Peter Williams: Fiasco over fake blood

Has there ever been, in the history of rugby, a more unjust punishment than that meted out to one of the game's best, Dean Richards, this week?

Has there ever been more sanctimonious poppycock written and said about rugby and its so-called morality and ethics after the extraordinary, in fact ridiculous, three-year suspension given to Richards for his role in the Heineken Cup blood bin replacement affair?

What is more damaging for the game of rugby - Dean Richards trying to pull a swifty with a capsule of fake blood to get a goal kicker on to the park, or Schalk Burger fingering a Lions opponent in the eye in a test match?

Both were premeditated acts. One was cheeky, almost farcical and definitely funny. Nobody was hurt. Actually the perpetrators still lost the game. The other was violent, sickening in its intent and potentially could have inflicted a long- lasting injury.

So what are the consequences? Burger, for his outrageous and cowardly finger poke gets eight weeks on the sideline. Good riddance. Eye gouging has no place in the game.

He should have been hammered with twice that. The report of the judicial officer, which found it was not an intentional act, defies belief. But Burger, still showing no remorse, will be back to gouge another day.

Richards, one of the best loose forwards to wear the England jersey, has effectively been denied his livelihood. His career in the game is over.

Banned from any involvement with rugby at any level by European Rugby Cup Ltd for three years, that ban has been endorsed by England's Rugby Football Union and the International Rugby Board.

Isn't it time to get a sense of proportion here?

In the history of rugby, I can't remember anybody getting a punishment as severe as Richards' for anything apart from assaulting a referee or deliberately kicking a player in the head.

That's the company a man regarded as one of the best coaches in England now keeps for trying to run a dodgy substitution.

It was a victimless crime. It is an injustice of the highest order, yet it seems to have been meekly accepted by the man himself, his club and, worst of all, the British media.

Richards said he'd done "a lot of damage to the image of rugby union". A man who likes to use big words in The Independent suggested rugby has a "moral crisis" and that in the sport there's a culture of "institutionalised deceit." Excuse me?

Dean Richards has apparently 'fessed up to using this fake blood tactic before, got away with it and probably would have this time had Tom Williams, the winger being replaced by Nick Evans, not winked at one of his team management on his way off the park.

Okay, so it's not a particularly honest thing to do but since William Webb Ellis picked up the ball and ran with it, dodgy substitutions have been as much a part of rugby as warm beers and cold pies at the after-match.

Richards deserved some sanction. Perhaps a big fine. Perhaps suspension for a period. But three years? At all levels? All over the world?