Williams tried to blackmail Quins!!!

Legion2008

Just read through the appeal hearing transcript:

http://www.ercrugby.com/images/content/cupstandard/Tom_Williams_Independent_Appeal_Committee_Decision.pdf

When it came down to the decision to appeal Quins tried to get him to appeal on a limited basis focused on the sanction only ... Williams essentially demanded a public apology, an improved contract and his house mortgage paid off .....

Should of gotten a longer ban in my opinion .....

danthefan

I'd say you're about the only person on the planet interpreting things that way.

Sundy

He wanted compensation for being hung out to dry and losing 12 months of his career. Seems fair to me.

Quins, Evans and Dean richards all come out of it looking like royal pricks.

Digifriendly

Legion2008 wrote: »

Just read through the appeal hearing transcript:

http://www.ercrugby.com/images/content/cupstandard/Tom_Williams_Independent_Appeal_Committee_Decision.pdf

When it came down to the decision to appeal Quins tried to get him to appeal on a limited basis focused on the sanction only ... Williams essentially demanded a public apology, an improved contract and his house mortgage paid off .....

Should of gotten a longer ban in my opinion .....

Slightly different side of story here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/simonaustin/2009/08/richards_reputation_hits_new_l.html

danthefan

danthefan wrote: »

I'd say you're about the only person on the planet interpreting things that way.

Not really,Tom Williams did deserve a hefty ban.

He took the capsule,no one else.
He tried to blackmail his club.
He ordered his mouth be cut by a scalpel.

Legion2008

Well from the bbc article there's the following statement:

Williams hardly emerges from this part of the episode as an angel. After all, he admits he unsuccessfully pushed the club to pay off his mortgage in exchange for withholding the truth.

Ok, maybe a little strong in saying it's blackmail .... however it's not far off it. This was when Quins were trying to get him to limit the appeal .... blackmail/bribe ... not much of a difference really.

ALH-06

Harold Some Soy wrote: »

Not really,Tom Williams did deserve a hefty ban.

He took the capsule,no one else.
He tried to blackmail his club.
He ordered his mouth be cut by a scalpel.

The attempted blackmail is disgusting - how embarrassing for that to be made public - but the other two aforementioned offences are completely understandable given the circumstances, surely.

He had to take the capsule - he didn't have a choice. Richards had already made the decision to cheat and Williams was a pawn that had to follow orders. The scalpel incident was simply an act of panic given the reaction to the incident.

It's a suitable result - Williams has been publicly shamed, meaning that players will think twice before following similar orders in the future. And Richards has been hung out to dry like the cheating f#cking c#nt he is!

anonymous_joe

They're all a big bunch of bástards.

Amazotheamazing

To be fair to Williams, he has to do what's best to maximise his earnings, it's a short career and he probably doesn't have the talent to make it to the very top level and the various endorsements.

Does anyone think Richards would have pulled that stunt with an established player who could walk out on the club and get signed somewhere else? No, Richards identified a player who had a lot to lose and used him as a fall guy.

We all do things for bosses we don't want to do but what we have to do to keep our jobs. Very easy for a guy on keyboard to judge him, I feel sorry for the guy.

themont85

How the fcuk did Quins not get kicked out of the Heineken for at least this year? Nixon's chief of staff Haldeman would be amazed by Quins actions before, during and after the initial hearings.

Amazotheamazing

themont85 wrote: »

How the fcuk did Quins not get kicked out of the Heineken for at least this year? Nixon's chief of staff Haldeman would be amazed by Quins actions before, during and after the initial hearings.

Because Quins are a big club, with a lot of fans. Supporter-wise, they're one of the most popular in England, and that's a lot of revenue to wave goodbye to if the ERC were to exclude them.

anonymous_joe

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Because Quins are a big club, with a lot of fans. Supporter-wise, they're one of the most popular in England, and that's a lot of revenue to wave goodbye to if the ERC were to exclude them.

And you might get a nightmare scenario where the English clubs pull out in protest at excessive punishment.

Amazotheamazing

anonymous_joe wrote: »

And you might get a nightmare scenario where the English clubs pull out in protest at excessive punishment.

The ERC are actually in a bind, because the HEC is supposed to be the showpiece European comp but most of the French teams would much rather win their domestic league and most of the English teams spend half their season ensuring they won't be relegated to really focus on Europe, or at any rate, focus on the type of rugby needed to win a HEC (resting players etc).

The Irish love the HEC and think it's the best thing in the world etc, but we're in a minority with that viewpoint, imo. Iirc, Leicester Tigers, the best supported team in England, actually returned tickets to the final.

