It came up at work today. One of the guys at work who graduated from Stanford was talking some trash about how yeah, Cal rugby is pretty good, but isn't Stanford better? Now, it's no secret that i'm a big Cal Rugby fan, so I informed him that in recent history, Cal has beat Stanford to a bloody pulp every time they met. Stanford-guy was skeptical. Then fellow Cal Enthusiast Allen piped in with "oh, well, except for two years ago when Stanford backed out of the game". Stanford guy was incredulous. "No Way!" he said. Allen: "Hey, you can find it on Google!".

So I did. In no particular order:
Stanford's rugby forfeit is downright cowardly
and
Email correspondence between Cal and Stanford rugby coaches.

Ok so the first one an Oakland Tribune columnist going off on cowardice, and the second is from a Cal supporters website. Let's look for some Stanford perspective (although, really, didn't we get enough of that from the e-mail from Stanfurd's coach, Franck Boivert?)
Ruggers Forfeit Their Big Game

It's brief, but still manages to take a quote out of context and, in my opinion, to mangle the intention. I was going to let it slide, but then I looked up the quote in the actual context. What the stanford article claims Clark said: "We take great umbrage ... How dare you not compete." What Clark said in context: "We do however take great umbrage at the content of your letter of forfeit." ... [skip two full paragraphs] ... "Lastly, I found your closing comment concerning rugby one day being 'again a sport for the students' insulting to the very ethos of sport. How dare you not compete and belittle the accomplishments of those who do."

Anything else from the Stanford side of it? Well, if there is, I can't find it. However, I just found an interview with Stanfurd's current Chairman of Development and Treasurer for their rugby foundation. Yancey does mention the forfeiture but doesn't comment much about it. What I found particularly salient, especially considering Boivert's comments about Cal being better because they have funding etc, was this passage about Stanford rugby's endowment: "It is my understanding that this sum probably places Stanford in second place behind Cal when it comes to US college rugby endowments." Ok, so Cal's is bigger, but second place is no position from which to whine about funding. To be fair, that's the situation now, and I have no real evidence about the situation three years ago.

So here's my conclusion from all this. Stanford's forfeiture was a totally spineless move. They let fail a nearly century-old tradition because they were afraid of being injured. I can't blame them, really, for being afraid. The break in the tradition is unfortunate. The lack of courage is embarrassing, but forgivable. I mean, these Cal guys are really big and strong. The unforgivable thing was Boivert's response. He took cheap shots at Clark and Cal Rugby. Rather than facing the fact that he had failed as a coach to prepare his team to play Cal, he tried to blame Cal. He looked for excuses. Instead, he took his team to Fiji. (Yeah, if you read the Oakland Tribune column, the coach took the team to the Fiji Islands instead of to the Cal rugby match) So he further failed to fight the stereotype of pampered, spoiled Stanford brats.

But really, I guess, that's how you become successfull in the real world. If you can win, kick their teeth in. If you can't, go to Fiji.

Cal Rugby
Stanford Rugby