Paul Lewis: Keeping it in the family causes problems

It's unfortunate the term 'family reasons' has come to have a meaning so far removed from its literal sense. It's applied at the retirement or sudden departure of sports stars or coaches and, as in the shock resignation of Wales rugby coach Mike Ruddock, is interpreted as a euphemism for almost anything else.

Coming as it does two rounds into the Six Nations, it was difficult for most people to swallow that Ruddock had suddenly developed a sense that he should be home with his family. Most people would feel that the time for that is after he's finished the Six Nations campaign. Consequently, even if 'family reasons' is true, fans and media immediately start searching for the 'real' reason - hardly a surprise given the Welsh rugby predilection for petty politics and backbiting.

In Ruddock's case, there was strong speculation that he'd lost the dressing room; that his resignation was due to player power. The most obvious example was the refusal of captain Gareth Thomas to stay in a press conference attended by a Welsh journalist who ghost-wrote Gavin Henson's incendiary book where he lashed out at all and sundry, with Thomas a major target.

The same journalist wrote a column in the match programme which commended Henson for airing his views. The players threatened a boycott of the press conference and Thomas attended with Ruddock but left when he saw the same journalist in the audience.

So, if Ruddock was having trouble controlling his captain, one naturally wonders what size was the iceberg of which Thomas was the tip? Speculation was rampant enough for Welsh Rugby Union chief executive Steve Lewis to come out and say that there was no problem with the players, supported by Welsh Grand Slam captain Michael Owen.

Sports bodies seem incapable of learning that invoking a euphemism like 'family reasons' (again, even if it's true) only engenders inquiries as to what is really behind matters. They use the phrase to give a valued person his or her dignity but succeed only in stirring up the mud lying on the bottom of the lake.

Fleet Street was initially quiet re Ruddock's departure but only because it was such a surprise. Some pointed to signs of player discontent, like the joke that allegedly came out of the dressing room: "Why is Mike Ruddock called 'the Bus'? Because he's no coach."

That was reinforced by the unsourced contention - denied by Lewis and Owen - that Ruddock was trying to build a new team structure after winning the 2005 Grand Slam and the move was not popular in the team, who were spanked by the All Blacks and ordinary against Tonga before being overwhelmed by England in the second half ahead of a restorative win over Scotland. Then the Daily Telegraph revealed that not only did Ruddock resign because of player power (five senior players expressed a vote of no confidence in him) but the players concerned had formed a deputation to the WRU. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

The last major sporting figure to invoke the 'family' phrase was our own Tana Umaga. The Herald on Sunday's Gregor Paul writes in today's issue that it appears Umaga was the architect of his own departure and that the All Black coaching panel tried hard to keep him, giving weight to the family reasons he offered.

Umaga's departure was well-organised and they put him up at a press conference where the man himself could state his reasons. But the fact we are still looking behind his offered reasons illustrates the continuing folly of attaching the empty 'family reasons' phrase to retirements and/or departures. It has become such a false front that it automatically focuses attention on 'other reasons'. For example, Umaga's departure was such a surprise that no less a judge than Sean Fitzpatrick said, in this paper, that he felt Umaga's hand had been forced by Graham Henry.

If there are other reasons in cases like Ruddock's, would giving them full voice necessarily intrude on his dignity? Would his departure be attracting any more scrutiny if the unexpurgated facts were assembled and revealed?

If player power led to Ruddock's resignation, how does the public know it is being addressed? Identify the problem and treat it. And, chaps, even if 'family reasons' are the real reasons, find another way to express it. Nobody believes it.

There are a lot of grown-ups out here. We can take it. It remains to be seen if Welsh rugby can.