When you live in California, you're rugby-deprived.  For one thing, you have to be the second coming of Einstein to figure out how to find rugby on the 7000 available channels.  The alternative is to go to an 'English' or 'Irish' pub which bears about as much relationship to a real pub as Budweiser does to beer and serves the kind of food which maintains Britain's reputation for the worst food in the world despite the fact that the average transport cafe in the UK will serve you a better meal than Denny's in the US. 

But I'm already off track.

I read that Ben Foden was arrested for some small hours aggravation with a cab driver, cautioned and set free to go about his business. Fair enough, it's happened to us all.  Or some of us.  A day or so later, I saw that no action will be taken by the police, his club or the RFU - and that set me thinking. 

Not that long ago,  Delon Armitage roundly abused a Drug Official (whatever that is) and was promptly banned and excoriated by one and all.

So let me get this straight.  One full back behaves like an idiot in the early AM - and it's reasonable to assume he may have been celebrating and therefore - to plagiarize - was probably somewhat tired and emotional.  He suffers not even a slap on the wrist (at least at this time of writing).  Another full back behaves like an idiot in the hot aftermath of a critical loss and is banned: a substantial loss of income - rugby is, after all, his job; and possible denial of his chance to secure his place in the World Cup. He's also roundly abused by the Rugby Establishment.

Is it just me or does this reek of hypocrisy?  Who makes these idiotic distinctions and on what basis?

I also see that Matt Stevens is back playing, apparently well and in line for an England recall.  The same Matt Stevens who was banned for two years for habitually shoving Bath Marching Powder up his schnozz.

And who banned him?  A committee of ex-players and administrators who never once in their lives altered their states of mind with any substance - leave alone alcohol - and, even if they did, never made a habit of it.

It must have only been me who was as pissed as a rat at those post-game wind-downs and post committee meeting debriefings.  I must be the only player at any level who ran on the field, or staggered, with such a monumental hangover that I had to get someone else to tie my bootlaces.

I don't give a damn who puts what up or down which orifice and when.  That's their own privilege and prerogative; and if they choose to insert something damaging that's also their choice and 'right' (since we all have all-encompassing rights now).  Matt simply indulged his own form of self-destruction: a white powder rather than an amber liquid.  How is that the business of any other amber-swilling hypocrites other than his employers?  If they saw his performance affected, that's what gave them the right to terminate him.  Nothing more or less.  And don't give me a raft about the illegality of drugs because then I'll give you a raft about the illegality of driving back from the clubhouse when you can't tell a cat's eye from a cat.

But somehow, committees and all who sail in them - and that includes everyone who's incomplete without telling everyone else what to do, when and how to do it - and, more important, what not to do, when not to do it and how not to do it - have seized control of our lives.  We're not just a nanny state.  We're a nanny people and, until you leave for the wilder shores of a non-First World Country, it's a nanny world.

Whatever happened to freedom of  choice, including the choice to alter your state with whatever powdered or liquid chemical you choose?  It's not that Matt reaped the consequence that seems like a crooked feed (something I know about).  Clearly no one can play rugby with a snootful.  No, what looks like a monstrous forward pass to me is the sanctimony that accompanied the judgments. 

Which brings us back to the difference between Ben Foden and Delon Armitage.  Explanations on a postcard, please.