Stephen Jones has a go at Leinster

John R I suspect that if the Hipkiss substitution happened against an Irish side, in particular Leinster, which resulted in Leicester's best kicker coming back onto the ground to win the penalty shoot out, the ERC would have started an investigation. The outcry in the Irish press and general pressure in Dublin would have made it impossible to ignore. To my mind there is an agenda and I question the evenhandedness of the present enquiry.

"Not letting a Leinster doctor into a dressing room to inspect a player as he was entitled to do would kinda raise anyone’s suspiciions." Actually, the Leinster doctor is not entitled to examine opposition players - that was a bit of misinformation by Cheika. "Can you explain to me how the ERC are able to produce and circulate TW’s submission yet can not produce and circulate the earlier submissions and judgements? Obviously there is an agenda by the ERC of tactical release of information." Whilst I'm don't necessarily agree that the ERC has an ulterior motive, it would seem as though the gradual feeding of information, evidence and judgements to the media is what has kept this story going and led to increasingly hysterical demands for further and further punishment. Conpiracy theorists might like to note that the ERC Disciplinary commissioner is a Dublin man. This kind of fakery has gone on for a decade, and there have been very high profile examples that surely required investigation (Jimmy Cowan in the 3N last year, for example). The authorities have consistently turned a blind eye and never investigated anyone before. Until Quins try it on when playing against a Dublin side, and the Dubliner in charge of discipline at the ERC goes after them in a big way, not only ordering the first investigation of it's kind, but also appealing his own panel's initial judgement because he didn't think it went far enough.

Pothale Can you explain to me how the ERC are able to produce and circulate TW's submission yet can not produce and circulate the earlier submissions and judgements? Obviously there is an agenda by the ERC of tactical release of information. By the way the 5th official and the ERC were in the changing room when TW was examined. The sooner the entire information is released a balanced judgement can be made. I doubt it, but the ERC should also investigate the circumstances surrounding the Hipkiss substitution. The match was televised and the reintroduction of Duprey at the end of normal time was instrumental in Leicester winning the penalty shoot out. At the time the commentators made various comments about the questionable nature of the blood substitution.

Final thought on this. Just read Tom Wiliams statement to the Appeal committee on what transpired. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01468/Bloodgate_Tom_Will_1468990a.pdf I think this covers in fine detail what transpired, and who instigated what, and what led to the fake being uncovered. Interestingly, according to Williams, it wasn't Leinster doctor who wanted to see him after the game, it was the 5th Official and a member of the ERC who at that pointed commented on seeing the blood on Williams leg - "that's not blood'. So ERC was involved right from the outset.

Ian Methinks you're seeing dark forces where there aren't any. What difference does it make how long Owens took to decide if it was a blood injury? Leinster initially protested the grounds for Evens being brought back on. That was the first law being bent. Until Owens told them that he had been tactically subbed, not replaced. Then they moved onto the circs of the blood injury. Wallace out of order? Why - cos he spoke the truth? He said it immediately. You trying to insinuate that despite being faced with such evidence, the ERC decided to drag it out? I suspect the vehement denials by Quins had something to do with it when Richards has publicly said that he knew the thing was going to come back on them as Williams walked off the pitch. He lied directly on camera after the match, despite knowing at that point, the thing was going to unravel. Much better for him to have acknowledged something at that point. Let's be real clear - Quins could very easily have won the match through Evans getting a drop kick or penalty. If that had happened, where would we be? I don't doubt that skulduggery has gone on in the game - personally I wasn't aware that faking blood injuries occurred as often as they've been recently reported but that's ignorance on my part. Not letting a Leinster doctor into a dressing room to inspect a player as he was entitled to do would kinda raise anyone's suspiciions. Quins have only their own behaviour to blame for this - Richards admitted as much as soon as he saw Williams fake limping his way off the pitch. His decision to fake a story subsequently and deny wrongdoing was what landed them in hot water, and the ERC decision to smoke them out with the long Williams' ban was the only way forward once they were faced with denials. Trying to put a spin on this as Leinster pressure on the ERC is avoiding the reality of how amateurish and naive the attempt was in the first place - and the apparent level of denial that followed it, despite the world and its mother knowing they had cheated. The ERC didn't need any pressure from Leinster. The public outcry was unavoidable. However, enough of that. I do feel sorry for Quins supporters who have been let down by how the club has responded. And it looks like the story isn't over yet.

Jones said in one of his blogs during the lion's tour that he couldn't respond to some posts.... because he couldn't spend all his time "winding up the Kiwis and the Irish". Ity is quite deliberate - by his own admission - and once you get that on board it is faintly amusing.

