How to bring shame on a game with one cut lip

Whenever the media sticks the suffix 'gate' on the end of a word, then those at the centre of the action know it can't be good. Ever since former US President Richard Nixon was implicated in the Watergate scandal, it has become a popular tool with the media to denigrate the perpetrators. And so it was the case when Harlequins Rugby Union were caught up in one of the biggest scandals to hit our sporting shores for some time. First, let's set the scene. On 12 April last year, during the Heineken Cup quarter-final against Irish outfit Leinster, Harlequins winger Tom Williams was replaced with blood gushing from his mouth. This enabled Quins director of rugby Dean Richards to bring on fly-half Nick Evans as a substitute (the Kiwi himself had left the field earlier in the game with an injury). At first sight, this seemed like a genuine ailment for Williams, with the only option being to bring on a replacement).
But, on closer inspection, there was forces far more underhand at work. The reality of situation was that Williams bit in to a blood capsule, as he knew the only way he was able to leave the field would be with a blood injury. Without Evans, Quins wouldn't have had a recognised place kicker on the field to attempt to sink a crucial penalty which could make the difference. Thankfully (for sport and fair play everywhere) Evans missed his kick, and Harlequins lost 6-5 - but that was far from the end of the saga.
This week, the doctor at the centre of the scandal, Dr Wendy Chapman, has been speaking in a hearing of the General Medical Council about the 'shame' of her role in the scandal, after Williams pushed her into cutting his lip to make the injury look authentic. After the match against Leinster, the story quickly unravelled and spiralled out of control. What started as a huge cover-up soon saw all parties involved trying to protect their own back. It started with a stoic defence of their position by Richards, after Leinster expressed doubts about the legality of their actions: 'if they don't know the rules, that's not my problem,' he said in the immediate aftermath, but it was Williams who was the original scapegoat. In July, the winger was given a 12 month ban for faking a blood injury by the English Rugby Commission, which also exonerated Richards, Chapman and team physio Steph Brennan of any wrongdoing.
Unfortunately for Quins, this sorry tale was far from over. Less than a month later, Williams spoke to The Telegraph about what actually happened on that day in April. Now far from being a rare show of penance from a professional sportsmen, the winger was trying to save his own skin as much as was possible. He got his 12 month ban cut to just four months, butt the repercussions for Quins were vast. Richards, who had recently quit his post as director of rugby, was given a three month ban from any involvement in rugby union worldwide. This will probably stop Richards from taking such a calculated, scheming gamble again (if he even returns to professional coaching again). Former physio Brennan, was banned for two years. He lost his new job as England's physio less than four months after taking up the role - it's thought that as he entered the field to 'treat' Williams, his position was untenable. After the confession from Williams, Harlequins fine was increased from £215,000 with half suspended to £258,000, to be paid in full. For a football club that would be a size able amount (when there is any kind of serious crowd trouble or racism, the sum is barely a fraction of such a figure), but for a rugby club, it was a huge dent into their income. It soon emerged that the Rugby Football Union were investigating the involvement of Richards and Brennan with other potential blood-faking incidents in recent seasons, after Williams suggested he had been the ringleader behind this particular unscrupulous tactic.
For so long rugby has held itself in such lofty esteem above it's football cousin, as the standard-bearer of fair play, both on and off the pitch. But the farcical (and cynical) events of 'bloodgate' must surely end that facade, at least for the time being. To their credit, the authorities took tough action against the perpetrators - no-one went unpunished, and it is likely anyone thinking of 'bending the rules' in a similar manner are going to think twice. Rugby's good name is being dragged through the mud. While it is pleasing that those smug individuals at the Twickenham Stoop have been brought to Justice - Williams was photographed smirking and winking to his team-mates after his fake blood injury, and Richards still failed to show any remorse by stating 'it was a farcical situation, it really was. It didn't pan out particularly well on thee day' - but for rugby in general, it was a dark, dark day.
But maybe as rugby catches up with football in terms of a professional attitude, money and celebrity (the likes of Gavin Henson and Danny Cipriani have been as likely to be in the pages of OK! or Hello as the sports pages of newspapers) there are a few more unsavoury elements which will creep into the game bestowed to the upper-classes. There may not be constant bickering to the referees or constant moaning by the players in the press. But I have never heard of an incident quite so calculating and pre-meditated as the one portrayed by Harlequins, although this is apparently not the first time fake blood has been used to give one team an advantage. A former England coach claimed that this tactic first started as far back as 2001, while Leicester coach and former England hooker Richard Cockerill admitted stitches in his finger have been ripped to fake a blood injury.
In the light of Dr Chapman's hearing at the GMC, Harlequins indiscretions are back in the spotlight. In a bid to save her own career (she was suspended, without pay, from her position as a consultant at Maidstone Hospital in Kent September, and must wait for the verdict of her fit for practice enquiry before returning to work), she has played herself as the victim. Michael Hayton, representing Chapman, defended, 'Tom Williams played a part in it. Dean Richards played a part in it. Dr Wendy Chapman did not. She was not part to the planning and the carrying out of the cheating. She had no knowledge or active participation in it.' The general consensus is that Chapman was 'collateral' and was pressured into her actions by Richards, but more pertinently, Williams as the winger began to panic about whether the authorities would believe the veracity of his story.
This whole sorry story is a damning indictment on fair play and honesty in the sport. Harlequins Chief Executive Mark Evans said in the aftermath of the punishments, 'some fans will feel it is a terrible episode which makes them ashamed of the club they loved. Unfortunately for the sport, it is more than just Harlequins which has been brought into disrepute.