As damage limitation exercises go, yesterday's high noon offering from the IRFU had only limited success. For starters, all the well-presented and well-rehearsed clarifications regarding the union's anti-doping regulations were overshadowed by yet another startling revelation. It transpired that there is a third Irish player who tested positive last season and this case is currently being heard by the IRFU's drugs tribunal.

Even the manner of this voluntary declaration made it almost slip by unnoticed. The revelation was made in the penultimate paragraph on the fourth and final page of the three-page opening address by Noel Murphy, the president of the IRFU, which stated:

"I feel it is important given the present circumstances that we should put on the record that a third case has been referred to the independent tribunal which is currently addressing the matter."

In only one significant way did Murphy's actual delivery deviate from the prepared script. "I should put it on record that a case has been referred to the independent tribunal."

Only when the missing word, third, was detected some time later in the press conference did the realisation dawn on the majority of the press corps, judging by the sudden rustling of paper.

Philip Browne, the IRFU secretary, refused to admit that three players had tested positive in tests conducted by the UK Sports Council, instead stating: "There were adverse findings in three tests last season," one of which was already dealt with some time before this season.

That still leaves two tests, one of which is currently being examined by the independent tribunal of former chief justice Tom Finlay, Dr Brendan Buckley and Dr Tony O'Neill of UCD, the former FAI general secretary. The IRFU did not divulge when this "third" case came to light or in what competition, though they did not deny that the second case, which came to light late on Tuesday afternoon, arose out of a Five Nations match.

Confused? As someone once said of the Vietnam war, if you're not confused you don't understand what's going on.

The third case, of course, follows this week's revelations that there were two others. The first, revealed in these pages yesterday morning, had already been dealt with, IRFU senior vice-president, Billy Lavery, divulging that it had been heard by a tribunal. This body consisted of Finlay as chairman, along with Lavery himself "as a lawyer with a sports background", and Dr Barry O'Driscoll, "an experienced medical practitioner with a knowledge of IOC policies". Both Lavery and Dr O'Driscoll are members of the IRFU committee.

Clinging doggedly to the confidentiality clause of rugby's International Board (IB), none of the union officers present would reveal when this case was heard, or under what grounds they concluded that "there was no breach of the regulations" or which "appropriate body was informed of that decision" or which competition the game was held in. Yet none of this information would have divulged the player's identity. As the positive test in this case has long since been referred to the IRFU, it reinforces the belief that the match in question fell under the control of a different governing body, say a European Cup match under the ERC Ltd as opposed to an international match under the IB. This would suggest that the player cleared was an Ulster player.

Whatever about that, for reasons best known to themselves the IRFU officers all declined to confirm that this first case followed a test conducted by the UK Sports Council. After minutes of prevarication, while they again referred to the confidentiality clause, the frustrated reporter from the Sunday Independent brought a welcome note of mirth by asking "was he tested by the groundsman, or was he tested by someone from an official drug-testing agency?". Eventually, they conceded it was the UK body, although it wasn't commissioned by the union. Who did? "We can't give you that information."

It is important to note in all of this that the IB's constitutional procedure (clause 13.3.2) only requires that "the union concerned must take all reasonable steps to maintain confidentiality until all testing has been completed, a decision has been reached, and the person and his union have been informed".

Beyond that, it is "our regulation", as Lavery stated, "that there must be total confidentiality until a penalty has been imposed by the tribunal". In other words they are not bound by the IB's procedural clause to maintain the player's confidentiality in the event of no sanction being imposed. In the event of all three cases being cleared without sanction, the IRFU could remove the cloud hanging over every player who played for Ireland last season by divulging the results - as is the case in other sports, for example athletics, when athletes are cleared.

In one area, the union firmly underlined their claim that the most outstanding case, which has still to be heard by the independent tribunal, only came to their attention late last Tuesday. Murphy, his voice rising, stated: "we have affidavits from Billy Lavery and Philip Browne (IRFU secretary) to that effect."

While IRFU sources have indicated that they are confident the player in this case will be cleared on the grounds that he was taking prescribed medication, and not a performance-enhancing drug per se, the emergence of a third case is a little more disconcerting. This is bearing in mind that a UK Sports Council source asserted earlier this week they were not too worried about one of the cases, but they were concerned about another one.

Furthermore, that three cases involving Irish players who were found positive in tests under the auspices of the UK Sports Council only came to light this week, of all weeks, will go some way toward vindicating the assertion by Neil Francis in the Sunday Tribune that members of the Irish squad have been taking performance-enhancing drugs since 1988 - even if the three cases may be coincidental or unrelated.

At the very least, the triple whammy was decidedly bad timing for the IRFU. Nevertheless, Noel Murphy reasserted his "put up or shut up" retort to Francis and the Sun- day Tribune, asking him to "furnish the IRFU with names, dates and the relevant information."

One presumes they will not be holding their breath.

The IRFU maintain their stance that Francis's claims have placed a cloud over all Irish rugby players who have played for their country since 1988. However, they could have gone some way toward blowing that cloud away were they willing to substantiate their own retort with statistical evidence to the contrary.

Philip Browne conceded that they have not been furnished with reports of negative tests from this season's European Cup and interprovincial matches, and that henceforth they should be. "It's a valid point. We will go looking for them."

Presumably, they have the records of drugs' tests, negative as well as positive, on file in 62 Lansdowne Road. However, their policy is such that they do not divulge such statistical information. "I'm not in a position to share that with you," said Murphy.

Yet the game's governing body, the International Board, could this week reveal that they have only three tests on record from last season, and could also divulge what matches they referred to (Wales v France, England v Ireland, England Under-21 v Ireland Under-21) and that these all produced negative tests. If the IB can do it, then the IRFU should be able to, and so they should change their policy fortwith.

Yesterday's lack of complete transparency on the IRFU's part hardly acted as a fresh gust of air. The cloud lingers.