Cycling: Power, influence and Lance Armstrong

Repercussions of the Lance Armstrong story are still being felt, and will continue to be so for some time, and one of the great questions to arise from the affair is: how did he get away with it for so long?

Some answers can be found in an article by Selena Roberts, 'The Influence Peddler', which lays bare the level of Armstrong's political and financial influence, and the extent to which he was willing and able to use it to get what he wanted. It is a fascinating read, showing how no-one was safe from Armstrong's bullying tactics, not even US Senator and former presidential candidate, John Kerry. Perhaps what is most striking is that this only appears to be a small sample of episodes in Armstrong's career, and there are more questions to be asked about how much political influence he was able to exert, whether it accounts for the US Attorney for California suddenly dropping a case against him in February.

Even now, after all the revelations, this seems like only the tip of the iceberg, and hopefully at some point, the comprehensive story of the Armstrong tale will be told.

Lance Armstrong's final chapter

Back in August, the USADA announced that Lance Armstrong had been found guilty of doping offences, and would be stripped of his seven Tour de France titles. The verdict had been published, but the evidence had not, and the investigation against Armstrong had something of a chequered history, not least the failure of the Federal Drug Administration to bring a prosecution, the leaks that had plagued the case, and public rows over its conduct.

Armstrong continued to claim that he was the victim of a conspiracy of former team mates, envious at his success and bitter at their own convictions for doping, and vindictive administrators, jealous of his fame and fortune. As Corinthian Spirit argued at the time, despite it seeming probable that the verdict was correct, the authorities had not helped their own case, muddying the waters by announcing a verdict without the evidence. Would cycling fans ever know for certain what went on during the Armstrong era?

This changed today, when the USADA published a 1000 page dossier, documenting its evidence. The bulk of it remains circumstantial, but it is overwhelming in terms of how comprehensive it is. Eleven former team mates have gone on the record in great detail, along with numerous other witnesses. Many of the witnesses corroborate each other, and the USADA's verdict that there was a highly organised doping conspiracy surrounding the Texan is proven to be more than a flight of fancy. One of the witnesses is Tyler Hamilton, a former team mate, whose recent book 'The Secret Race' has been damning. Another is George Hincapie, one of Armstrong's closest colleagues and more reliable domestiques. His testimony is noteworthy because of how long he worked with Armstrong, and how loyal he was to his team leader.

The levels of subterfuge and intrigue required to stay ahead of the testers are remarkable, and must have been exhausting. They make for fascinating reading, as does the testimony about Armstrong's character, he comes across as domineering and unpleasant, a bully who was allowed to do as he wished for years. Publicly, he is still playing the victim, but this is now even more irrelevant than before.

The facts will take some time to digest, and there will be repercussions for months and years to come, particularly at the UCI, who face allegations that they covered up a failed drugs test in 2001. However, there can be no more questions about the man himself, and about how dirty that era of cycling was, and this should provide the closure that allows the sport to move on.

Articles from The Telegraph and Guardian that pick out extracts can be found here and here.

Paralympics: Science vs Pistorius' claims

Over at The Science of Sport blog, there an excellent breakdown of Oscar Pistorius' critical comments about his defeat by Alan Oliveira in the men's T44 200m. Based on this analysis (by a South African blog, no less), it seems that Pistorius was using flawed logic when he made his claims about the unfairness of Oliveira's stride length.

"So, a simple count shows that Pistorius has longer strides than Alan, and they are consistently longer - on the bend, and in the straight, for those who are wondering. It's Oliveira who "can't compete with Oscar's stride length".  His faster speed, then, is the result of faster leg movement, because speed, as you will appreciate, is the result of stride length and stride rate."

It's an excellent and very detailed read, and worth looking at before diving into the debate that Pistorius has started.

Cycling: No clear outcome in the Lance Armstrong saga

A lifetime ban and the vacation of seven consecutive Tour de France titles is the apparent sad conclusion to the Lance Armstrong story, after today's announcement that he would not contest the US Anti-Doping Authority's case against him. It is an odd decision for a man previously defined by his refusal to quit. Despite his protestations that he is innocent and simply refusing to engage with biased proceedings, this decision has largely been greeted as either a tacit admission of guilt, or a final desperation play to ensure that the evidence will never be heard publicly, allowing him to continue professing his innocence.

