My feature on Michael Lynagh in last weekend’s Herald magazine has prompted some heartfelt responses, none more balanced than the following from Kelman Chambers, a financial director in Perth.

“I just read your article and would say that Michael has got it pretty much spot on. It’s a physical sport with a fair risk of injury, but it’s also a wonderful way of keeping fit and learning about teamwork and relying on others/being relied on. The one thing that wasn’t mentioned was the teaching of respect. Respect for authority (the ref, coaches), respect for others (the opposition and team mates) and respect for yourself,” he wrote.

“To put things in perspective, I’ve recently retired at age 49 (but could still be tempted to put the boots on). I’ve played since I was 8, had my share of injuries, coached from primary kids to 1st XV level. None of this was at a particularly high level (certainly since my late teens), but I’ve made many friends on the way and know that I could walk into any club in the world and be accepted a part of the rugby “family”.

“Were the injuries worth it? Was the risk of serious injury worth it? I’d say yes on both counts, but it’s a decision only the individual can make.

“With regards to the risks, it’s difficult to see how the initial injuries can be avoided without fundamental changes to the entire game (even low tackles can result in a knee to the head), but I think that it’s about how they are managed. If we can have a neutral ref, neutral touch-judges and even the dreaded TMO, why not a neutral doctor who decides on a player's ability to continue. This would take away an opportunity for coaches to try and influence the decision.”

His points are well made and placed in proper perspective, which was far from what I experienced when taking part in a Radio Scotland discussion on this subject a few months ago during which a highly educated woman who was complaining about rugby’s dangers, tried to suggest that young people are not naturally competitive.

There is a worrying and very vocal element in our society that comprises people who were not very good at sport and consequently did not like having to undertake PE at school, who are seeking to undermine team sport. The very same people seem more than happy for competitive measuring to allow them to demonstrate their superiority to others, but are not willing to allow those whose strengths lie in their coordination and general physicality to be seen to excel.

That has an extremely damaging impact on those who are consequently frustrated but, of course, that is of no concern to the complacent intellectuals who have managed to persuade the authorities that all that matters in schools is academia.

What Mr Chambers got absolutely right in his interpretation of the article on Lynagh is the need to understand the full benefits of sport in the context of the concerns being raised at the moment.

Clearly Lynagh could, given his celebrity status within the sport, have sought to find ways of linking the Stroke he suffered three years ago to rugby in order to gain financial compensation. His surgeons told him it was most probably not the case, but medics are hardly ever to state such things categorically so a more cynical individual might have seen wriggle room within that view and, with this debate only in its infancy, pursued it anyway.

Instead, as an honourable man, Lynagh is adamant that there is no connection and is keen to stress the benefits of his sport, which is not to say, either, that he failed to acknowledge that rugby has a major issue to address when it comes to the consequences of players being involved in repeated high impact collisions.

Even so, the article has prompted messages from former players who played at the elite end of the Scottish game who have grave concerns about their well-being as a result of their playing days since they now suffer from debilitating psychological problems. I have no doubt that a similar case to that which has cost American Football’s NFL hundreds of millions of dollars is looming.

This view is informed by having suffered a concussion and swallowed my tongue when playing rugby in the late seventies and was saved by the awareness of one of our teachers, a man named Brian Moore (not that one), who recognised the symptoms and reacted accordingly. It was the day Scotland could have beaten Graham Mourie’s All Blacks until Ian McGeechan had a drop goal charged down in the Murrayfield mist because I watched the game in my hospital ward.

That my teacher was aware of the risks and knew what to do back then makes it highly implausible that the sport of rugby did not know more than it has so far admitted to players about the risks they were being exposed to.

In addressing that as it must, though, sport as a whole and rugby in particular must also do much better at ensuring that the benefits to society of engagement in vigorous physical activity and competitive teamwork are not lost because apparent failings in one very important duty of care are being highlighted.