1. The hearing was convened under RFU Disciplinary Regulation 2.5.4(a) which states that where an allegation of misconduct is referred to the Disciplinary Officer and the person against whom the allegation is made admits the offence, the Disciplinary Officer may sanction the alleged offender provided he agrees in advance that he will accept the Disciplinary Officer’s decision.
Charges and Pleas
2. The Player admitted three charges of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Game contrary to RFU Rule 5.12 in that he:
a. On 10 May 2009 shouted “Class A, its OK, everyone’s doing it†in the vicinity of Bath Rugby Academy players:
b. On 10 May 2009 ingested an illegal substance;
c. On 13 and 14 May failed and/or refused to submit to an internal club drugs test when requested by Bath Rugby.
The Facts
3. On Sunday 10 May 2009 a number of Bath Rugby squad and academy players travelled from Bath to London for an end of season celebration and party. The arrangement was that they would be transported to a public house/club called “The Church†during the morning and that they would be transported home by bus from a public house called “The Pitcher and Piano†at 2300. Towards the end of the evening some of the players met some Harlequins players who were also celebrating the end of the season in the Pitcher and Piano. Significant quantities of alcohol were consumed during the day and an altercation involving players from both clubs occurred. The Player was knocked to the floor. Another player, not involved in the incident, appeared to be unconscious and some of his colleagues were worried that he had drunk far too much. They escorted him to St Thomas’s hospital from whence he was discharged in the early hours of the morning. These incidents came to the notice of the management of Bath Rugby who, on inquiry, received allegations that some of the players, including the Player, may have been using drugs.
4. The Player was contacted on 12 May and asked to attend a meeting in Bath with the club management and subsequently asked to submit to a drugs test on 13 and then 14 May. He met with the Club CEO on 14 May and resigned. A statement was issued that he had done so for personal reasons.
5. The RFU subsequently launched its own investigation into the circumstances of the allegations and eventually charged the Player with misconduct.
The Player’s account
6. The Player said that Bath Rugby was rocked by Matt Steven’s positive test and subsequent suspension for cocaine. Nevertheless, players dealt with the issue with humour and reference was often made to social drugs in a jocular manner to alleviate tension: for example when a player was selected for drug testing other players might joke that he was bound to test positive. The Player said he was the centre of much of this humour because he was naturally gregarious.
7. On Sunday 10 May all of those who went to London were in high spirits and there was much jocularity. At one stage the Player stood at the front of the coach with a microphone and imitated a flight attendant in an aircraft giving information about cruising altitude, escape routes and such like. During this performance he said â€" in the spirit of the mood of the day and along similar lines to previous banter â€" “Class A, its OK, everyone’s doing it.†This attracted laughter but no complaint. He said that he had no drugs with him on the coach and he was not aware that anyone else had any.
8. The Player said that he had been aware that there were Academy players on the coach and he has since spoken to some of them explaining that he had acted inappropriately.
9. The party arrived at the Church at about 1pm and he stayed there socialising until about 4pm. He then took a taxi with two other Bath players to a public house called the Walkabout in Shepherds Bush. There he recognised a number of people who had been in the Church and some other Australians whom he had known before he came to Bath. He lost contact with the Bath players and spent a few hours with his countrymen. He continued to drink steadily and at some stage one of the Australians whom he knew but did not wish to name asked him if he would like some “gear.†He knew this to mean illicit drugs. He nodded his assent and was handed a small wrap of paper which he took into a cubicle in the toilets, opened and ingested orally. He said the substance was crystallised white rock which he believed to be cocaine. He said when he ingested the substance he had a numb feeling on his gums and the effect of ingestion was a heightened sense of enjoyment and increased joviality.
10. He could not explain why he did this but he asserted that he had never taken cocaine during any rugby season in the past â€" and he had been tested regularly throughout his career, all tests being negative. He said this was an isolated incident which did not involve any other Bath player. Indeed, while he was at the Walkabout public house he was not aware of what any other Bath player was doing.