Pothale Sounds like an Irish spin. I was there, Nigel Owens the ref took an age to decide that it was a blood substitution so Evans could come back onto the pitch. The directors in the stand and the Leinster coach and immediate staff were going ape s**t. They had a suspicion that some skullduggery was going on. Paul Wallace in the Sky box was out of order as his comments bore no relation to what was actually shown on the TV. He had obviously seen the unbroadcast footage. If everybody else had seen the unbroadcast footage then the Quins case would have been weaker and they probably would have had to admit guilt. It would have saved alot of cost and adverse publicity for union. It seems to me that the ERC pressurised by Leinster in Dublin wanted to make a case and drag it out to illustrate their power base. As for Cheika, you could tell from his post match interview he choose his words very carefully. To see he saw nothing is nonsense as he was very close to the incident. He was standing next to Dean as the ref inspected the "injury". To my mind it is an Irish stitch up in the way the whole manner was handled. I have no problem with Quins being found guilty. I question the penalties. Is a false blood sustitution really worse than an intentional attempt to threaten a players future life and career through eye gouging? I think not!! The RFU have got the balance right. For far to long these incidences have been swept under the carpet and an open forum will allow it be debated rationally with regulations to follow. Perhaps as Leinster were so convinced that Quins has transgressed, I would like to kinow whether they have been involved in any dubious substitutions themselves. I suspect the answer is yes but they wouldn't admit it. By the way the Leinster supporters were wonderful and the post match craic was great. It is just a pity that the ERC pressurised decided not to release the unbroadcast footage, as it would have gone to the heart of the matter and brought a quick conclusion. Perhaps it is a glory chain for Mr O'Connor.

See - everyone agrees. Forward-thinking sums it up perfectly. Must write to John O'Neill and his NZ lackeys straight away....grumble, grumble.....I just know those pesky Australians are behind the whole thing.....probably don't have any spare props left to put on the field...after that Baxter fellow.....mutter, mutter....

Yep, yet another radical, forward thinking proposal from those modernists at RFU shot down by the rigid, entrenched-in-the -past SH unions.

I will assume that was said tongue in cheeks, pots, or we can start the whole ELVs argument again ... :)

Luddites. Absolute kick-inspired, boring stodgy Luddites.

Well I did say some. But that sounds bloody useless, KO, if it's optional. Typical SH unions. As soon you try to bring in new Laws that will benefit the game, they seek to undermine them. Huh - some things never change.

Aha... but have they?! The extra propping position is optional, with the Kiwis already suggesting they won't take advantage of the new law. Personally, I think it makes sense from a tactical point of view. What better way to take advantage of a game by bringing on a pair of props, or even an entire front row, around the 60 minute mark. I wouldn't fancy seeing Payne, Hartley and White trot out on to the field if I was a tiring John Smit, for example. Jones is just bringing this game up because he is a fully loved up member of the Lewsey-Dallaglio-Shaw Love Club.

On the other hand, I'd agree with Stephen Jones about the irony of the uncontested scrums, and accusations of cheating against Leinster. It is ironic, even if not proved or substantiated, against Leinster. Uncontested scrums are a blight on the game. Thankfully, IRB has taken some action on it.

Oh I'll dive right into that one, Ian, even if Dara is too polite to respond. Leinster raised their initial strenuous objections to the substitution because Evans was going back on, not because of the blood injury. If you watch the clip of the incident, it is clear that Nigel Owens has to come over to the sideline to check and then explain the somewhat obscure Exception to the Law allowing a tactically replaced player to go back on for a blood sub to the linesman and to the assembled Leinster staff. the Sky commentators couldn't figure out how Evans could go back on, since he'd been injured. When Leinster found that the substitution was 'legit' under the Laws, they then got suspicious of how it had been arranged. And of course, there are plenty in the game who knew this kind of thing happened - same as any other club. Their doctor demanded to see the player and was kept out of a locked dressing room, whilst inside they were cutting Tom Williams mouth to cover up. Cheika in his post match interview when asked about it, said he didn't see any blood but the ref made the ruling - which wasn't what I would have said, if I suspected that the injury had been faked. I'd have said there seemed to be an awful lot of blood for a mouth wound. The ERC couldn't but take action when the footage of Williams winking was shown on TV directly after the match along with Paul Wallace's comments that he had seen Williams take something from his sock. Williams river of blood face was in all the papers the next day, and I remember commenting on it on here and you said the pictures clearly showed Williams was bleeding and there was nothing to the story. If you want to accuse the ERC of something is that sometimes it doesn't take any pressure to respond to an incident that was so blatantly in the public eye. Sometimes, you just can't ignore it.

Dara I think the RFU have got it right. They are calling a stop. setting up a task force to crack on and give recommendations how best to deal with these issues. They must act quickly although I believe the bloodgate incident will have an immediate effect with all physios emptying their medical bags and clubs being whiter than white in the immediate future.

Gosh I couldn't speculate. It's impossible to know the background to these things. I'm only commenting on what is in the public domain.

Mmm... can't comment on his doping work, so I shall take your word for it, Dara.

Well I'll take your word for it on the spelling but Walsh's work on doping in sport is cutting edge and important. He puts himself at risk in a way that few journalists do.

Dara On another article on the roar "is cheating rife in rugby union" I wrote "Another thought reverting to “bloodgate”, Leinster obviously spotted the faking. I would suggest they have had experience of seeing or using themselves such faking opportunities to gain advantage as to how were they sure of their ground when it could only be clearly seen through TV. I would also ask why the ERC reacted post the Quins game, the ERC being based in Dublin, yet did not question the dubious substitutiion for a blood injury of Hipkiss for Dupry in an earlier Heineken Cup between Leicester and Cardiff." I must say if you look at the subsequent actions of O'Connor with regard to Quins, when an Irish side was involved it does seem to be too convenient than when a similar questionable incident took place in an earlier tie. Presumably he was put under enormous pressure to act probably might I suggest locally and through the national Irish press. I wouldn't dare suggest Leinster may have leaned on him but....