Mark Evans, the Harlequins chief executive, could face misconduct charges next week, despite being cleared of any part in the “Bloodgate” affair by an independent appeal.
The Times understands that Evans’s role and his evidence is being “actively discussed” by ERC, which will announce on Tuesday whether it intends to take further action amid speculation that the full story has yet to be told and that other incriminating facts are almost certain to emerge.
It is believed that the governing body of European club rugby is looking seriously not only at Evans, but several individuals connected with the scandal. Among them are Charles Jillings, the former Harlequins chairman, and Wendy Chapman, the match-day doctor.
The news will be of concern to Evans, who has successfully distanced himself from any culpability in the scandal, the full extent of which, he has said, he was made aware only on August 3.
It comes after the publication of a confidential letter documenting details of correspondence between the lawyers of Tom Williams, the player whose substitution because of a feigned blood injury in a Heineken Cup tie initiated the scandal, and Harlequins over potential compensation to the player.
Advertisement
Damian Hopley, the chief executive of the Professional Rugby Players’ Association, which has supported Williams, made clear his anger at the leak, which Harlequins yesterday refused to confirm or deny emanated from the Twickenham Stoop.
“I am surprised and disappointed that this isolated document has come to light and been put into the public domain when it was part of a series of without prejudice letters that had commenced with the club making an offer to Tom and were intended to be confidential,” Hopley said.
The Times has been told that the document was but one piece of correspondence taken out of context from a bundle of ten that found its way into print. Those close to Williams wonder whether its release is part of a vendetta against the player.
If that is the case, it is a tactic that will surely backfire. Although Williams does not cover himself in glory, it must not be forgotten who the real culprits are: Dean Richards, the director of rugby at the time; Steph Brennan, then club physiotherapist, for putting him in the situation and then exerting such incredible pressure on an impressionable young man who was not in a position to resist the demand to bite into the joke-shop blood capsule.
Whether Williams did or did not seek a higher level of compensation is largely immaterial because it was Harlequins who originally made the offer. The club have denied it was an attempt to buy his silence. It was also Harlequins who initiated the premeditated cheating, the fallout from which has had such devastating consequences.
Advertisement
As part of the compensation package agreed with the club for the invidious position in which Williams was placed, the player has been given a new four-year contract and will receive a public, written apology.
Although Williams has the full support of the Harlequins playing squad, he finds himself in an uncomfortable position with Evans as his chief executive. It was Evans who made clear to Williams the consequences of a full disclosure of the facts to the appeal hearing.
None of this will surely escape the ERC lawyers and their board, which will reconvene in a conference call on Tuesday. By then it will have all the information it requires to decide whether it needs to charge any other individuals with misconduct.
It has taken legal soundings over the extent of its jurisdiction, after fining Harlequins £260,000 and suspending two individuals, Richards and Brennan.
One primary decision will be whether, in the light of what it sees as obfuscation by the club, it takes action or hands the case over to the RFU. The union’s task force charged with improving the game’s image holds its first meeting on Monday and Twickenham is eager to come to grips with the problem.
Advertisement
Richards, meanwhile, will be considering what his next step should be. Various advisers will have suggested an appeal through the civil courts over his three-year ban, which could be a costly route.