11. Later in the evening he caught a taxi to the Piano and Pitcher where he met up with Bath and Harlequins players. He said there had been intense on and off field rivalry between some members of both teams during the season and this erupted again. He said that everyone had been drinking significant amounts of alcohol and he became involved in a confrontation which led to him being punched in the face. He did not know who punched him, but he fell to the ground, was dazed and suffered a nose bleed. By this time the coach was about to depart and he went home to Bath. He said he telephoned and texted a number of Harlequins members the following day â€" they apologised to each other and put the incident down to too much alcohol.
12. The Player stressed that he was not particularly aware what any other Bath player did during the day and that he certainly did not see, or hear of, any other player taking drugs. During a club BBQ on Monday 11 May the previous day’s trip to London was discussed, but again the Player was not aware of any discussion about drugs.
13. On Tuesday 12 May the Player was in London staying with his partner when he received a phone message that he was required to return to Bath by 1100 for a meeting with the team management. He did not notice the message until after 1100 and spoke to Dave Guyan, Bath team manager, who told him that he had received allegations that some members of Bath had taken drugs on 10 May and that the Player was implicated. Dave Guyan told him that he was required to report to the club the following day to take a drugs test.
14. The Player said that he became extremely scared about the potential ramifications of this development and spoke to his agent and the PRA, the latter advising him that he should take the test. He did not attend Bath on 13 May and received a further communication requiring him to attend Bath Rugby club at 1730 on 14 May to take a drugs test. Instead he sought a meeting with the Bath CEO on the morning of 14 May, at which he offered his resignation. The Club immediately accepted his resignation and a public statement explained his departure as being for personal reasons.
Mitigation
15. The Player made a very emotional statement in which he acknowledged the damage that he had caused to the reputation of the Game, Bath Rugby and himself and was extremely contrite. He said he resigned immediately because it was the honourable thing to do, notwithstanding the fact that he could have asked lawyers to become involved to allow him to contest matters. He then contacted the Barbarians and withdrew from their two match tour against England and Australia. Since then he has had a very stressful and difficult two months in which he has been trying to come to terms with an uncertain future. He explained that he has enjoyed what he described as 16 fantastic years in rugby, has received significant remuneration and achieved significant standing in the Game. He asked for an opportunity to repay the debt he believes he owes to the sport.
16. Mr Eastwood repeated the Player’s plea: he said that the Player had acknowledged his wrongdoing, was extremely remorseful and knows that he has made a grave mistake. As to the drug taking itself, Mr Eastwood suggested that there was no complicated decision making â€" it was a spur of the moment decision taken when his senses were less acute because of alcohol. He said that the Player took full responsibility for his actions â€" which were his alone â€" and presented himself as entirely honest. He was not seeking to protect anyone else; indeed he simply did not know whether any other member of Bath had taken illicit substances during the trip to London.
17. Mr Eastwood also stressed that the Player had acted entirely honourably. He did not seek to find legal technicalities or loopholes even though he could have raised an argument about jurisdiction or the legitimacy of the requirement for a drug test. Instead he wanted to take personal responsibility â€" he returned to the UK for the hearing although he could have remained in Australia and either not attended the hearing at all or appeared by live video link. His resignation lost him one year’s earnings; he now faces the prospect of a period of unemployment and he has lost the right to work in the UK. He aspires to become a rugby coach and to undertake broadcasting contracts, but he is aware that these proceedings may adversely affect those aspirations.
18. Finally, Mr Eastwood said that at 35 years of age the Player’s playing career would end if he were suspended for 12 or more months. He asked that credit be given for his good character and his distinguished service to the Game to allow him to retrieve his good name while assisting in restoring the reputation of rugby.
Submissions on behalf of the RFU
19. Mr Green said that the Player had given every possible assistance to the RFU and, in his opinion, had acted honourably. He was satisfied that the Player was unable to provide any assistance in relation to other players against whom allegations had been laid, and he was not seeking to protect them. In short, the RFU fully accepts the Player’s account of events.
