A MEMORY from the 2003 Rugby World Cup showed up the other day. It was the train journey to the Telstra stadium for the England v France semi-final. She was blonde, wore an England shirt and was brimming with the optimism of youth. Well, when you get to 50, 25 is youthful. She hardly stopped talking.

She was a massage therapist working with disabled children. Through work, she had been able to extend her visa, and she loved Sydney. England was home, maybe she would go back eventually, but she didn’t plan to any time soon.

We talked about the game and how the wet conditions might suit England. She knew her rugby and wouldn’t hear of her team losing. Somewhere along the way she got talking about the Sydney gym where she worked a few evenings to earn extra money.

Over the previous two weeks, she said, three English guys had started working out in the gym. They were in Australia for the World Cup and she had become friends with them. All were members of the under-19s at a Zurich Premiership club. Their ambition was to make a career out of professional rugby.

After a while, it became clear to the woman that they were using steroids. She knew because they didn’t really try to hide it, like it wasn’t a particularly big deal. She was surprised, shocked almost. “Can you believe this?” she asked. I was mildly surprised, but didn’t doubt her honesty. She didn’t seem the sort of person to make up stuff like that. How did I feel? Sad that teenagers should feel this was the route to the top. What kind of message are we sending out? This memory was jolted by reports that Adam Dean, an England Under-18 flanker, had become the country’s first representative player to be banned for steroids. Dean, who plays for Chester, tested positive for 19-norandrosterone, a metabolite of the anabolic steroid nandrolone, after anti-doping officers turned up unannounced at an England Under-18 squad session two months ago.

This month Dean’s case was heard by a Rugby Football Union (RFU) disciplinary committee that decided he should be given a 12-month suspension that runs from March 16. Judge Jeff Blackett, who chaired the committee, said Dean conducted himself well at the hearing and seemed to blame the lack of anti-doping guidance at junior level.

This, apparently, was the reason Dean was given just a one-year ban when the norm is two years. Other reports suggested he had been a victim of “contaminated supplements”; ie, he was using legal supplements that had somehow become contaminated by 19-norandrosterone. There was no scientific evidence to back this up.

One logical interpretation of the RFU’s decision is that Dean was cut some slack because of his claim that he felt his club did not do enough to make him aware of the dangers. There was also the sense that at 18, he wasn’t really in a position to know that supplements can be contaminated. All of this may be true, but the leniency makes an important statement. There was a time, and not so long ago, when many people felt that a life ban was appropriate punishment for those testing positive for anabolic steroids. Many athletes have been given four years for drug offences.

The question for the RFU is what happens when the next young England player, coming from a junior club, tests positive and argues that he wasn’t well informed about the dangers. Another one-year ban and a return sooner than a teammate sidelined with a severed cruciate ligament? What will 18-year-olds think if they believe they can get away with one year for doping? Should the International Rugby Board or UK Sport not be asking the RFU for a fuller explanation? Of course they should. Teenagers respond to the messages we give them. Young players need clearer guidance than they are getting.