This is an unsatisfactory outcome. Despite the USADA case, it remains hard to take a clear position on Armstrong. The circumstantial case against him is strong, but has not been subjected to independent scrutiny, and as he points out, there is little physical evidence. The basis of the verdict was an aborted Federal Drug Administration prosecution that came from an investigator with a controversial track record. The suggestion that the testimony against him was gathered through offers of immunity to other implicated riders, the way that details of the case seem to have been selectively leaked, and the fact that none of the evidence faced any third-party examination before judgement was passed, means that the USADA has arguably harmed its case in the court of public opinion with the way that it has conducted itself.

Armstrong's supporters will continue to defend him, and the rest will condemn him, but it remains impossible to make a conclusive judgement, which is why today's decision, which robs us of the chance to have the case examined during the arbitration process, means that we are no closer to the truth than before.

UPDATE: The debate is raging on, but the USADA are exptected to publish their decision in the next couple of weeks, that will apparently contain evidence, and more should come out once the cases against other individuals are resolved.

Hansie Cronje: Ten Years On

Currently available as a podcast on the BBC website and on iTunes is 5 Live's recent documentary about Hansie Cronje, broadcast to commemorate ten years since his death. It is a timely moment to revisit the Cronje story, after a winter which saw three Pakistani cricketers convicted of spot fixing in a 2010 test match, Essex's Mervyn Westfield convicted of a similar offence in a county match, and the announcement of a new ECB initiative to tackle the threat of match fixing in the English game.

The most striking item in the programme was how little we still know about what went on in that period. Journalist Neil Manthorp mentions a series of bank accounts that were allegedly linked to many prominent cricketing figures, yet the investigation into those accounts was shut down after Cronje's death. These accounts had been previously mentioned in a television documentary, 'The Captain and The Bookmaker', made by political journalist Peter Oborne. This film was also critical of the report by the King Commission, which had investigated Cronje's crimes in the immediate aftermath, accusing it of being insubstantial.

Both programmes interview Marlon Aronstam, the bookmaker behind the infamous 'leather jacket test match' between South Africa and England in 2000. One thing that Oborne's documentary gets out of him is the suggestion of an ongoing relationship between Cronje and the bookie after that test match, but no details are forthcoming, nor is this elaborated on in the 5 Live documentary.

Aronstam's testimony is clearly difficult to trust, but what is alarming is the notion that the authorities only scratched the surface. Will this investigation ever be resurrected? The suggestion that dozens of other major cricketers were involved in match fixing but got away with it, would undermine an entire decade's worth of international matches. Perhaps most worrying for the game in the future is the thought that whatever bookmakers or gamblers were involved in these accounts were never identified publicly, leaving them free to continue their efforts.

This is, of course, pure speculation, based on an investigation that was terminated. But unless it is proven that those mysterious bank accounts are a myth, or were unrelated to match fixing, the doubt will always linger. That is perhaps Cronje's greatest crime against cricket: creating a nagging suspicion, that seems unlikely to be lifted any time soon.

The Effects of Steroids

Amongst the coverage of various doping scandals around the world of sport, the side-effects of taking steroids are often overlooked. The various baseball players, cyclists and athletes who have, over the years, gone down this route in the pursuit of success, have done so at a personal cost, and in a revealing article at Esquire.com, one writer details his own experiences of steroids.

The unpleasant physical and psychological impact of one 16-week course of steroids would be enough to put many people off for life, and it is clear that those who do take them are probably paying a greater price than any ban or fine that could be handed out to them by the relevant authorities.

2009: The Year of the Cheat?

A final thought on 2009: was it the year of the cheat? After all, this was the year of fake blood, Henry’s handball, Piquet’s whistleblowing and McLaren’s lies. Andre Agassi admitted to conning his way out of a failed drug test and eye gouging came back into fashion in rugby.

Every year brings its sporting scandals, cheating is as old as sport itself so nothing new there. What made 2009 stand out was the scale and effort of some of these schemes, and the fact that there were so many in one year.

Richards masterminded Harlequins' almost comical scheme

The most alarming side of the Harlequins fake blood affair was the premeditation. Rugby players have always set out to see what they can get away with, nothing new there to a veteran of the amateur era like Dean Richards. What has changed is the media coverage and the money. When Richards devised his scheme, it was not just a match he was trying to fiddle, but the biggest club rugby competition in the world, and the huge financial rewards associated with it. Had Leinster not made it to the semi-final, they would have been robbed of their classic encounter with rivals Munster, followed by a win in the final, but also a significant payout. This is part of an ongoing growing process for rugby union, still in its professional infancy. Hopefully these are nothing more than growing pains, and a new moral code will emerge at the top. Then again, looking at the rest of the professional sporting world, that might be too much to ask for.