Decision
20. There is no doubt that the Player was stupid to risk his reputation and future career in what was effectively a few moments of madness caused by having drunk too much alcohol so that he lost his inhibitions. However, I accept that he is an honest man and believe his account of what occurred. This stain on his character will go with him for the rest of his life, and that in itself is a significant penalty for a man of such high reputation.
21. I give the Player credit for the way he has behaved since the relevant events. In particular:
* His resignation from Bath rugby by which he attempted to ameliorate damage to the club’s reputation;
* The assistance he has given to the RFU;
* His admission of the charges and the honesty at the hearing;
* His voluntary withdrawal from the Barbarians tour;
* His return to London from Australia to face me personally at a hearing; and
* I also take into account his excellent personal record.
22. I am not sanctioning the Player for the presence of a prohibited substance under the WADA rules but for actions which are prejudicial to the interests of the Game. In my view his actions were prejudicial because:
* Comments from a man of his stature about taking Class A drugs, even in jest, could be taken seriously by young Academy players for whom he is a role model. If overheard by the wider public, such comments could undermine the integrity of the Club and the sport;
* Ingesting an illicit substance, which the Player believed to be cocaine, in combination with excessive alcohol clearly affected his judgement and led him into a fight in a public place. Public knowledge or even suspicion that an elite athlete ingested cocaine could have an adverse effect on sponsorship, recruitment and the general reputation of the sport.
* Failing to take a test also brought discredit on the Game because it led to speculation that the Player avoided the test because he had taken drugs. However, in the Player’s case that was mitigated to a certain extent because he resigned from the Club.
23. The potential damage to the sport can be ameliorated by the manner in which the sport deals with the miscreant. I must, therefore, balance the need for a strong statement that this sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable with ensuring that the Player is dealt with fairly as an individual, noting particularly the lasting effect these proceedings will have on him.
24. In advance of the hearing I indicated that if the Player pleaded not guilty but was found guilty the starting point for any sanction would be a suspension of 18 months but that if he admitted the offences he would be entitled to a discount of 1/3 â€" that is a starting point of a suspension of 12 months. From that starting point I have given further credit for the matters listed above.
25. In all the circumstances, therefore:
* the Player is suspended for 8 months. The period of suspension commenced on 14 May â€" the day on which the Player resigned from Bath Rugby and voluntarily withdrew from the Barbarians. He is therefore suspended until 13 January 2010.
* In addition the Player is required to make a public statement expressing remorse and warning other players of the dangers of excessive drinking and becoming involved in any form of illicit substance.
* If, on return to Australia, he is able to assist in educating young rugby players about these dangers that would assist him in retrieving his good name.
* Finally, if the Player continues to play professional rugby after the end of his suspension he should be subjected to regular targeted drug testing at least four times per season.
Status during suspension
26. During the period of suspension the Player may not play or coach but he is not excluded from the sport in any other way.
Comment
27. Comparisons will inevitably be made between this case and others, such as Matt Stevens, who have received suspensions of two years, those suspensions including exclusion from any rugby activity. This case highlights the inflexibility of the WADA code which does not apply in this case of misconduct. Under the WADA code cocaine is only prohibited in competition â€" in rugby during the domestic season that effectively means that it is only tested for after a match. Out of competition testing (on any other day) does not include a test for cocaine. If a player tests positive in competition he is suspended for two years (unless he can show no fault or no significant fault) â€" at all other times there is no penalty under the WADA code because cocaine is not prohibited out of competition.
28. This is clearly an anomaly which must be addressed. Cocaine is very readily available to young men and women of rugby playing age: if deterrence is to work properly it should be included in tests both in and out of competition. It should also be classified as a specified substance (a classification which gives a judicial officer flexibility to apply a sanction of between nothing and two years) so that an appropriate and just sanction can be applied to suit the circumstances of each case.1. The hearing was convened under RFU Disciplinary Regulation 2.5.4(a) which states that where an allegation of misconduct is referred to the Disciplinary Officer and the person against whom the allegation is made admits the offence, the Disciplinary Officer may sanction the alleged offender provided he agrees in advance that he will accept the Disciplinary Officer’s decision.
