Durban - According to Sunday news reports, it was a 12-year-old boy who first rumbled Elton Jantjies at a guest house in Nelspruit where he had gone for a night of passion with the Springboks’ dietician, with whom he is allegedly conducting an extra-marital liaison with.
The child wanted an autograph and reportedly commented to his father something along these lines: “I have got his autograph before when he was with his wife, but this is not her,” when referring to Zeenat Simjee; and a Google search of Elton Jantjies wife did the rest ...
Another guest recorded “noises of passion” from Jantjies’ room, mostly because he was annoyed that he could not sleep; and then later that night when the couple was allegedly having an argument and this fellow objected to the foul language.
Further reports - as revealed in Rapport - reveal that when a guest asked Jantjies to quieten down, he said, and I quote the source, “Do you know who I am?”
Well, if he pompously believed that he can behave however he likes because he is a Springbok, it makes his recent indiscretions even worse. It emphasises that he has no respect for the Springbok ethos, and thus the first repercussion for him should be the loss of his status as a Bok.
I am reliably informed that when a Springbok is initiated, he swears to respect the legacy of the team. Jantjies, currently, doesn’t seem to care about that and should, therefore, not play for the Boks again.
This brings me to my next point — Jantjies is a repeat offender and I wonder if SA Rugby is also at fault for not taking meaningful action against the 32-year-old. He reportedly harassed a flight attendant on a flight and then caused “malicious damage to property,” for which he was arrested on landing in Johannesburg.
That was in May.
Jantjies had a brief appearance in court to be charged but for reasons that remain undisclosed, those charges were dropped.
This was just before Wales arrived on tour. The Springbok management told the media that because he had not been in the Bok camp at the time, he had not broken team protocols and so they felt free to select him.
Well, maybe, if they had been a bit tougher on him then, he would have learned his lesson and would not have embarrassed the Bok brand and himself.
It rankled with me back then that Jantjies not being in the Bok camp at the time of the flight incident thus absolved the management of disciplining him. Perhaps this was a mere convenience for them because the Boks are critically short of depth at flyhalf; and Jantjies was earmarked to start in the first Test against Wales because Handre Pollard had only just arrived from France.
The best course of action then, should have been for SA Rugby to step the former Lions flyhalf down.
Adding to this, how much discipline is there in the Bok management if one of their number thinks it is okay to have an affair with a player and vice versa?
It doesn’t sound like there is too much fear of consequence ...
@MikeGreeaway67
* The views expressed are not necessarily the views of IOL or Independent Media.
** JOIN THE CONVERSATION: Send us an email with your comments, thoughts or responses to iolletters@inl.co.za. Letters should be a maximum of 500 words, and may be edited for length. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Submissions should include a contact number and physical address (not for publication).