Shenanigans at Guinness Premiership sides Harlequins and Bath have certainly kept rugby fans interested, amused and shocked in equal measure during the summer of 2009.
Blood
Following a 14 hour appeal hearing in Glasgow on 17 August, the playing ban on Tom Williams was reduced from twelve to four months; Dean Richards, who had already resigned from his DOR role, was suspended from participation in ERC events for three years; physio Steph Brennan, who left Quins to join the RFU in the summer, was similarly suspended for two years; and the club's fine in the matter was increased to €300,000.
Despite speculation to the contrary, ERC have not taken action to remove Quins from the Heineken Cup and they are at present still listed amongst the participating teams on the ERC website.
Was this a fair outcome? A long-time fan of one senior club told us of a wheeze in the sixties whereby the home team would always have a (then leather) ball soaking in a bucket of water. When the opportunity arose, the ball would be switched just before the opposition took a penalty kick which inevitably travelled no more than twenty yards in a shower of water.
The story usually causes a smile amongst rugby folk, but was this a "wheeze" or was it tampering with equipment to gain an unfair advantage? What's the difference between that event and what has now become known as "bloodgate"? Not a lot frankly, but of course there is more at stake in the modern game. It's profesional, under the microscope, has a much bigger audience and has sponsors to keep happy.
Although Quins were found guilty, our impression is that their punishment reflects the way they dealt with the aftermath of the event rather than the event itself.
Drugs
In some respects the unfolding Harlequins story was a blessing for Bath. To a large degree it kept them out of the spotlight as, for the second time this year, the club found itself involved in an embarrassment relating to drugs.
Earlier this year England prop Matt Stevens received a two year ban after failing a drugs test following Bath's Heineken Cup fixture in Glasgow. More recently Justin Harrison resigned from the club after admitting to three charges (including taking illegal drugs) at a Rugby Football Union disciplinary hearing.
Michael Lipman, Alex Crockett and Andrew Higgins were all banned at a RFU disciplinary hearing earlier this month. Although the RFU panel dropped charges of drugs use at the outset of the hearing, their bans were for missing drugs tests.
Higgins has decided to retire from the game stating that he had become "profoundly disillusioned" but Lipman and Crockett will appeal against both the decision and sanction imposed at the hearing.
Probably because Bath's problems were more straightforward and perhaps less entertaining than those of Quins they have not been so widely reported or discussed. Nevertheless, our opinion is that indiscretions at Bath will prove to be far more damaging to the image of the game.
18 August 2009
Blood
Following a 14 hour appeal hearing in Glasgow on 17 August, the playing ban on Tom Williams was reduced from twelve to four months; Dean Richards, who had already resigned from his DOR role, was suspended from participation in ERC events for three years; physio Steph Brennan, who left Quins to join the RFU in the summer, was similarly suspended for two years; and the club's fine in the matter was increased to €300,000.
Despite speculation to the contrary, ERC have not taken action to remove Quins from the Heineken Cup and they are at present still listed amongst the participating teams on the ERC website.
Was this a fair outcome? A long-time fan of one senior club told us of a wheeze in the sixties whereby the home team would always have a (then leather) ball soaking in a bucket of water. When the opportunity arose, the ball would be switched just before the opposition took a penalty kick which inevitably travelled no more than twenty yards in a shower of water.
The story usually causes a smile amongst rugby folk, but was this a "wheeze" or was it tampering with equipment to gain an unfair advantage? What's the difference between that event and what has now become known as "bloodgate"? Not a lot frankly, but of course there is more at stake in the modern game. It's profesional, under the microscope, has a much bigger audience and has sponsors to keep happy.
Although Quins were found guilty, our impression is that their punishment reflects the way they dealt with the aftermath of the event rather than the event itself.
Drugs
In some respects the unfolding Harlequins story was a blessing for Bath. To a large degree it kept them out of the spotlight as, for the second time this year, the club found itself involved in an embarrassment relating to drugs.
Earlier this year England prop Matt Stevens received a two year ban after failing a drugs test following Bath's Heineken Cup fixture in Glasgow. More recently Justin Harrison resigned from the club after admitting to three charges (including taking illegal drugs) at a Rugby Football Union disciplinary hearing.
Michael Lipman, Alex Crockett and Andrew Higgins were all banned at a RFU disciplinary hearing earlier this month. Although the RFU panel dropped charges of drugs use at the outset of the hearing, their bans were for missing drugs tests.
Higgins has decided to retire from the game stating that he had become "profoundly disillusioned" but Lipman and Crockett will appeal against both the decision and sanction imposed at the hearing.
Probably because Bath's problems were more straightforward and perhaps less entertaining than those of Quins they have not been so widely reported or discussed. Nevertheless, our opinion is that indiscretions at Bath will prove to be far more damaging to the image of the game.
18 August 2009
