In assuming the high moral ground one must always ensure that the platform is constructed of something more substantial than blustering indignation. Last week end Neil Francis intimated that the drug culture, so prevalent in modern sports, had not bypassed Irish rugby.

The IRFU reacted swiftly, pushing forward various players, former and present, and administrators to deny such blasphemy. What they did not do was check the veracity of the statements made in the Sunday Tribune article. Instead of looking within they rushed to quash the blasphemer in a heavy-handed manner that backfired ten-fold.

On Tuesday the UK Sports Council, in a communique to the IRFU, confirmed that two Irish players had tested positive for banned substances. The indications now, as outlined at yesterday's press conference, are that there are three instances. It was the ultimate own-goal given the outpourings of the previous 48 hours. What makes the IRFU's stance on Francis so hypocritical is that one finding was already known. A player had tested positive, albeit having innocently taken medicine that contained a banned substance. The explanation put forward by the player and his doctor was accepted.

However, the silence which followed was deafening, and particularly damning in the light of what transpired this week.

In mitigation, one must understand the garbled responses from the UK Sports Council and the International Board (IB), which contradicted each other and made it very hard for the IRFU to offer a clear, concise explanation. The union was therefore tarnished in the eyes of the public. In understanding the bungling and the flawed communication in the drug-testing procedures of the sport, closer examination of the IB and the drug-testing powers they possess highlights a huge problem within the sport.

Drug testing in rugby began with the Five Nations Championship of 1985 but it was not until 1994 that the IB set up a drugs task force under the chairmanship of Professor John Davies, formerly the Welsh representative on the IB medical committee. He explained the pioneering days of drug testing in rugby union. "Drug testing was done basically after all internationals in the British Isles from that date. South Africa started in 1991 and Australia/New Zealand slightly before then.

"But the southern hemisphere had problems because in New Zealand, for instance, they did not have an IOC-approved laboratory. That has only been in place for the last two years. Australia did have one in Sydney.

"It all revolves around that nowadays because rugby is part of the Olympic Charter. One of the reasons that it was accepted into the Charter was because we did have a drug-testing programme in place as a governing body."

Closer scrutiny reveals that only half the member countries of the IB have implemented drug-testing schedules and that any influence wielded by the IB's drugs task force is diluted considerably by the stand taken by an individual union.

In essence the task force is virtually toothless, a pamphlet pusher rather than a crusading, power-wielding scourge of those who transgress. In the 13 years that drug testing has been a feature of international rugby, Davies points out that "only 50 to 60 players have tested positive for banned substances.

"The majority, over half, come from South Africa and France. Up until the start of last season each country had 16 players test positive. In the case of South Africa many of those were for anabolic steroids while in France it was amphetamines and cannabis. Indeed France was the only country in which cannabis was discovered in test results". Obvious, then, where the joie de vivre comes from in French rugby. Davies recognises the limitations but claims that responsibility in many cases rests elsewhere, from conducting the tests to procedures followed. "The Sports Council has an agency that actually handles the procedural side of it with their independent sampling officers (ISOs) who are trained to do that.

"I can't really comment on actual procedures. It is open to abuse but these people are trained to do a job. I don't know if there is a better way. There are inherent problems. It is a large team game and some of the facilities at some of the grounds are simply not adequate.

"There are guidelines and controls laid down for specific facilities at grounds. If those facilities do not come up to scratch then the Sports Council is forced to send a mobile van where possible. If the facilities are not correct then obviously there is greater scope for players to pass out of sight.

"The modern game provides more stumbling blocks. The advent of the sin bin means that players are coming off and going on to the pitch. That is far from ideal."

The disparity in testing throughout world rugby is apparent when one considers that Wales test their players at club level and out of competition. The same applies to Scotland and South Africa, England are to follow suit, beginning in the second half of this season, while Ireland won't have a comprehensive structure in place until next year. Effectively, it is down to individual unions to take responsibility. The IB can't force any issues, merely offer guidelines. Davies' hopes for the future are straightforward. "I would like to see more out-of-competition testing, but that costs money, £180 per test. I'm hoping that money can be channelled into each union to increase the testing. Others will decide that but it may be possible to tap into RWC (Rugby World Cup) coffers.

"Unions take responsibility at the moment. England for example put forward money: because they do very few tests, they have allocated a further £10,000. We have circulated each member country with advice that as they are not part of the Olympic Charter they should have drug-testing procedures in place."

It is impossible to escape an overwhelming feeling of laissezfaire with regard to the IB's drugs task force: long on carrots, short on stick. In order to really thwart those who dabble in banned substances there must be ordered authority, a chain of command, easily discernible. The IB should have at its disposal a record of all those who transgress, not simply redirect inquiries to the relevant union: ie., to find out players who took illegal drugs outside of high-profile players like Johann Ackermann and Balie Swart, one would have to contact the South African union. The episodes of the last week should serve as an example. If rugby is to pay more than lip-service to stamping out drug offenders, it must completely revamp the structure - from the top down.