Throwing Quins out would send a very strong anti-cheating message, but it would cost money and could further weaken the prestige of the HEC in England. The ERC would be crazy to go down that path unless it couldn't be avoided, imo.

themont85

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

The ERC are actually in a bind, because the HEC is supposed to be the showpiece European comp but most of the French teams would much rather win their domestic league and most of the English teams spend half their season ensuring they won't be relegated to really focus on Europe, or at any rate, focus on the type of rugby needed to win a HEC (resting players etc).

The Irish love the HEC and think it's the best thing in the world etc, but we're in a minority with that viewpoint, imo. Iirc, Leicester Tigers, the best supported team in England, actually returned tickets to the final.

Throwing Quins out would send a very strong anti-cheating message, but it would cost money and could further weaken the prestige of the HEC in England. The ERC would be crazy to go down that path unless it couldn't be avoided, imo.

Pfft I thought it would enhance it if you show that kind of thing isn't on ie keep the integrity of the comp alive.

And the English do value the competition very highly, maybe the French clubs like Clermont in particular but the English do.

anonymous_joe

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

The ERC are actually in a bind, because the HEC is supposed to be the showpiece European comp but most of the French teams would much rather win their domestic league and most of the English teams spend half their season ensuring they won't be relegated to really focus on Europe, or at any rate, focus on the type of rugby needed to win a HEC (resting players etc).

The Irish love the HEC and think it's the best thing in the world etc, but we're in a minority with that viewpoint, imo. Iirc, Leicester Tigers, the best supported team in England, actually returned tickets to the final.

Throwing Quins out would send a very strong anti-cheating message, but it would cost money and could further weaken the prestige of the HEC in England. The ERC would be crazy to go down that path unless it couldn't be avoided, imo.

Rugby's real problem is that in England or France there's no equivalent to a dominant team a la Manchester United, Real Madrid or whatever. When the best team in the nation could finish first or last in the same season is a problem.

The thing that defines football is that in the bigger leagues, money has basically stratified the game, which hasn't happened in rugby, and probably won't. But it'll always cause trouble for French and English participation.

Amazotheamazing

themont85 wrote: »

Pfft I thought it would enhance it if you show that kind of thing isn't on ie keep the integrity of the comp alive.

And the English do value the competition very highly, maybe the French clubs like Clermont in particular but the English do.

The English would like to win it, but they can't approach it the same way a ML club would. The years the Irish teams won it, they pretty much focussed on the HEC and let the ML off to it's own devices, no English team will ever take that risk, even though the play-off's system means they should be able to.

The fear of relegation is huge in England and it prevents them prioritising the HEC. It's a strange one, that in order to ensure they avoid relegation and qualify for Europe, they are unable to really compete in Europe, a side-effect of the money on offer I guess, and the money lost if a team goes down or fails to qualify for Europe. The league is still more important to an English team than the HEC, perhaps by necessity, no team wants to be the new Richmond or even Coventry.

Like I said, it would send out a strong message to teams not to cheat, but it wouldn't enhance the comp's standing in England.

anonymous_joe

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

The English would like to win it, but they can't approach it the same way a ML club would. The years the Irish teams won it, they pretty much focussed on the HEC and let the ML off to it's own devices, no English team will ever take that risk, even though the play-off's system means they should be able to.

The fear of relegation is huge in England and it prevents them prioritising the HEC. It's a strange one, that in order to ensure they avoid relegation and qualify for Europe, they are unable to really compete in Europe, a side-effect of the money on offer I guess, and the money lost if a team goes down or fails to qualify for Europe. The league is still more important to an English team than the HEC, perhaps by necessity, no team wants to be the new Richmond or even Coventry.

Like I said, it would send out a strong message to teams not to cheat, but it wouldn't enhance the comp's standing in England.

The competition really needs an English team to win it, from their perspective.

Or even a Welsh or Scottish team.

danthefan

Harold Some Soy wrote: »

Not really,Tom Williams did deserve a hefty ban.

He took the capsule,no one else.
He tried to blackmail his club.
He ordered his mouth be cut by a scalpel.

He got a hefty ban.

First point, true.
Second point, no he didn't. They made an offer to compensate him for the ban, he made a counter offer, which took into account his club had hung him out to dry and he was facing 12 months out of the game.
Third point, ordered!? You're having a laugh. He panicked. In fact pretty much everything he did was out of panic.

stephen_n

Tom Williams didn't look like anybody had FORCED him to do anything when he was walking off the pitch winking!

sock puppet

He comes across as a bit naive imo.

themont85

sock puppet wrote: »

He comes across as a bit naive imo.

