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.