This week has marked the completion of the first year of Dean Richards' three-year ban for ordering the use of a fake blood capsule by one of his players and thereafter trying to cover up the attempt to cheat.
Coincidentally, it also sees the start of the inquiry process into another of the central characters in the scam.
Former Harlequins physiotherapist Steph Brennan was called to explain his actions to a Health Professions Council misconduct hearing. The worst case scenario is that he will be prevented from practicing again after his part in both the deceit and the following attempts to conceal the truth.
It seems black and white. If found guilty, he deserves to be struck off. Found innocent, or proved to have been put under intolerable pressure by his superiors at the club, a case for diminished responsibility and reinstatement in due course might just have legs.
Either way, the grey area is minimal, which is more than can be said for Richards' ban. The offence took place during a Heineken Cup game and therefore it fell to the governing body of that tournament, the ERC, to administer the punishment. They did so, and were quickly backed up by the game's global governing body who, a year ago today, said this:
"Under IRB Regulations and the application of the universality principle, all disciplinary sanctions handed down in rugby, including those arising from cross-border competitions, must be applied by all unions in membership of the IRB."
The RFU's stance appeared equally clear cut.
"We can confirm that we will be upholding the bans handed out by ERC across our jurisdiction and that on this particular incident we will not be taking further action as we believe the ERC sanctions are appropriate," said their statement at the time.
Why, then, on the first anniversary of the sanctions, do we still find ourselves in a situation where neither Richards, nor the man in charge of disciplinary matters in the English game, have the foggiest idea about what the disgraced England No.8 can or can't do?
The ex-Leicester man has already been permitted by the RFU's chief disciplinary officer Judge Jeff Blackett to undertake consultancy work at Worcester Warriors without further punishment in what seems a blatant two-fingered salute to the ban he deservedly received.
Blackett is reported to be in some sort of disciplinary limbo, awaiting confirmation from the IRB or the ERC as to what Richards is permitted to do and until he receives such confirmation, can only address each attempt by Richards to return to the game from a legal, not a moral standpoint.
That sticks in the craw from two perspectives. First, because Richards should take his medicine, wait his time and then try to find a way back rather than sidling through a loophole.
Second, Blackett and the RFU are appearing weak. If they allow Richards to carry out any further work, it will make a mockery of the ban, legal loophole or not. The law should be Blackett's secondary consideration here. Common sense should be his first. He needs to make a stand on this, and do so quickly.
Morally, he knows it is wrong to allow Richards to take on a role in rugby until his ban is served. The initial statements from both the IRB and the RFU should be all the guidance he needs. And he should tell Richards that he should know better.
There again, such advice might have saved this whole sorry mess in the first place.
Date published :
18 Aug 2010 - 12:30:24
06/02/2012 14:40:16