Charges and Pleas
2. The Player admitted three charges of conduct prejudicial to the interests of the Game contrary to RFU Rule 5.12 in that he:
a. On 10 May 2009 shouted “Class A, its OK, everyone’s doing it†in the vicinity of Bath Rugby Academy players:
b. On 10 May 2009 ingested an illegal substance;
c. On 13 and 14 May failed and/or refused to submit to an internal club drugs test when requested by Bath Rugby.
The Facts
3. On Sunday 10 May 2009 a number of Bath Rugby squad and academy players travelled from Bath to London for an end of season celebration and party. The arrangement was that they would be transported to a public house/club called “The Church†during the morning and that they would be transported home by bus from a public house called “The Pitcher and Piano†at 2300. Towards the end of the evening some of the players met some Harlequins players who were also celebrating the end of the season in the Pitcher and Piano. Significant quantities of alcohol were consumed during the day and an altercation involving players from both clubs occurred. The Player was knocked to the floor. Another player, not involved in the incident, appeared to be unconscious and some of his colleagues were worried that he had drunk far too much. They escorted him to St Thomas’s hospital from whence he was discharged in the early hours of the morning. These incidents came to the notice of the management of Bath Rugby who, on inquiry, received allegations that some of the players, including the Player, may have been using drugs.
4. The Player was contacted on 12 May and asked to attend a meeting in Bath with the club management and subsequently asked to submit to a drugs test on 13 and then 14 May. He met with the Club CEO on 14 May and resigned. A statement was issued that he had done so for personal reasons.
5. The RFU subsequently launched its own investigation into the circumstances of the allegations and eventually charged the Player with misconduct.
The Player’s account
6. The Player said that Bath Rugby was rocked by Matt Steven’s positive test and subsequent suspension for cocaine. Nevertheless, players dealt with the issue with humour and reference was often made to social drugs in a jocular manner to alleviate tension: for example when a player was selected for drug testing other players might joke that he was bound to test positive. The Player said he was the centre of much of this humour because he was naturally gregarious.
7. On Sunday 10 May all of those who went to London were in high spirits and there was much jocularity. At one stage the Player stood at the front of the coach with a microphone and imitated a flight attendant in an aircraft giving information about cruising altitude, escape routes and such like. During this performance he said â€" in the spirit of the mood of the day and along similar lines to previous banter â€" “Class A, its OK, everyone’s doing it.†This attracted laughter but no complaint. He said that he had no drugs with him on the coach and he was not aware that anyone else had any.
8. The Player said that he had been aware that there were Academy players on the coach and he has since spoken to some of them explaining that he had acted inappropriately.
9. The party arrived at the Church at about 1pm and he stayed there socialising until about 4pm. He then took a taxi with two other Bath players to a public house called the Walkabout in Shepherds Bush. There he recognised a number of people who had been in the Church and some other Australians whom he had known before he came to Bath. He lost contact with the Bath players and spent a few hours with his countrymen. He continued to drink steadily and at some stage one of the Australians whom he knew but did not wish to name asked him if he would like some “gear.†He knew this to mean illicit drugs. He nodded his assent and was handed a small wrap of paper which he took into a cubicle in the toilets, opened and ingested orally. He said the substance was crystallised white rock which he believed to be cocaine. He said when he ingested the substance he had a numb feeling on his gums and the effect of ingestion was a heightened sense of enjoyment and increased joviality.
10. He could not explain why he did this but he asserted that he had never taken cocaine during any rugby season in the past â€" and he had been tested regularly throughout his career, all tests being negative. He said this was an isolated incident which did not involve any other Bath player. Indeed, while he was at the Walkabout public house he was not aware of what any other Bath player was doing.
