Dean Richards

[Greg Collins]

I feel slightly queasy and uneasy and not really sure what to make of it all...

One year into a three year ban and now he's allowed to work as a 'consultant'?!? On a technicality? Where is my beloved game going....?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...rds-returns-to-rugby-a-proven-liar-and-cheat/

 

[KML1]

Decidedly dodgy. But I guess that under restriction of practices, there will be some legislative reason why they can't stop him being involved outside the ban on his coaching, etc etc

Jeff B ain't silly so sure he had reason to allow this.

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

I’m not happy about this. As much as I admired him as a player, what he did was out of order and really was a case of ‘bringing the game into disrepute’. He should serve the full ban and come back having shown he’s learnt. It seems to me that in finding a ‘back route’ into the game before the ban’s served, he’s making a mockery of the system and doing nothing to improve his own tarnished reputation.

It’s a shame to see such a great player in this situation, but a ban should be strictly enforced at any level of the game.

 

[chopper15]

BM;see article referenced below;

I told you so. I usually have little time for those who revel in schadenfreude, but this time I am enjoying the public discomfort felt by the officials from European Rugby Cup Ltd and the International Rugby Board over their inability to draft and impose a uniformly binding ban on Dean Richards, who has since carried out consultancy work for Worcester, for his part in the Bloodgate affair.

It would not be thus had it not been for the disgraceful way ERC ignored repeated and legitimate questions about serious deficiencies in their prosecution of Richards et al, refusing to front up while hoping it would all go away. It would be different had the IRB, situated in the same Dublin office block, not simply rubber-stamped the whole thing and refused to investigate such serious concerns.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...n-Richards-ban-was-always-fatally-flawed.html

 

[stuart3826]

Lets just get this clear - and I stress I am in no way supporting Dean Richards, because I'd rather hammer my tongue wafer thin with a meat tenderiser.

Dean Richards was not involved in consultancy work for Worcester. The club had appointed a consultant to look at the reasons why Worcester have been at the bottom reaches of the GP for the past several years and subsequently been relegated. That consultant used DR to review his report. before doing so, clarification was sought by the club as to whether this would contravene his ban - which is for acting as a coach or DoR. The RFU confirmed that as this was outwith his ban, he could carry out this work.

But of course, the truth doesn't sell so many papers, does it?

And comments about restriction of trade - I'm with you. He's stepped out of line, he's been sacked and banned from his usual trade, but he's still entitled to earn a living. Let's leave it go, shall we?

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

Lets just get this clear - and I stress I am in no way supporting Dean Richards, because I'd rather hammer my tongue wafer thin with a meat tenderiser.

Dean Richards was not involved in consultancy work for Worcester. The club had appointed a consultant to look at the reasons why Worcester have been at the bottom reaches of the GP for the past several years and subsequently been relegated. That consultant used DR to review his report. before doing so, clarification was sought by the club as to whether this would contravene his ban - which is for acting as a coach or DoR. The RFU confirmed that as this was outwith his ban, he could carry out this work.

But of course, the truth doesn't sell so many papers, does it?

And comments about restriction of trade - I'm with you. He's stepped out of line, he's been sacked and banned from his usual trade, but he's still entitled to earn a living. Let's leave it go, shall we?

So writing a report is consultancy work, but reviewing that report isn't 'consultancy work'?

I do consultancy work. If you ask me to review a document I review it, then send you an invoice for something which will likely be described as 'consultancy work'.

Yes, he was involved in rugby. Reviewing a report is such a broad term it could mean anything from checking the spelling and correct use of header records to almost rewriting the text. Any more than a spell check wouldn't require someone with Dean Richards' abilities, so he must have been involved in the content. Therefore, he was doing consultancy work for a rugby club, albeit indirectly. how the RFU failed to realise that is a bit strange.

No, don't leave it go. We could debate whether the sentence was too harsh, but debating whether is should be applied seems disingenuous; he did the deed so should pay the dues. Nobody is banning him from earning a living; he could go and get another job, just not in rugby.

As I said, I find it sad and I admired him enormously as a player, but I think if the sentence is passed it must be carried out.

 

[Phil E]

Therefore, he was doing consultancy work for a rugby club, albeit indirectly. how the RFU failed to realise that is a bit strange.

I don't think they did fail to realise that.

But I think they "did" realise that there was no way they could stop him and if it went to court he would have won.

 

[Taff]

.. Dean Richards was not involved in consultancy work for Worcester. The club had appointed a consultant .. That consultant used DR to review his report.

Lets just assume for a minute that working (call it "reviewing" if you like, but as I assume he was paid for it, I just prefer to call it "working") for a consultant isn't consultancy work. As I understand it, he was given permission to work errr .... sorry "review" the consultants report as a one off. Now that he's carried out this one-off job, what else is there left for him to do?

.. And comments about restriction of trade - I'm with you. He's stepped out of line, he's been sacked and banned from his usual trade, but he's still entitled to earn a living.

He is of course entitled to earn a living, but outside the rugby world, quite literally as I understand it was a worldwide ban.

 

[stuart3826]

No, don't leave it go. We could debate whether the sentence was too harsh, but debating whether is should be applied seems disingenuous; he did the deed so should pay the dues. Nobody is banning him from earning a living; he could go and get another job, just not in rugby.

So given he was banned from acting as a coach or DoR, would you then sentence a rapist to 15 years, and then change his sentence once he's served 3 months to life? No, you wouldn't. he wasn't banned from consultancy, jut like he wasn't banned from after dinner speaking. He's had plenty of speaking engagements, why shouldn't he consult?

