Hugh McGahan: When the punishment far outweighs the crime

There is an underlying issue at stake that has been lost in the media scrum as the fallout from the Tevita Latu affair continues.

When this issue hit the headlines, it was quickly highlighted as an alcohol problem within rugby league. There was also a suggestion that a culture of heavy drinking or drinking binges were the norm.

I'm sorry, but this is not a rugby league problem. It's not even a sports problem - it's a social issue. In this case the individual was a low-profile sportsperson but he has suffered more than anyone could expect. Why? I will come back to that question, but firstly let us look at this so called culture of binge drinking.

This happens every day and in all aspects of life - the end-of-week drinks for office workers who let their hair down at a local bar, or the construction workers at the pub, or even the group of lawyers who have drinks in the office. Imagine an individual from any of these groups being involved in an incident similar to Latu. it is inconceivable this person would have their employment terminated by their employee and then have the regulator of that employer tell other potential employers not to hire them both within that country and internationally.

This is too harsh a penalty for the crime. You cannot condone the actions of Latu but he has been hung out to dry.

There have been many incidents in recent times involving both individuals and clubs, but this is the first time a player has been sacked and banned from playing in the NRL, and possibly other competitions.

High-profile player Craig Gower has been involved in incidents on three separate occasions, incidents such as indecent exposure as well as accusations of sexual misconduct against Balmain great Wayne Pearce's daughter that warranted suspensions from teams he was representing. He is still playing. Was Tevita Latu's incident that much worse to incur the penalty he did? If Latu had as high a profile, would the penalty be as harsh? I don't think so.

Latu has become the scapegoat for others and is little more than a pawn that allowed the NRL to make a statement that says it will not tolerate these actions. I agree with the sentiment, but I do not agree with the severe penalty.

Returning to the social issue, alcohol tends to exacerbate whatever problem there may be within people, and in Tevita's case there is an aggression issue that needs attention.

The NRL makes a point of educating younger players about respecting others and the dangers of having time and money on your hands, but what about helping out those who fall into the traps.

Rather than cast them adrift, the NRL should assist a person who may be crying out for help and not just pay lip service with a few courses at the start of a player's career.

Now that this man has lost his livelihood, the least that could be done is to allow him to play for the love of it again. Thankfully the NZRL are looking at this very possibility.