Rugby Union

null 13° London Hi 18°C / Lo 10°C

James Lawton: Morals are crushed as rugby's rulers fail to do their job

Professional rugby clubs are, it seems, like banks. They can make up their own rules

Tom Williams leaves the field, fake blood spilling from his mouth, during the incident which led to yesterday's ruling that Quins would not be kicked out of the Heineken Cup

GETTY IMAGES

Tom Williams leaves the field, fake blood spilling from his mouth, during the incident which led to yesterday's ruling that Quins would not be kicked out of the Heineken Cup

Harlequins will not be banned from the European Cup of rugby they would have made utterly meaningless had their systematic cheating brought victory last season because, wait for it, the club might go under, innocent people might lose their jobs and – well, that's it, I'm afraid.

Professional rugby clubs are, it seems, a bit like banks. They can make their own rules, pull every little stroke they can dream up, in this case turn upside down every value which was supposed to make the sport worth pursuing, the most basic honesty being the first victim, but are apparently quite immune from the implications of their behaviour.

They are and they must remain – whatever the cost to anyone's idea of integrity.

The alternative would be that they lose a lot of money, the money of the fans and the investors and the sponsors, some of which Harlequins would, it has been copiously documented, have happily expended on persuading the man caught out as the chief actor in the cheating and the cover-up, the man who bit into the blood capsule, to keep his mouth shut while all this unpleasantness blew itself out in due time.

Rugby, from the top to the squirming bottom of this desperate affair, is in worse shape than we could have imagined when the first grotesque details of Bloodgate began to lap into our consciousness.

That much at least was clear when the panel of the European Rugby Cup produced the Pontius Pilate gear at the moment of judgement yesterday.

It was of course a verdict that could have been anticipated at the distance of several miles.

Yes, of course there would have been inconvenience, abandoned travel bookings and Harlequins' existence would indeed have been threatened. It would have been sad, certainly, if the unscrupulousness of the administration of the club cost the innocent their jobs, but the blame for that would not have rested with the rulers of the sport had they accepted their responsibility to draw a line between right and wrong, and then act accordingly, but the people who hatched up the cheating and then the others who sought to stifle the truth, even to the point of something which didn't seem entirely unadjacent to bribery.

Yes, there are casualties. Charles Jillings, chairman and co-owner, has resigned following the revelation of his attempt to talk Tom Williams, the wing who was initially given a 12-month ban and sole responsibility, into limiting his evidence at a second inquiry, a suggestion that significantly or not was accompanied by a dazzling, but unfortunately not quite dazzling enough, offer of new earnings.

Dean Richards, icon of the game and coach, has been banned for three years despite widespread acknowledgement that he reneged utterly on his responsibility to perform his duties as an honest sportsman rather than a chiselling, bullying desperado, and his lackey, physiotherapist Steph Brennan, has quit his job at the RFU following his two-year-ban for his involvement in Bloodgate.

These are personal disasters, of course, but they are also the consequences when all sense of a duty to a sport, the players, the fans, the youngsters who come into the game with a passion to play sport not devious tricks, is abandoned.

What rugby was obliged to do yesterday was make it clear that Harlequins, for at least one season, had to forfeit their rights and profits in a tournament which has huge fan appeal and which they had, quite coldly and repeatedly, attempted to pervert.

How could rugby stumble into such moral disaster? Rob Andrew, the RFU's director of elite rugby, was yesterday wheeled out to deliver a little homily on the dangers of professionalism and, to state the obvious, say that rugby had for some time been making a pretty poor fist of creating a value system that bore much if any resemblance to the one that was in place when the game put such a store on being amateur.

Before this, Martin Johnson, the England manager, stressed his sympathy for Richards, his old Leicester colleague who had "simply buckled under pretty big pressure". Of course Richards didn't buckle. Buckling is what happens when you cannot deal with the pressure. Richards could deal with the pressure all right, but unfortunately he chose to do it in a way that had to make the blood of most sports-lovers fill with ice. What he could not deal with was exposure – and the reactions it provoked.

Perhaps because there have been some unproven suggestions that cheating has reached into the England team, Johnson was asked if episodes like Bloodgate were widespread. "It is certainly not widespread in my experience as an England player and with the England team as manager," he said. "Have things like this happened before? I think you would be naive to say they hadn't. Is it widespread? No, I don't think it is. Dean has taken a terrible gamble and it's clearly wrong."

