the 38 weeks of the premiership season, it  amounts to just under three per cent of the total number of Premiership players available for testing.
There was a joint statement from the RFU, Premiership Rugby and the Rugby Players' Association stating that they are focused on protecting the health and welfare of the players and believe that a strategy based on education, testing, deterrent and treatment will keep the number of test violations consistently low.
Laudable statements, but I think the anonymity that is given to first time offenders is more to do with a part of the statement that I omitted and that is the potential damage to the reputation of the game.
When in the past high profile players were found to have a problem, such as Matt Stevens and his Bath team-mates, all were offered support, treatment and education but they were also named publicly.
Whilst there was some public sympathy for their plight, it also changed the image of the game amongst the general public and sponsors from being somehow different to just another professional sport.
The almost continual media interest in what were the first public exposés from the newly professionalized sport's stars caused consternation at the RFU, Premiership and RPA as they all sought to reassure sponsors and fans that recreational drug use was not endemic amongst professional players.
By the granting of anonymity to first strike players, the Union has managed to keep a lid on the media headlines and have helped protect thet reputation of the game from multiple scandals but at what cost?
The unnamed players have avoided the intense media scrutiny that was focused on the previous offenders but – unlike the RFU, Premiership and RPA – I think that by allowing anonymity there is a greater risk that others could offend. The public humiliation endured by those earlier named players would have served as a warning to all players that there would be a very high and public penalty to pay if you transgress – even if you have support and sympathy from your peers.
There is also an anomaly in the actions of the RFU, Premiership and RPA, where players with alcohol problems are not given the same level of anonymity but there is the same level of support, education and treatment.
As far as I am aware there is no official testing for alcohol abuse even though it is likely that there will probably be a larger number of players affected than those taking other forms of recreational drugs.
This should be a major concern as a number of recent studies have shown that professional sportsmen are likely to experience problems like depression and addictions, particularly when coming to the end of their playing careers.
For, from a time when everybody seems interested in your well-being and your opinions, hanging on your every word, to a time when the phone never rings – which can literally be in a matter of days, especially if injury ends your playing career – can have a profound effect.
This is not a new problem as many players who played international when I played struggled to come to terms at the end of their playing career, with a few having problems of depression and dependence.
At that time there was little or no help and those affected had to rely on friends and family, as the sport had little interest in what players did in their ‘real' lives and just expected players and ex-players to manage.
Fortunately, the RPA have taken note and instigated a transition programme to help players in the first year after they have finished their playing days as they take the first steps back into a normal life.