ERC offer damning judgment on Richards

THE INDEPENDENT Appeals Committee offered a damning judgment on the role former Harlequins director of rugby Dean Richards, charging him as “the directing mind and had central control” over a scandal that is now simply known as “Bloodgate”.

He was also found guilty of being the principal architect of the subsequent cover-up that has rocked the sport. There is little ambiguity in the findings released yesterday by ERC in a 99-page document that crystallises the manner in which Richards tried to essentially cheat to camouflage a flagrant breach of tournament rules in relation to the substitution of Tom Williams for a fake blood injury at the end of the club’s Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster last season.

Richards, a former policeman, initially tried to challenge the appeals hearing on a number of legal grounds relating to procedure and jurisdiction, but after a period of legal argument and following a five-minute adjournment during proceedings in which time he consulted with his legal team, accepted misconduct complaints brought against himself and Harlequins physiotherapist Steph Brennan by ERC Disciplinary Officer Roger O’Connor.

Richards – as did Brennan – pleaded guilty to those complaints and didn’t object to the new evidence in the form of Tom Williams’ affidavit and supplemental statement.

Richards is heavily criticised in the document. “Mr Richards was the directing mind and had central control over everything that happened in relation to the fabrication of the blood injury on the pitch and cover-up in the days after the match.

“The only aspect of the matter in which the Appeals Committee determined that he did not have any direct involvement was the alleged cutting of Mr Williams’ lip by Dr Chapman. His (Richards) was the dominant personality and influence on affairs.

“He knew or ought to have known that players such as Mr Williams would likely obey his directions whether that meant cheating or not.

“He had instructed Mr Brennan to obtain the necessary blood capsules and has taken steps to ensure that the necessary ‘equipment’ would be available as and when required.”

The appeals committee further asserted that Richards “was prepared to try to cheat Leinster out of a victory by bringing on a player at a crucial stage of the match when that player was not entitled to return.

“He was quite disinterested in the consideration that by acting the way that he did the club which deserved to win the match might be deprived of its victory. He had long since recruited Mr Brennan as his willing lieutenant in such activities and in identifying Mr Williams as the person who would fake the blood injury he had selected a player who could be suborned into cheating.

“He was the dominant personality and influence on affairs.”

The judgment further declared that: “Suspicions having been aroused by the amateur theatrics of the blood capsule and Mr Williams’ attempts to appear injured, he [Mr Richards] then set about ensuring that those who need to lie to protect his decision did so.

“He instigated the cover-up to the extent of requiring Mr Brennan to fabricate statements and the refining the fabrications to ensure that all statements were consistent. We did not believe Mr Richards when he said the prime driving force in the cover-up was the protection of the professional position of Dr Chapman.

“We considered the primary interest of Mr Richards was in preventing his own role in events from being discovered.

“Mr Richards arranged matters so that those who were charged with misconduct complaints would lie to the legal team and then lie to the disciplinary hearing.”

While the appeals committee did favour the accounts of Richards and Brennan over that of Williams in relation to the sequence of events that led to the player taking the capsule it was a minor aside in a relentlessly damning verdict on Richards’ involvement in the affair.

The judgment pointed out that it was only when Williams took independent legal advice and moved to change his story that Richards offered his employers full disclosure relating to the incident.

It was also noted that even at the appeals hearing Richards refused to name players who had been involved in previous incidents of fabricating blood injuries and only did so when Brennan confirmed their identities.

Revised punishments

Tom Williams:banned for four months

Dean Richards:banned for three years

Steph Brennan:banned for two years

Harlequins:fined €300,000