So, Alan Quinlan’s British & Irish Lions Tour is over before it even began. I have no doubt that the initial reaction of many people – and not just those of a Munster persuasion – will be one of sympathy for the player.
That is somewhat understandable because, say whatever you want about Keith Earls, Quinlan had been the real surprise selection in Ian McGeechan’s squad, the bolter.
Even Quinlan hadn’t been expecting the Lions call: the 34-year-old Munster flanker had been in the process of booking his summer holidays when McGeechan got in touch to say that he wanted him on his touring party.
But now Quinlan’s plans have changed again and he must be devastated. But should we be, too?
I would argue that if rugby fans have any sympathy for Quinlan – and that is a pretty big ‘if’ – it should/can only extend so far.
Quinlan’s dream of touring with the Lions has been ended and that is undoubtedly sad. But he has nobody but himself the blame as he has been found guilty of a quite disgraceful assault on a fellow professional.
I’m sorry, but much as I rate and like Quinlan, I don’t see any other way of looking at.
Anyone deemed guilty of ‘making contact with the eye area’ of an opponent (which is an eye-gouge to you and me!) does not really deserve any sympathy.
And, to be honest, it was quite alarming and disturbing to hear some people saying that they hoped that Quinlan would escape punishment for clawing away at the eye socket of Leinster’s Leo Cullen during the Heineken Cup semi-final last Saturday week.
I really do wonder whether anyone could actually, hand on heart, say that when they watched the replays of the incident did not immediately think, ‘that’s an eye gouge, that’s disgraceful.’ I would immediately question their interpretation of The Game and their moral fabric if they could.
Many have testified to Quinlan’s character since the inevitable citing (even the Lions management admitted that Quinlan had been included as much for his positive influence off the pitch as his talent on it) and he certainly has no history of violence within the game. He is, by all accounts, a great guy and also undoubtedly a tremendous servant of Munster rugby.
However, there can be no doubt the ban, all 12 weeks of it, was wholly justified.
Eye-gouging is a despicable and cowardly act, one which can easily lead to a permanent loss of vision.
And, sadly, it is seems to be becoming increasingly commonplace within rugby. Only in April, Leicester Tigers centre Seru Rabeni was hit with a 14-week ban after being found guilty of an eye-gouge on Saracens hooker Andy Kyriacou.
The suspensions for the offence have been sizeable but surely they should be even lengthier?
It is regrettable that Quinlan’s Lions dream has been ended but surely focusing on that is missing the point of this whole affair.
It was surely never a question of if Quinlan should be suspended, but how long for?
Given that we are talking about an act which could blind a person, 12 weeks seems something of a let off and perhaps it is time that the game's ruling body addressed the issue of whether the minimum and maximum bans should be significantly lengthened.
As for that sympathy, reserve it for Tomas O'Leary and Tom Shanklin.