Very naive. Reading his testament its got legal hands all over it; early on painting Richards as a autocratic bully in little anecdotes. Whilst could well and probably is true looking at Richards, he has taken a serious hit whilst Quins as a club got off. The fact that the CEO and Chairman effectively tried to gag him with money is grounds for them not to ever be involved in the game again. You'd feel sorry for the supporters here because as a club they are a laughing stock now and will be in the future. The butt of all jokes on and off the pitch.

And to Amotheamazing who said earlier their participation is crucial for money for the ERC, how come they could survive when they were in division 1? They weren't in Europe for 2 years and everything was grand. The ERC didn't kick them out imo because of legal ramifications where Quins would certainly challenge and sue in the courts. The only hope I have is that with the RFU with their own sanctions do the right thing, they have damaged the reputation of English rugby, not like individuals with Bath's case but as a club.

Trojan

I feel for Williams in all this - he was in a highly pressurised situation and I agree with the above poster who said he probably panicked. It must have been extremely stressful.

The overwhelming image we associate with the incident is him winking, I'd love to see the footage of when he went to take the capsule and dropped it - that could well give us a different picture of his state of mind, nevermind later when he asked Wendy Chapman to cut his lip. Imagine the panic with the Leinster doctor and the 4th official banging on the medical room door and the crowd going nuts outside.

It's very well to say for us to say in hindsight what he should or shouldn't have done but I'm not certain I would have done any different in the circumstances.

Depp

williams was f***ed over by the quins plain and simple, he could have said no but anyone who has played for a team will know thats easier said than done, he was right to try and blackmail the club. He did what he was told by the coach, if he didnt do it the chances are he wouldnt be picked.

ALH-06

ALH-06 wrote: »

He had to take the capsule - he didn't have a choice. Richards had already made the decision to cheat and Williams was a pawn that had to follow orders. The scalpel incident was simply an act of panic given the reaction to the incident.

It's a suitable result - Williams has been publicly shamed, meaning that players will think twice before following similar orders in the future. And Richards has been hung out to dry like the cheating f#cking c#nt he is!

Im sorry but thats bollox,maybe my moral compass is off,but there is no way in hell I would do that,I wouldnt be abnle to live with myself if my team got through because of it.

Tom Williams should walk around with his head hanging low,he is a scumbag cheat who has brought shame on himself,his family etc,Dean Richards cant be blamed for Tom Williams doing it,he didnt hold a gun to his head.

Depp

If williams had to have said no straight out to richards that was his playing career more or less over. when you play rugby you do whatever the coach tells you because you want to keep playing and you know that if you disobey your coach he has the power to stop that. williams didnt want to jeapordise his career

Trojan

Bring this back to a business environment - if your boss insists you do something, he's not the kind of guy who takes no for an answer, you have a mortgage and know that if you don't get a big promotion* in the next 3 years then you'll never get one... what then?

* England position analogy - not the best but it'll do.

Tom Williams would have had no trouble finding another club,the premiership is awash with average players,they love them.

Depp

yeah but tom williams has played for harlequins since he was like 17, when you play for a rugby club its about more than money, its about having pride in the jersey.

Stev_o

Let make it even simpler, your a small club on the rise, two years ago you were relegated into Division 1 a humiliating experience that you never want to face again. You'v got a new manager, somehow who is considered the face of your country during the late 80's and 90's. Things are stagnant for a year nothing major. Then the following season the team is being bounced around by other teams in a very established league, your half through the season and have just been hammered at home to one of the most feared teams in Europe. There's a team meeting, season changes from here on in. Things do change and suddenly your team is rising to the top of the table and in a desperate struggle for the last remaining play off you score two tries but alas it isn't enough. However the statement is made that your club is up and running.

Forward to a year, you'v just taken part in two historic victories over a European giant in the HC in which you'v scored. Your team manages to top the group and get into the QF for the first time in their history. Suddenly your feeling the pressure, you want your team to get to that final and so does everyone around. But things are taking a turn for the worse and a clean victory isn't achievable, the rules have the be bent the coach turns to you and tells you what you have to do.

So your standing there, a crowd raging all around you, your adrenaline is rushing, you know whats at stake her you know how much this club wants to win, how much you want to win.

Now do you turn your back and say no or comply?

Ciaran-Irl

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Rugby's real problem is that in England or France there's no equivalent to a dominant team a la Manchester United, Real Madrid or whatever. When the best team in the nation could finish first or last in the same season is a problem.

