|

Banned: Stade Francais and
France scrum-half Julien Dupuy
Photo: Michael Paler |
Stade
Francais president Max Guazzini has labelled Julien Dupuy's
six-month ban for eye-gouging as "excessive, very political and
anti-French".
The
flamboyant club owner hit out after the ERC disciplinary panel effectively
ended Dupuy's season with the draconian ban. It is due to run until June
3rd, meaning the player - 26 today - will not be able to take any further
part in Top 14 this season, and will also miss France's summer tour to the
southern hemisphere.
Heineken Cup Pools & Fixtures
National
coach Marc Lièvremont was also alarmed at the length of the ban, and urged
Stade Francais to appeal to decision.
"We
expected the worse and the worse thing has happened to Julien because six
months is huge," said Lièvremont. "I hope there is an appeal and that the
ban is replaced by something more reasonable," he added.
Guazzini,
meanwhile, claimed there was anti-French bias to the ERC's decision,
especially after Italy's Sergio Parisse - another Stade Francais player -
and South Africa's Schalk Burger only received eight-week bans for
eye-gouging offences during summer international games.
"The ERC
wanted to make an example of a symbolic player of Stade Francais and of the
French team which has never had a disciplinary problem," railed Guazzini.
"It's not normal that a private organisation in Ireland prevents a club
employee from working, from playing. It is we who pay him," he added.
That last
quote shows that Guazzini has clearly allowed his anger to cloud his
comments, but there's no doubt that the feeling in France is that Dupuy has
been used as a high-profile casualty of the IRB's stated aim of cracking
down on eye-gouging.
Perhaps
the more pertinent question to ask is why do these incidents only ever hit
the headlines in European club games, rather than in Top 14 matches? Is it a
case of being ignored domestically but penalised by the larger rugby
community?
Sentencing
on Dupuy's team-mate David Attoub, who was also cited for eye-gouging, was
delayed on Friday until an unspecified date in the New Year. It is understood that the
ERC disciplinary panel is seeking technical verification of a seemingly
incriminating photograph that Stade now claim was 'doctored'. The
photographer concerned, Olivier McVeigh, attended today's hearing in Dublin
and denied any foul play, but the delay would seem to indicate that the
panel want forensic confirmation before they pass judgement. Attoub is
suspended in the meantime.
Dupuy knew
that he faced a minimum of 12 weeks out but panel chairman Jeff Blackett
decided his actions were serious enough to warrant the six month ban as the
IRB continues its crackdown on eye-gouging.
The Stade pair released a
statement of their own via the Stade Francais website earlier in the week as
it became clear that television images were highly incriminating. The Paris
club also apologised to Ulster for the duo's actions.
“The club deeply regret this
situation,” said a Stade statement. “We envisage taking disciplinary
sanctions against the players despite their citation before an ERC
commission,” it added.
“It is normal that the club penalises
players for actions as dumb and stupid,” said the Dupuy-Attoub statement.
“Again, we apologise to the Ulster players and the club, whom we did not
mean to cause offence. The actions were neither premeditated nor
intentional.
“We want to apologise to our club, our
staff and supporters for the negative image that we have left with these
actions,” it added.
Television footage showed Dupuy twice putting his fingers into
Ferris’ eyes. “I stupidly got riled up, like an idiot. I think my gesture
came from irritation,” he admitted. “The images aren’t really in my favour,
but I really didn’t want to put my fingers in his eyes,” added
the former Leicester Tigers scrum-half.
London Wasps coach Shaun Edwards had
led calls for a lengthy ban, with the former rugby league
international describing eye-gouging as “the worst things you can do on a
rugby field”. Edwards said he felt a year-long ban would be appropriate for
the alleged offences.