Premeditation was not surprising in Formula 1, a sport where everything is planned and ruthlessly evaluated. The decision of Flavio Briatore and Renault to order Nelson Piquet Jr. to crash deliberately during the Singapore Grand Prix took place in 2008, but was uncovered in 2009, and was only shocking because of the risks involved in crashing a car at high speed. It would not be surprising however, if it were discovered that other teams had done this before. That is the sad reality that F1 faces at the moment, especially when the efforts of McLaren and Hamilton to swindle their way to another driver’s points at the start of the 2009 season are taken into consideration.

Nelson Piquet Jr. admitted to crashing his Renault on purpose

At least Thierry Henry’s handball was a heat of the moment decision, the kind of spontaneous cheating that is no less immoral, but says less about the state of a sport than that resulting from planning. Football has seen this kind of thing before, as England fans know well.

It is hard to know what to make of all this organised cheating in 2009, if anything. There is a suggestion that as the stakes in sport rise higher and higher, because the money has got bigger and bigger, this sort of thing will happen more often. Whilst the economy has squeezed some sports, cutbacks have largely come around the fringes, leaving the big-earners untouched, and conversely, raising the stakes even higher for those fringe performers who had livelihoods on the line.

Meanwhile the attitude to this sort of cheating seems to be that it is up to the authorities to police it, rather than to the cheats to put morals and the wellbeing of their sport ahead of their own success. This is a demoralising and cynical view, but perhaps a realistic one. Simon Barnes for one, takes it very seriously.

Then again, perhaps it means nothing. Maybe 2009 was just one of those years when a number of bizarre episodes coincided, and the elaborate deceptions should just be laughed at, comical as they are. Formula 1 has problems, that is clear (especially in light of today’s ruling lifting Briatore’s lifetime ban), as do the other sports. Whether there is a pattern is hard to say at the moment. Maybe fans should be reassured that the cheats are being caught, after all, cycling has been through the wringer in recent years, with positive drugs tests hitting its credibility, but at least that showed that the cheats were being caught. This year’s Tour de France featured not one failed test, perhaps the cheats have evolved again, or perhaps, just for now, the authorities have caught up and cleaned their sport up.

If (and it is a big if), sportsmen and women, coaches and administrators think twice about cheating after last year’s scandals, then the cathartic pain of 2009 will have been worth it for sports fans. Nothing stands still in sport though, and it is only a matter of when, not if, there will be another elaborate cheat exposed in the media.

Football: Ireland and Henry's Handball

The saga of Thierry Henry’s crucial handball in the World Cup playoff against Ireland has taken increasingly bizarre turns, as the FAI and the media have kept the pressure on FIFA to find a solution to a particularly high profile injustice.

Henry and John O'Shea in the first leg of the playoff tie

The Irish team is popular worldwide, fuelled by goodwill towards its enthusiastic and well-behaved fans, and the team’s performances as underdogs at the 1990, 1994 and 2002 World Cups. They have also benefited from the drama-free English qualification for the World Cup, and the straightforward failure of the other Celtic teams, which meant that they had the British media’s full attention for their playoff with France. Ireland have therefore received a lot of sympathy for their misfortune, but this has not translated into any tangible benefit.

Whilst the Irish cannot be blamed for exhausting every remote possibility for claiming a place at the tournament, they never stood a chance of forcing either a replay or a spot as a 33rd team in South Africa, and FIFA, although appearing incompetent on many levels, have called this issue correctly. There is no guarantee that the Irish would have won the tie anyway, and allowing a replay or admitting an extra team would set the precedent that every mistake made by an official should result in a replay or consolation place. This would create a whole new set of problems: which offences would be worthy, and which would not? How would the flood of extra games be scheduled? Would, for example, Ireland first have to replay their qualifier with Georgia, in which they benefited from an undeserved penalty?

Adding an extra team would have meant changing the balanced 32 team format, adjusting the schedule and logistics, and lumbering four unlucky teams with an extra group game. This was clearly never an option.

The Irish anger at these rejections, and the accusations of bias favouring the top countries has therefore been misplaced, because FIFA could not grant concessions to anyone, and have not stepped in to help countries such as England or The Netherlands in the past, or Russia this year, when they have failed to qualify.

What the debates over the handball, replay and 33rd place have overshadowed is the real injustice of the seeding system, which does genuinely reek of bias. Seeding teams so that the strongest nations avoid each other is not uncommon in sport, nor in itself unfair, but what rankled was that the decision was only made in September, instead of at the start of the qualification tournament. Effectively, the goalposts were moved when the competition was already nearly over.