11. Later in the evening he caught a taxi to the Piano and Pitcher where he met up with Bath and Harlequins players. He said there had been intense on and off field rivalry between some members of both teams during the season and this erupted again. He said that everyone had been drinking significant amounts of alcohol and he became involved in a confrontation which led to him being punched in the face. He did not know who punched him, but he fell to the ground, was dazed and suffered a nose bleed. By this time the coach was about to depart and he went home to Bath. He said he telephoned and texted a number of Harlequins members the following day â€" they apologised to each other and put the incident down to too much alcohol.
12. The Player stressed that he was not particularly aware what any other Bath player did during the day and that he certainly did not see, or hear of, any other player taking drugs. During a club BBQ on Monday 11 May the previous day’s trip to London was discussed, but again the Player was not aware of any discussion about drugs.
13. On Tuesday 12 May the Player was in London staying with his partner when he received a phone message that he was required to return to Bath by 1100 for a meeting with the team management. He did not notice the message until after 1100 and spoke to Dave Guyan, Bath team manager, who told him that he had received allegations that some members of Bath had taken drugs on 10 May and that the Player was implicated. Dave Guyan told him that he was required to report to the club the following day to take a drugs test.
14. The Player said that he became extremely scared about the potential ramifications of this development and spoke to his agent and the PRA, the latter advising him that he should take the test. He did not attend Bath on 13 May and received a further communication requiring him to attend Bath Rugby club at 1730 on 14 May to take a drugs test. Instead he sought a meeting with the Bath CEO on the morning of 14 May, at which he offered his resignation. The Club immediately accepted his resignation and a public statement explained his departure as being for personal reasons.
Mitigation
15. The Player made a very emotional statement in which he acknowledged the damage that he had caused to the reputation of the Game, Bath Rugby and himself and was extremely contrite. He said he resigned immediately because it was the honourable thing to do, notwithstanding the fact that he could have asked lawyers to become involved to allow him to contest matters. He then contacted the Barbarians and withdrew from their two match tour against England and Australia. Since then he has had a very stressful and difficult two months in which he has been trying to come to terms with an uncertain future. He explained that he has enjoyed what he described as 16 fantastic years in rugby, has received significant remuneration and achieved significant standing in the Game. He asked for an opportunity to repay the debt he believes he owes to the sport.
16. Mr Eastwood repeated the Player’s plea: he said that the Player had acknowledged his wrongdoing, was extremely remorseful and knows that he has made a grave mistake. As to the drug taking itself, Mr Eastwood suggested that there was no complicated decision making â€" it was a spur of the moment decision taken when his senses were less acute because of alcohol. He said that the Player took full responsibility for his actions â€" which were his alone â€" and presented himself as entirely honest. He was not seeking to protect anyone else; indeed he simply did not know whether any other member of Bath had taken illicit substances during the trip to London.
17. Mr Eastwood also stressed that the Player had acted entirely honourably. He did not seek to find legal technicalities or loopholes even though he could have raised an argument about jurisdiction or the legitimacy of the requirement for a drug test. Instead he wanted to take personal responsibility â€" he returned to the UK for the hearing although he could have remained in Australia and either not attended the hearing at all or appeared by live video link. His resignation lost him one year’s earnings; he now faces the prospect of a period of unemployment and he has lost the right to work in the UK. He aspires to become a rugby coach and to undertake broadcasting contracts, but he is aware that these proceedings may adversely affect those aspirations.
18. Finally, Mr Eastwood said that at 35 years of age the Player’s playing career would end if he were suspended for 12 or more months. He asked that credit be given for his good character and his distinguished service to the Game to allow him to retrieve his good name while assisting in restoring the reputation of rugby.
Submissions on behalf of the RFU
19. Mr Green said that the Player had given every possible assistance to the RFU and, in his opinion, had acted honourably. He was satisfied that the Player was unable to provide any assistance in relation to other players against whom allegations had been laid, and he was not seeking to protect them. In short, the RFU fully accepts the Player’s account of events.