The thing that defines football is that in the bigger leagues, money has basically stratified the game, which hasn't happened in rugby, and probably won't. But it'll always cause trouble for French and English participation.

Don't agree. American Football has a draft system which means that any team can win the Superbowl, and they hardly have problems in terms of support.

Trojan

Stev_o wrote: »

Now do you turn your back and say no or comply?

Great way to put it - encapsulates the emotions of the moment that must have been massive.

I think the good thing from this whole scandal is that it will be a lot easier for future players to stand there in the midst of all that emotion and actually turn around and say "No, I'm not risking my career and the club's future on this - look what happened at Quins" and not be fearful of the dressing room after.

anonymous_joe

Ciaran-Irl wrote: »

Don't agree. American Football has a draft system which means that any team can win the Superbowl, and they hardly have problems in terms of support.

Wow. Yank ball. That really spread to other countries didn't it?

Riskymove

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2009/0827/1224253335001.html


the latest development could be even more serious for Quins than simply being kicked out of HC

HARLEQUINS’ FUTURE was cast into doubt last night when it emerged they could be banned from English rugby under a fresh disciplinary hearing into the Bloodgate scandal, according to the Rugby Football Union’s highest legal authority.

The RFU’s disciplinary officer, Jeff Blackett, will announce in the coming days the composition of a panel that is set to examine allegations of a cover-up involving Quins’ most senior executives.

And although refusing to prejudge the outcome, Blackett set out a range of possible punitive measures, extending to expulsion from all RFU competitions.

danthefan

Riskymove wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2009/0827/1224253335001.html


the latest development could be even more serious for Quins than simply being kicked out of HC

This is getting silly now, they've been punished so draw a line under the incident and move on imo. Dragging it on and on does nothing for the game.

Riskymove

danthefan wrote: »

This is getting silly now, they've been punished so draw a line under the incident and move on imo. Dragging it on and on does nothing for the game.

I am inclined to agree, being banned altogether from rugby would far outweight the crime, especially as it was to do with the actions of a couple of individuals

basically ruining a long-standing club is a astep too far

danthefan

Riskymove wrote: »

I am inclined to agree, being banned altogether from rugby would far outweight the crime, especially as it was to do with the actions of a couple of individuals

basically ruining a long-standing club is a astep too far

Absolutely, would be far too harsh. The RFU banning Quins would be the end of the club but I don't think it would go that far anyway as it would punish every Quins employee from the players to the cleaners, most of whom would have had nothing to do with the incident.

stephen_n

Depp wrote: »

yeah but tom williams has played for harlequins since he was like 17, when you play for a rugby club its about more than money, its about having pride in the jersey.

Hardly the best way to show pride in your club?

danthefan wrote: »

This is getting silly now, they've been punished so draw a line under the incident and move on imo. Dragging it on and on does nothing for the game.

I don't think quinns should be punished further as a club but i do believe that the directors who were involved in the attempted cover up should be held accountable and banned along with Richards!

danthefan

Surely you're getting in fuzzy jurisdiction when it comes to directors? They're not really involved in rugby, just running a business aren't they?

anonymous_joe

danthefan wrote: »

This is getting silly now, they've been punished so draw a line under the incident and move on imo. Dragging it on and on does nothing for the game.

Bingo.

This needs to end.

For one thing, Quins are hardly the club to cheat. Do we kick SARFU out of the game for sneaking John Smit back on? (Joking here mainly, props'll always need that bit more flexibility, using it is part of the game.)

stephen_n

danthefan wrote: »

Surely you're getting in fuzzy jurisdiction when it comes to directors? They're not really involved in rugby, just running a business aren't they?

Yeah but ultimately they are responsible for what goes on in a club and they were defenitely involved in trying to cover this up. I think they are more responsible than the club itself!

danthefan

stephen_n wrote: »

Yeah but ultimately they are responsible for what goes on in a club and they were defenitely involved in trying to cover this up. I think they are more responsible than the club itself!

I don't doubt that, just wondering what the RFU could do to them if anything.

Poncherello

The worst thing about the whole thing for me was that after Willaims had plenty of time to think about what he wanted to do, had all the legal advice, could have spoken to anyone he wanted privately, he still decided to take the deal from Quins and it was only after Richards resigned did he come clean completely(which was his only option at that stage)

Trojan

I agree that it's time for them to draw a line under it now.

pisslips

Someone earlier said that they wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they had done what Williams did and it had led to them winning the semi-final.

Which I find hard to believe. I would be ecstatic.I would think,"Jeez we were fair lucky to get through that, really had to do some dodgy **** there but sure sometimes you have to do what you have to do".......It would practically go down in folklore at the club, how Richards sneakily masterminded a drop goal and pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Of course they would have been happy. They would have been delighted. I would do it too, no lie.