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

Lets just assume for a minute that working (call it "reviewing" if you like, but as I assume he was paid for it, I prefer to call it "working") for a consultant isn't consultancy work. As I understand it, he was given permission to work errr .... sorry "review" the consultants report as a one off. Now that he's carried out this one-off job, what else is there left for him to do?

‘Review’ the next document produced by a freelance coach hired in to select a team and set out tactics for a league match?

In other words, replace some names on the team sheet, rewrite some line out calls, redraw a couple of set piece moves and ‘edit’ the pre-match talk.

Oh, and enclose some theatre blood tablets in the envelope.

As I said, ‘reviewing’ is a very broad term.

 

[Taff]

‘Review’ the next document produced by a freelance coach hired in to select a team and set out tactics for a league match? In other words, replace some names on the team sheet, rewrite some line out calls, redraw a couple of set piece moves and ‘edit’ the pre-match talk. Oh, and enclose some theatre blood tablets in the envelope. As I said, ‘reviewing’ is a very broad term.

Exactly. A half competent lawyer could make a good case of maintaining that all coaches are "consultants". TBH the thing just doesn't feel right. In my book, you serve your time THEN you get back in, and probably be welcomed back (I don't have a grudge against DR) but only after you serve your time.

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

So given he was banned from acting as a coach or DoR, would you then sentence a rapist to 15 years, and then change his sentence once he's served 3 months to life? No, you wouldn't. he wasn't banned from consultancy, jut like he wasn't banned from after dinner speaking. He's had plenty of speaking engagements, why shouldn't he consult?

Because he is consulting on issues to do with rugby; he 'reviewed' a report that was written with the express purpose of helping Worcester to get back into the premiership. I'd be very surprised if he was reviewing a report about seating plans for the stadium, although it's possible, and he probably wasn't reviewing something about the selection of draught beers in the clubhouse bar. He was involved in advising a rugby club how to get promotion. That's precisely the sort of thing he was banned from doing, but the ban was obviously so badly worded that it wouldn't stand up to legal scrutiny.

 

[OB..]

Given stuart3826's description, the significant difference in law is that he worked with the consultants who had been researching Worcester, and did not work with Worcester himself ie did not talk to people at Worcester.

If he started working with a bank at which Worcester had an account, would the ban mean he could not deal with that account? And so on. You can devise scenarios with all degrees of remoteness. Somewhere you have to draw a line in the sand.

This one is a little close, but nowhere near as bad as I originally thought.

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

Exactly. A half competent lawyer could make a good case of maintaining that all coaches are "consultants. TBH the thing just doesn't feel right. In my book, you serve your time THEN you get back in, and probably be welcomed back (I don't have a grudge against DR) but only after you serve your time.

That’s precisely what they are. That’s why I’m selective in listening to them. That’s not out of disrespect for the coach, but a practical approach; the coach gives me and my team help in training to win matches, but on the pitch it’s me as pack leader and the captain who’ll take the decisions. We’ve been advised and trained by the coach, but we are the ones who take the decisions, and the players execute what we’ve decided. Or they just drop the ball if they’re centres, but that’s another matter.

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

Given stuart3826's description, the significant difference in law is that he worked with the consultants who had been researching Worcester, and did not work with Worcester himself ie did not talk to people at Worcester.

If he started working with a bank at which Worcester had an account, would the ban mean he could not deal with that account? And so on. You can devise scenarios with all degrees of remoteness. Somewhere you have to draw a line in the sand.

This one is a little close, but nowhere near as bad as I originally thought.

That line is rugby. If they've asked him for colour advice on their choice of carpeting for the hospitality boxes, I wouldn't have a problem, but why would Dean Richards be hired for that? But the moment some aspect of season strategy, match tactics, squad recruitment or selection, appointment of coaching staff and such is even mentioned in the document, he's involved in rugby, and that's what he's banned from doing.

 

[OB..]

That line is rugby.

Wouldn't it be nice if the world were that simple

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

Wouldn't it be nice if the world were that simple

Of course it isn’t. In this case it seems that the ban was so badly worded as to give him a back route into rugby.

It’s a shame; if he’d come back after apologizing and demonstrating he’s changed his attitude and behaviour I could then support a decision to reinstate him earlier on some sort of ‘good behaviour’ clause; after all, people can learn from their mistakes and come back as better individuals. But he hasn’t done that; he’s found a back route into rugby and got away with it on the wording of the ban, which suggests to me he’s taken no lessons from all this and will continue to cheat his way through the game.

I'd love to see DR back in rugby; my goodness, how England could use his knowledge now. But he should come back the right way; either after serving his ban, or after demonstrating in some other unconnected field of work that he's a better person who won't bully and cheat his way through the game.

 

[Davet]

If he's banned from coaching or acting as DoR then he shouldn't do so.

Oh - he didn't.

If Worcester checked and it was Ok then whats the problems?

Or do we want to extend the boundaries of his punishment post fact?

 

[Mich the Blind Side]

If he's banned from coaching or acting as DoR then he shouldn't do so.

Oh - he didn't.

If Worcester checked and it was Ok then whats the problems?

The problem is the RFU approving it. The other problem is the poor wording of his ban. And of course the big problem is the dishonourable attitude in weasling a way into something he shouldn't be doing, when he may actually have got a reprieve and more public sympathy (and more respect from players) if he'd demonstrated some remorse and some self reflection.

 

[chopper15]

But as BM, a qualified solicitor, pointed out;

It would not be thus had it not been for the disgraceful way ERC ignored repeated and legitimate questions about serious deficiencies in their prosecution of Richards et al, refusing to front up while hoping it would all go away.

So why have a go at Richards?