[article]Dean Richards makes quick comeback less than a year after 'Bloodgate'

RuggieBear

from the times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/rugby_union/article7137479.ece

After serving less than 12 months of his three-year ban in the wake of the “Bloodgate” scandal at Harlequins, Dean Richards has been allowed to return to the sport after successfully challenging the terms of his suspension.

The Times can reveal that Richards, 46, the former England No 8, has been given dispensation to act as an independent adviser in the game. In that capacity, he has been instrumental in helping Worcester Warriors to select Richard Hill, the former England scrum half and captain, as their next head coach. Hill’s appointment will be officially ratified at a press conference at Sixways today.

It is a remarkable development and the latest and probably most surprising twist to the unseemly saga that so besmirched the image of rugby union last summer. It led to a £258,000 fine for the club and the resignation of both Richards, who as director of rugby took responsibility for the use of a fake blood capsule during a Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster, and Charles Jillings, the chairman.

During the past month, Richards and his legal team have sought clarification on the exact nature of his suspension, which was imposed last August by an ERC appeals panel. It stated that Richards, who was charged after originally escaping censure, was to be prevented from taking part in any European competition and that all unions should apply that sanction to their own domestic competitions.

That appeared to be a watertight, worldwide ruling, and was taken to mean that Richards could not have any involvement in the game in any capacity until 2012.

However, he felt that the terms of the ban were open to a different interpretation and, with his lawyers, asked the RFU for clarification on what he could and could not do. The union consulted with the IRB, the world governing body, and ruled that the terms of the suspension related only directly to coaching or acting as a director of rugby. He was therefore free to pursue a role as a consultant.

Judge Jeff Blackett, the RFU’s disciplinary officer, told The Times last night: “Dean Richards asked me to clarify the terms of the judgment, which I have done in consultation with the International Rugby Board. We are content that in his capacity as an adviser he does not breach the terms of the judgment.”

After that ruling, made within the past few weeks, Richards was able to help Worcester in their search for a successor to Mike Ruddock, who resigned after the club were relegated from the Guinness Premiership.

Cecil Duckworth, the Worcester chairman and benefactor, drew up a shortlist of eight candidates before opting for Hill, whose record of steering Bristol back to the top flight in 2005 was a decisive factor in landing the job. Since resigning from the Memorial Stadium towards the end of the 2008-09 season, Hill, 49, has worked with Chalon-sur-Saône in France.

It is understood that Richards will continue his advisory role at Worcester and The Times has also been told that at the end of his suspension, the club may well be prepared to install him as their director of rugby on a long-term basis.

It has been made clear, too, that throughout the process, Richards had insisted that he did not want to contravene the terms of his ban and only began to act on behalf of Hill, with whom he played 12 times for England, once it was confirmed that he was legally able to do so.

Hill takes charge at Sixways with the job of guiding Worcester back to the Premiership at the first attempt. The vacancy attracted more than 30 applicants.

sigh... no place for morals in pro sports.

themont85

Yes bad form from Worcester, clearly circumnavigating the ban.

Although, with us nearly one year removed from the farce, I do think Richards got a disproportionate amount of the punishment. Quins should have been punished more, i.e. No Heinken Cup for a season. A 12 month ban for Richards would have been fairer considering what the other parties got.

Still though, poor from Worcester.

stephen_n

That's what solicitors get paid to do I suppose, don't think it's a reflection on pro rugby but more on the legal system!

thomond2006

The RFU have come out and said that he cannot act as consultant in any way.

As themont said, it's bad form on Worcester's part.

Disgusting