Michel Platini of UEFA and Sepp Blatter

This incident has raised a couple of key issues for FIFA to tackle. Instead, the governing body has been casting around in search of a way of dealing with the bad publicity, without tackling the problems themselves. The suggestion that Ireland might be awarded some sort of fair play award is patronising and insulting, as Richard Dunne has pointed out. It also ignores the fact that the Irish have not done anything to deserve an award, other than be wronged. FIFA are obviously looking at the precedent of Vanderlei de Lima, awarded the Pierre de Coubertin medal at the Athens Olympics after an attack by a spectator arguably deprived him of a gold medal in the marathon. However, what seemed genuine and spontaneous in that event, awarded on the same day as the incident by Jacques Rogge, seems calculated when mooted weeks after the event by Sepp Blatter. Moreover, whilst the IOC had no alternatives, other than improving security for future events, FIFA could instead spend their time more productively by ensuring no repeat of the seeding fiasco, and taking seriously the controversies created by ever-improving television technology.

The latest development is the threat of a ban for Henry himself, which is inconsistent again. If, as FIFA insists, the referee’s decision is final and video evidence should not be used, why retrospectively ban the player, especially for what would only have been a yellow card? There is no precedent for using this approach for anything less than a red card offence. Many worse crimes will have escaped punishment during the qualifiers, but none will be punished now. This does not absolve Henry, but again FIFA have ducked the real questions by trying to appear proactive, when they are in fact taking minor steps only.

There appears to be little will for real active leadership at FIFA, and sadly for the Irish, with the World Cup draw now dominating the headlines, the Champions’ League groups stage reaching its climax, and the busy Christmas and New Year period approaching, their plight is already yesterday’s news.

Tennis: Andre Agassi

The recent revelations in Andre Agassi’s autobiography have led to some sensational and emotive headlines. There is a lot of anger towards Agassi and the ATP in the media, specifically charges of incompetence towards the ATP for letting Agassi talk his way out of a failed drugs test, and of betrayal towards the player himself for taking crystal meth, lying, and only admitting to it ten years later in an apparent attempt to sell books.

Whether or not this anger exists outside of the media bubble is harder to tell. Agassi has always been one of the most popular players of recent times, far more so than his more successful contemporary Pete Sampras. The reason being that he is seen as having more character, humanity and flair than the ruthless and outwardly more withdrawn Sampras, a man with a far quieter personal life. Whilst the drugs confessions will undoubtedly tarnish his reputation in some eyes, many more will probably be forgiving, recognising that his flaws and honesty endeared him to them in the first place. Furthermore, recreational drugs do not damage the integrity of results as much as performance enhancing ones, which should preserve his reputation as a player.

Had this come out during his career, it would have been worse for his reputation, as he would have faced a ban, and then the prospect of playing whilst that stigma hung over his head. As it is, the controversial confessions are part of the regular post-retirement routine for many sportsmen and women, although this was a more dramatic confession than usual. The story of success, followed by a fall, and then redemption, has always been a powerful one.

What has been more interesting, and has perhaps resulted in more vitriol from the tennis press is Agassi’s claim to hate the sport “with a dark and secret passion”. In a way this is more disturbing for fans of any sport, who love their game and wish they had just some of the talent exhibited by the professionals. For fans, sport is something that offers pleasure and escapism, and they often struggle to understand those who have the privilege of playing professionally, but seem unappreciative. To hear a sportsman announce that he hated his sport feels like a betrayal and devalues fans’ cherished memories of his career. How can they vicariously enjoy his great moments, when he himself did not? That is why some have suggested that Agassi’s claims should have been kept private, that he damages the game by making them public, or even that he is being disingenuous in making them, that it is impossible to dislike something that he was so good at. Whatever the truth, the title of the book, “Open” makes it clear that Agassi feels that it is best shared.

Look a little deeper and it is not surprising that, if his claims are true, he hates tennis. For him, tennis is tied up with a pushy and aggressive father who drove him into the game. Tennis is not the only sport with pushy parents, but it seems particularly prone to them, perhaps inevitably, as alongside golf it is the most high profile individual sport in the world, with no team mates to diffuse attention away from the young player.

