Mark Keohane
11 September 2008
opinion
Johannesburg — IF THERE is no sex video of Springbok coach Peter de Villiers, then why the protracted fuss from the South African Rugby Union (Saru) to get rid of a 24-year-old communications manager, Chris Hewitt, who ranks pretty low on the organisation's food chain?
Hewitt was De Villiers's choice for the position. That he was hired to do the job, in which his primary role was to serve the national coach and squad and liaise between the squad and the media, was questionable because of his lack of experience. Hewitt had worked as a rugby writer for three years, the past 18 months as a freelancer while he completed his law degree. He had never worked with any sports team in a communications capacity, yet he was given the job. Those responsible for his appointment should be falling on their swords if that is what they want Hewitt to do.
Second, what did Hewitt actually do wrong? He was told by a government official that a tape existed of the Springbok coach having sex in a car in a parking lot outside a Spar shop in East London earlier this year. He took that information to De Villiers, SA Rugby MD Jonathan Stones, Saru president Oregan Hoskins and SA Rugby's strategic communications manager, Andy Colquhoun.
Hewitt did exactly what his employers would have wanted from a communications employee. He told them what he had heard and waited to be told how to deal with it. There was no blackmail attempt of De Villiers by Hewitt, something De Villiers has confirmed. Why the fuss, and why has this situation not been calmly and swiftly dealt with by the many communications specialists employed by South African rugby?
If there was no tape and no blackmail, how difficult was it to put an end to the media speculation? One short statement or press conference, conducted by Hoskins, would have killed the story if there was no substance to the government official's allegation.
Instead, De Villiers reacted with horror and gave an "exclusive" to every newspaper, quoting from the Bible and playing the race card, saying that if whites wanted his job as Bok coach back then they could have it.
De Villiers, for all his passion for the Boks, doesn't have the emotional intelligence to get into this kind of debate. As a public speaker, he is out of his depth and I cringe to think that those advising him are actually paid a salary. A simple statement, in which he expressed his disgust at the allegation, would have sufficed. But the protest was long, biblical, and included the fact that he did not even have time to go to church on that road trip to East London, let alone have sex in the car park. In support of his claim that he wouldn't have sex with someone in a car, he even threw out the fact that he doesn't watch pornographic movies in the team hotel when on tour with the side. Did anyone ask him if he watches pornographic movies?
If there was no substance to any of this, why has Saru not put an end to it? Instead, for three days, it has ensured front-page coverage by suspending Hewitt (on full pay) and telling the media that there will be more charges against the employee who made extraordinary claims. Once again, the employee simply passed on to his superiors what he had heard, without blackmail or threat. Was he not just doing his job?
What if a tape did exist and it surfaced, and it was then found that Hewitt knew of its existence. Would he face a disciplinary hearing because he withheld these "extraordinary claims"?
The situation is ludicrous because a 24-year-old with absolutely no motive to do anything but his job is being sacrificed, and no one within Saru or the media seems to be asking the only question that matters: which government official gave Hewitt the information. Who is the source? It is clearly much easier simply to shoot the messenger.
The absurdity of it all is that Hewitt has been accused of leaking the story to the media, specifically to me, yet I have never written a line about it. In fact, Hoskins mentioned it to me 10 days ago in conversation. Hoskins calmly said there was an allegation that was investigated because of its seriousness, but the investigation showed nothing to be true. There was no reason for me to write a story on rumour, as I would have been as guilty of perpetuating it, and Hoskins had told me the story in confidence. So there was no leak from Hewitt to me because there didn't have to be.
Hewitt, a close friend of the Watson family, was dismissed from the Springbok squad after three Tests because of his close ties to Springbok loose forward Luke Watson's father, Cheeky. De Villiers, who has fallen out with Cheeky, believed Hewitt's loyalty to be with Watson Snr and his paranoia led him to believe Hewitt would repeat all internal team discussions to Watson.
SA Rugby said Hewitt was demoted to office duties because of his inexperience in the job, which again raises the question why the people who hired Hewitt are not themselves in the dock for making the appointment. It didn't require three weeks to know he would struggle with the intricacies of the job. He simply did not have the experience, although his work ethic cannot be faulted.
Media reports suggest some of the charges against him are for being late for a press conference, not putting out the sponsors' drinks at a press conference and, most outrageous of all, supposedly wearing mascara to a match, which offended Free State rugby officials.
If I was Hewitt, I would have applied for a high court order stopping Saru from making further comments to the media that were damaging to my reputation and future career opportunities. Saru's communications hit squad is fuelling fires that aren't there by talking of these supposed charges as if they are schedule one offences. If arriving late to a press conference was a good reason to dismiss a communications manager, there wouldn't be a coach in world sport or a communications manager in a job. I don't think I have ever attended a press conference that started on time.
Clearly there has been a breakdown of trust between Hewitt and De Villiers. But if SA Rugby believes there is no place for Hewitt in the organisation, how hard is it to sit down, reach an agreement and part ways in a professional manner that keeps rugby on the back pages and not on the front?
Those facing a disciplinary should be the ones who hired a young man with no experience to do a high-pressure job. SA Rugby is the loser in every sense, and hanging out a dispensable young man to dry shows the absolute lack of integrity in the organisation.
Keohane writes for the website www.keo.co.za
Be the first to Write a Comment!
Copyright © 2008 Business Day. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
