Decision not to debar Harlequins from cup defies belief

RUGBY:There is ample reason to prevent the London club's particpation in this season's Heineken Cup and failure to do so leaves the board living in denial

THE ERC board meets up again today, with Bloodgate once more on its agenda, merely a week after their last get-together. A week ago the board “saw no reason to interfere” with Harlequins’ participation in this season’s Heineken Cup, although “reserved the right” to take further disciplinary action arising from issues not dealt with in the exhaustive process to date. In truth, there is ample reason to interfere with the London club’s participation, and failure to do so leaves the board living in denial. To not at least debar Harlequins from playing in the cup this season almost defies belief.

They would also be letting down their own disciplinary procedures, which – led by its disciplinary officer, Roger O’Connor – have played something of a blinder up until now, and it also transpires that O’Connor wanted Harlequins evicted from this year’s competition at the appeal hearing.

When the ERC announced it was undertaking an investigation into the events surrounding the supposed injury Tom Williams incurred and Nick Evans’ return to the pitch, “Best of luck,” would have been the abiding sentiment within rugby circles. But by giving the player such a hefty suspension the ERC brilliantly flushed out the truth from Williams when he appealed and exposed the equally shameless attempt at a cover-up.

When Dean Richards also admitted to orchestrating the initial cover-up, the player’s ban was reduced to four months. Williams is a fortunate young man, as he hardly comes out of this sordid affair whiter than white, even after (eventually) singing like a canary.

The Sky cameras which focused on Williams to the backdrop of his own revised testimony at the appeal hearing made for compelling if tawdry viewing on The Rugby Club last Thursday.

And not alone did he embellish the subterfuge by walking groggily from the field, he alleges he pressurised the club doctor into inflicting a wound on him, did not come clean at the initial hearing and only did so when appealing his year-long ban after sounding out the possibility of having his mortgage paid off in private dialogue with the since departed club chairman.

Given Richards’ own admissions – he also confessed to four other such cases of fake blood substitutions – a three-year ban isn’t that excessive. But Harlequins were lucky indeed that they merely had their fine increased. Affixing the word ‘gate’ to any scandal ever since Watergate may, at times, be a lazy media contrivance, but rarely has it seemed more apt given the attempt at a cover-up here.

Richards, along with Williams and the club physiotherapist Steph Brennan, who has been banned for two years and forced to resign from a new post in the English set-up, have been left carrying the can. By comparison, Mark Evans, the chief executive, has avoided punishment so far. Here is a club CEO who has previously coached both Saracens and Harlequins, and has also stepped in as caretaker coach at Harlequins when they were in trouble.

Oughtn’t he have heeded the evidence of his own eyes that day against Leinster and at least asked questions internally, rather than let Richards oversee the statements to the initial ERC disciplinary hearing? Richards also admitted to telling Evans everything at a meeting between the pair on July 21st, before then claiming he did so when they met on August 3rd.

Yet curiously, Richards reveals that Evans was also considering his position when they met on July 21st.

Furthermore, Williams claims Evans sought to dissuade him from telling the whole truth at the appeal hearing.

Undoubtedly, pressure has been brought to bear on team doctors to pass players fit when they shouldn’t. But the whole murky affair also provides a salient reminder to all those in rugby, and sport, of the ramifications for the medical profession in pressuring team doctors to do things they shouldn’t do.

Likewise, to those in the medical profession employed by rugby to retain their professional integrity at all times.

Yes, innocent people, unfortunately, would have been affected had Harlequins been banned from the cup for a year, but there’s the question of establishing a benchmark and a deterrent. There’s also the possibility of the other four cases being investigated or someone turning whistleblower with regard to any one of them.

Meanwhile, conceivably, the ERC could be crowning Harlequins champions in eight months’ time. Most of all though, imagine the scenario had Evans landed that drop goal and Harlequins beaten the eventual champions.

Leinster would now be fully entitled to seek financial compensation for being wrongfully denied the chance to play Munster in a semi-final at Croke Park and the opportunity to go on and win the competition. There might have been arguments for both civil and legal cases.

Imagine too, unlikely though it may seem to some of you, that Harlequins had then gone on to beat Munster in the semi-finals and Leicester in the final. Ye Gods. There would now be an asterix beside the season 2008/2009 where the name of the champions should be.

The legal cases and fees could have rumbled on for years. Were the ERC board meeting today under those circumstances, there is little doubt Harlequins would not be participating in this season’s competition. Most likely, their ban would have extended beyond a season. Had the same sins been committed, and compounded by a cover-up, by a club in the Champions League, it is unimaginable the perpetrators wouldn’t have been banned from participating for at least a year.

Basically then, all that has saved Harlequins (so far) from such a fate is that Evans missed. But that doesn’t alter the fact that they cheated and then sought to cover up their cheating. Whether Evans landed the drop goal or missed, shouldn’t really count for anything.

email:gthornley@irishtimes.com