Then there is the endless international travel, not sightseeing and relaxed holidays, but long trips to cities where the player only sees the inside of the hotel, the taxi ride to the venue, and the tennis facility itself. There is the pressure: from fans, coaches, and most of all, the player themselves, the fear of the disappointment of losing. There are the huge sacrifices: the hours spent in the gym or on the practice court, the media commitments and drug tests. Above all, there is endless scrutiny on every shot, every word spoken, every action on and off the court. As a top player, Agassi had even less time off than other players, who would exit tournaments in the early rounds, whilst he would have more sponsors who would ask more of him, and would be more in demand from the media than the others. To fans this might all seem worthwhile, but over the course of more than 15 years, combined with a troubled relationship with the game thanks to his father, it is easy to see how it would take its toll.

This is not to judge whether is right to hate the game, or to tell everyone that he does, although he is entitled to think what he wants, but simply to acknowledge that when one inspects the facts, it is not as surprising as it first seems. A good article by Stuart Jeffries this week shows that Andre Agassi would not be the first sportsman to hate his sport, but be driven on by a love of winning. Perhaps in describing his relationship with tennis as hate, Agassi erred. Perhaps love/hate would be more apt. Hating the game and the way it consumed his life, loving the winning and the rewards, but ultimately, only the man himself knows.

Rugby: Medical Ethics in the Harlequins Scandal

The most serious allegation in rugby’s fake blood scandal was that Tom Williams’ lip was deliberately cut after the game in order to make the faked injury look realistic.

It is unsurprising then, that the General Medical Council have decided to investigate the conduct of Dr Wendy Chapman in the affair. Whilst the rest of the scandal matters only to the rugby world, the question of medical ethics is of greater concern, and it is worrying that a doctor was able to be pressured into harming a patient (albeit in a minor way), to help her employer. Dr Chapman was clearly put under a lot of pressure in a hostile and rushed situation, and took action at the behest of the player himself, but if there is one area of that saga that must not be repeated, it is this, otherwise it is a slippery slope from here on in.

Hopefully other medical professionals in the sporting world have taken note, and will learn the important lesson from Dr Chapman’s case. After all, although it would be nice to think that those involved had a higher duty to the game of rugby, in truth only the doctor had a formal duty to anyone other than her employer.

Rugby: Setting Itself Up For A Fall?

There has been a growing trend in recent years for rugby fans to portray their sport as morally superior to other sports, specifically football, whenever a scandal breaks in the round ball game. Players don’t play act, there is respect for referees, no crowd trouble, players who are responsible and well-behaved, all part of the sport that provides real role models.

This is what has come to a head this summer. Rugby was never that sport, and never will be. It does have some advantages over football in the attitude to referees, and the way fans behave, but it clearly also has a less savoury side.

Eddie Butler made some very astute comments on 5 Live on Saturday (49 mins in, also alluded to in his column in The Observer), observing that only in England does rugby has this “nobbish” image, that in the rest of the rugby world, it is known as a sport full of skulduggery and “cheekiness”, and that the fans love it for that. If one thinks about it, he’s right. Even in this country, if one thinks of amateur rugby, one thinks of on-field dirty tricks, boozy nights out and all kinds of misbehaviour. Fans still revel in the tales such as the off-field exploits of the 1974 Lions, and Dean Richards damaging the Calcutta Cup in 1988.

The problem for rugby is that the professional era has coincided with the age of celebrity. What started with Will Carling has moved on via Lawrence Dallaglio to Danny Cipriani and Gavin Henson. There is more media scrutiny on its players at a time when they will find themselves with more money and more free time than ever before (no more balancing top-flight sport with real jobs). Meanwhile, there is more pressure on coaches and players to win now that livelihoods are on the line, more pressure on club administrators and owners to stay afloat, and more financial investment in the game by its fans than ever before. Now even middle-ranking players, such as those in the Bath drugs scandal, are targets for the tabloids.

The result is that that old-fashioned cheekiness that still exists in the amateur game is going to draw headlines at the professional level. When a player in the amateur game stands up on a team bus to extol the benefits of recreational drugs, so long as none of his teammates are policemen, no-one is likely to care. When a professional does it, are repercussions. When a professional coach wants to get a player, who has already been substituted, back on the field, he thinks back to his own playing days, when the law of the jungle applied, and acts accordingly. This is not to defend Dean Richards, nor to suggest that faking injuries goes on at the amateur levels. The point is that rugby has never been a clean sport, and in portraying itself as one for the last decade, it has done a great sales job. But it was setting itself up for a fall, and that fall came this summer.