You'd do anything to win a big game, anything bar potentially kill or permanently injur someone.Like who the hell, is thinking in the middle of a match,"Well, is this the moral thing to do?", if thats the case you shouldn't be picked!

Like in those high intensity situations people push themselves to crazy psychological levels, whereby they think, "I don't think I can go on, if I hit this I won't get back up, I'm sure, my arms have no feeling so I hope noone throws me a pass and I can't get a grip for this scrum, this is gonna hurt, it's 50/50 whether I pop my shoulder again here but ther's no subs but I have to......", I honestly don't thikn they'd give a **** if they won a game because they "cheated".

It's easy take the higher moral ground now.Fair enough It was Richard's responsibility and he was punished.

Stev_o

pisslips wrote: »

Someone earlier said that they wouldn't be able to live with themselves if they had done what Williams did and it had led to them winning the semi-final.

Which I find hard to believe. I would be ecstatic.I would think,"Jeez we were fair lucky to get through that, really had to do some dodgy **** there but sure sometimes you have to do what you have to do".......It would practically go down in folklore at the club, how Richards sneakily masterminded a drop goal and pulled the wool over everyone's eyes. Of course they would have been happy. They would have been delighted. I would do it too, no lie.

You'd do anything to win a big game, anything bar potentially kill or permanently injur someone.Like who the hell, is thinking in the middle of a match,"Well, is this the moral thing to do?", if thats the case you shouldn't be picked!

Like in those high intensity situations people push themselves to crazy psychological levels, whereby they think, "I don't think I can go on, if I hit this I won't get back up, I'm sure, my arms have no feeling so I hope noone throws me a pass and I can't get a grip for this scrum, this is gonna hurt, it's 50/50 whether I pop my shoulder again here but ther's no subs but I have to......", I honestly don't thikn they'd give a **** if they won a game because they "cheated".

It's easy take the higher moral ground now.Fair enough It was Richard's responsibility and he was punished.

We need more people to share the same view as this ! Agree with you 100%

Well then that says alot about you two.

Stev_o

Harold Some Soy wrote: »

Well then that says alot about you two.

Rugby isn't a honest mans game.

Im presuming when you played then you never took advatange of a dodgy ref who wasn't quick on the offside line, hands in rucks, forward passes etc

Honest teams don't win trophies.

Stev_o

Stev_o wrote: »

Rugby isn't a honest mans game.

Im presuming when you played then you never took advatange of a dodgy ref who wasn't quick on the offside line, hands in rucks, forward passes etc

Honest teams don't win trophies.

There are degrees,hands in rucks and being offside cannot in any way be compared to using a blood capsule and having your mouth cut.

anonymous_joe

Harold Some Soy wrote: »

There are degrees,hands in rucks and being offside cannot in any way be compared to using a blood capsule and having your mouth cut.

I'll be honest, I've cheated when playing football with my mates. Obviously you can;t dive without a ref, but you can pull people back, etc. All manner of silly little stuff.

Why? Because winning fcuking rocks!

They're pros, who are paid to win, not to play. Morally, Williams owes it to his team to do everything he can to win. That involves cheating as much as you can get away with.

Stev_o

Harold Some Soy wrote: »

There are degrees,hands in rucks and being offside cannot in any way be compared to using a blood capsule and having your mouth cut.

It's all the same though, it's all making a unfair and illegal advantage to your team without getting caught.

Cheating is cheating and rugby is filled with willing players that cheat to help their team win, i just hate the assumption that the press are making that rugby is a clean game where everyone has a rule book in their pocket to make sure they follow the rules.

toomevara

You know the sport's in trouble when it starts making the non-sports pages of the newspapers. An interesting (if scathing) precis of the whole farrago from todays Guardian G2 supplement;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/aug/31/blood-cheating-drugs-rugby-union

For those too lazy or too jaded by the whole episode to bother reading, the final paragraph is as fine a summation as any I've come across;

What will trouble the guardians of rugby is that the cheating brought to light in the Bloodgate saga goes right to the heart of rugby's sense of self, its righteous and sustaining code of honour.

Take away that sense of fair play and officer-class self-regulation, and rugby starts to look a little odd, a little like men pushing each other for money. As the new season starts, this is a sport that faces fresh challenges. Not just the usual round of revenue-gathering, stadium revamps, but things such as remembering what it was all supposed to be about in the first place; not to mention finding out if that old, deep rugby soul is still intact.