Decision
20. There is no doubt that the Player was stupid to risk his reputation and future career in what was effectively a few moments of madness caused by having drunk too much alcohol so that he lost his inhibitions. However, I accept that he is an honest man and believe his account of what occurred. This stain on his character will go with him for the rest of his life, and that in itself is a significant penalty for a man of such high reputation.
21. I give the Player credit for the way he has behaved since the relevant events. In particular:
* His resignation from Bath rugby by which he attempted to ameliorate damage to the club’s reputation;
* The assistance he has given to the RFU;
* His admission of the charges and the honesty at the hearing;
* His voluntary withdrawal from the Barbarians tour;
* His return to London from Australia to face me personally at a hearing; and
* I also take into account his excellent personal record.
22. I am not sanctioning the Player for the presence of a prohibited substance under the WADA rules but for actions which are prejudicial to the interests of the Game. In my view his actions were prejudicial because:
* Comments from a man of his stature about taking Class A drugs, even in jest, could be taken seriously by young Academy players for whom he is a role model. If overheard by the wider public, such comments could undermine the integrity of the Club and the sport;
* Ingesting an illicit substance, which the Player believed to be cocaine, in combination with excessive alcohol clearly affected his judgement and led him into a fight in a public place. Public knowledge or even suspicion that an elite athlete ingested cocaine could have an adverse effect on sponsorship, recruitment and the general reputation of the sport.
* Failing to take a test also brought discredit on the Game because it led to speculation that the Player avoided the test because he had taken drugs. However, in the Player’s case that was mitigated to a certain extent because he resigned from the Club.
23. The potential damage to the sport can be ameliorated by the manner in which the sport deals with the miscreant. I must, therefore, balance the need for a strong statement that this sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable with ensuring that the Player is dealt with fairly as an individual, noting particularly the lasting effect these proceedings will have on him.
24. In advance of the hearing I indicated that if the Player pleaded not guilty but was found guilty the starting point for any sanction would be a suspension of 18 months but that if he admitted the offences he would be entitled to a discount of 1/3 â€" that is a starting point of a suspension of 12 months. From that starting point I have given further credit for the matters listed above.
25. In all the circumstances, therefore:
* the Player is suspended for 8 months. The period of suspension commenced on 14 May â€" the day on which the Player resigned from Bath Rugby and voluntarily withdrew from the Barbarians. He is therefore suspended until 13 January 2010.
* In addition the Player is required to make a public statement expressing remorse and warning other players of the dangers of excessive drinking and becoming involved in any form of illicit substance.
* If, on return to Australia, he is able to assist in educating young rugby players about these dangers that would assist him in retrieving his good name.
* Finally, if the Player continues to play professional rugby after the end of his suspension he should be subjected to regular targeted drug testing at least four times per season.
Status during suspension
26. During the period of suspension the Player may not play or coach but he is not excluded from the sport in any other way.
Comment
27. Comparisons will inevitably be made between this case and others, such as Matt Stevens, who have received suspensions of two years, those suspensions including exclusion from any rugby activity. This case highlights the inflexibility of the WADA code which does not apply in this case of misconduct. Under the WADA code cocaine is only prohibited in competition â€" in rugby during the domestic season that effectively means that it is only tested for after a match. Out of competition testing (on any other day) does not include a test for cocaine. If a player tests positive in competition he is suspended for two years (unless he can show no fault or no significant fault) â€" at all other times there is no penalty under the WADA code because cocaine is not prohibited out of competition.
28. This is clearly an anomaly which must be addressed. Cocaine is very readily available to young men and women of rugby playing age: if deterrence is to work properly it should be included in tests both in and out of competition. It should also be classified as a specified substance (a classification which gives a judicial officer flexibility to apply a sanction of between nothing and two years) so that an appropriate and just sanction can be applied to suit the circumstances of each case.[/b]