Rugby: The Fake Blood Scandal

The summer of 2009 started brightly for the image of rugby union in the British Isles. Although the Lions’ test series against South Africa ended in defeat, the epic nature of the series put the sport in the headlines for all the right reasons. Schalk Burger’s suspension for eye gouging made for an unpleasant subplot, but on the whole, the clubs of the English Premiership must have been looking forward to increased levels of interest in the new season.

Two months later and the top stories on the agenda for the 2009/10 season are drugs and fake blood. Much has been written about how the Harlequins fake blood scandal has damaged the image of the sport, and the rugby community is right to be outraged, especially for a sport which often sells itself on its integrity. However, the level of hysteria over the affair has been excessive. Other sports have faced worse scandals and survived, and rugby will be no different, so long as the authorities act to prevent this situation from arising again. This is not to diminish the seriousness of the matter, just to observe that it does not undermine the integrity of results to the degree of match fixing in cricket, or performance enhancing drugs in athletics or cycling.

Given that the consensus has been that Harlequins’ actions were indefensible, the main debate has focused on the level of punishments handed out. The fine levied on the club has met with little complaint. It will take pressure from club owners for this behaviour to be stamped out, and hitting the bottom line is the best way to do this. Their Heineken Cup place is still under threat, but organisers need to be careful. Having fined the club, they don’t want to throw its future into doubt by destroying its finances altogether. Ultimately the game is not served by ruining Harlequins. On the other hand, any success in this year’s tournament would be unwelcome. Perhaps it depends on examining the finances of Harlequins. If they can withstand expulsion, it must be considered to help wipe the slate clean. However, weeks have passed since the final punishments were issued, and the more time passes, the harder it will be to justify further sanctions. Luckily they lost the fateful quarterfinal against Leinster, so there is no result to be corrected.

Tom Williams’ ban is less debatable. The initial year-long ban was harsh, but clearly a ploy to force his testimony. On the field, he was put in a position, in front of 12,000 people in the stadium, and millions on TV, where it was difficult to refuse orders. However, committed the act, and a ban of three months will warn other players about their future conduct.

Steph Brennan, the physio, has been given a two-year ban, and has resigned from his job with the England team. It is hard to know the long-term damage to his career, but was it proportionate? That is the same length as Matt Stevens’ ban for failing a drug test. However, he played a key role, although following Richards’ orders, and it is right that he should be punished, and perhaps best for the image of the game if he is kept away from it. It would have been an unwelcome distraction for the England team management if he had stayed in his role with the national side. Two years perhaps seems harsh, but so long as he can find work elsewhere, then justice has been served by removing him from rugby.

The main headlines have been reserved for Dean Richards’ three-year worldwide ban, which leaves his career in tatters. With his former profession as a policeman long in the past, he will have to find a new one. He deserves a lengthy ban as the mastermind of the scheme, however the proportionality must be examined. Wilfully injuring another player in a way that could permanently affect his eyesight gets an eight-week ban. Failing to take a drug test, nine months. Failing a test, two years. Cheating the rules to make an illegal substitution, three years. Whilst recreational drugs do not threaten the integrity of results in the same way that performance enhancing ones would, they cast the shadow of illegality. Rugby needs to balance offences against the game alongside offences against public morality and the law, and against offences which threaten player safety. Richards’ ban has also resulted from his overall conduct, which has shown a surprising level of contempt for the values of the game that he has made his life over a 20 year period, and this is ultimately why he has received so little sympathy. He has appeared arrogant and willing to corrupt those around him to the last.

Rugby clearly needs to standardise its punishments, and make the process more transparent. An international code may not be necessary, and might prove logistically difficult, however each nation should produce its own regulations, perhaps within internationally agreed guidelines.

In a way, this scandal has been a good thing. As Rob Andrew recently observed, professional rugby is still a young sport. There are still players remaining from the amateur era, when there was self-policing, and less pressure to win. Although it would be nice if professional rules and practices had been laid down since the start, the reality is that it takes years to adapt to as big a culture shift as this, and it will take episodes like this one to help that process, however painful. Indeed, the RFU have already announced changes to match-day regulations designed to counter these problems.

It has not helped that this story has reached its conclusion during the offseason, with no other rugby headlines to focus on. Once the season begins, there will be a shift to on-field matters, and although the ripples from this story will continue to be felt, eventually the rugby community will move on. For now, it is a question of learning the lessons and deterring others from similar offences.

Harlequins & Bloodgate: A Lighter Look

In advance of some more serious blogging on this affair, the RSC offers advice on how to really fake an injury.