In theory, the RFU, the supreme administrators of English rugby, can review all the evidence and decide that Harlequins competing in the European Cup would indeed be a travesty. But no one expects this to happen. By the time the RFU come to make a verdict, the caravan will be on the move, much of the income will have been counted and that line between good and bad, right and wrong, will be as obscure as it was when Harlequins were ordering up the blood capsules.

Harlequins will be part of the tournament they abused with such abandon. Money will have rolled in – and a working morality will still be crushed underfoot.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Cheating at the highest level...
[info]jmcc76 wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 06:58 am (UTC)
...is not a new thing. Anybody remember Neil Back's blatant cheating at the scrum to rescue Leicester's Heineken Cup Final against Munster in Cardiff...? And then condoning that "you have to do what is necessary to win" in his post match interview...?

I am neither a Leicester nor Munster supporter, but at the time I was appalled and saw that the writing was on the wall for the honourable code of Rugby Union in the professional era. While not every nation is free from such goings on, sadly, it seems that English rugby, along with some of their Southern Hemisphere counterparts, have been the chief exponents of poor sportsmanship and have been equivocal in the lackadaisical punishment metered out as a result.



Game Over
[info]mountainhop wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 09:06 am (UTC)
Sad day for me. As a lifelong fan of the game, I don't consider it worth following anymore; certainly not at a pro level. This lilly-livered decision of the ERC caps a disgraceful episode. Can't say I'm surprised.
Harlequins RU
[info]cas_tiger wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 10:26 am (UTC)
Invitation to Mountainhop
Try watching Rugby League.
Don't know where you live but Harlequins RL is alive, well and free of scandal. Give it a go
It's the way it is.....
[info]colkitto wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 11:31 am (UTC)
I well recall that incident with Neil Back flipping the ball back into the scrum that led to his team winning the match, and more so his quite unashamed response to what was blatant cheating. Rugby has long had an unspoken cheating and thuggery lurking amongst the games exponents. It appeared to be tolerated if not quite condoned. With �professionalism' those, like Richards took the practice to the dressing room and the boardroom. England�s world cup winning were filled with dubious characters, venerated for their ability to �sort� people out. Some of them graduated to positions of considerable power and responsibility within the game. They are not often recalled for their beautiful skills, but by the intimidation they brought to matches.

You hear them talk glibly about poor judgements, commitment and over eagerness to �win� but never, ever a condemnation. The answer is simple. They all have the goods on each other. Don�t expect anything from Mr Andrew. They cannot speak out, they have all been part of shameless and greedy cabal who knew how to win, without a sidestep or a pass, they knew that cheating worked and cared less what those outside what is comically known as a game would think. Make no mistake about it, this is a game played by bullies, and now run by them. We witnessed England�s horrific indiscipline in last year�s home Internationals. It always has had its thugs, with some diamonds of pure ball handling genius rescuing what at times looked like a pub brawl, and turning it into a theatre of athletics and sublime movement. Those days appear to have gone.

We now have muscle bound thugs pounding each other, masquerading as entertainers while lining their pockets at any cost. The thugs have won the contest. They now join an ignoble list. Fraudulent phone in skulduggery, immoral bankers and overpaid foul mouthed TV chat show hosts. Who in their right minds would want their child to join such a game? Best know this day for being liars, bullies and cheats.
Football v Rugby
[info]enzed_70 wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 12:22 pm (UTC)
Dismissing rugby as thuggish is a bit like calling boxing violent. It's kinda the point. It's what separates the sport and what draws in its supporters. The utterly commited physicality of its players shines a light on the phony physicality of football where pain and injury are faked time and again for 90mins. And they think we can't tell!

I forget which Soccer World Cup it was but of all the players taken to the sideline in the tournament only 5% were actually treated for an injury. At least rugby's cheats don't treat their supporters and officials like complete idiots.
Re: Football v Rugby
[info]tibleydoc wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 05:54 pm (UTC)
"At least rugby's cheats don't treat their supporters and officials like complete idiots."

Except for that little named incident involving fake blood. I'm sure I heard something like that...somewhere.

The comparison is absurd, using the cheats in one to attempt to justify the cheats in the other is even more so.

Rugby
[info]paleyx wrote:
Thursday, 3 September 2009 at 03:21 pm (UTC)
It's rugby union, not rugby

Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today