1. Inordinate delay. It took more than three months to get around to even the first instance judgments. On the field cases are dealt with within four days by the RFU.
2. No directions hearings to set out how and when matters will be decided.
3. Two members of the same firm of solicitors sitting on the same disciplinary panel.
4. Insufficient transparency between the investigative and prosecution roles of the solicitor instructed by the ERC.
5. Inadequate time for preparation of the appeal case; in one instance, only one working day to prepare submissions and consider rebuttal evidence.
6. Confusion over final submissions which has allowed the prosecution to have the final address.
7. Failure to release related judgments at the same time.
8. Judgments containing only partial disclosure of documents taken into consideration.
9. Severely increased costs by not having a video-conferencing facility and by not hearing all cases where the preponderance of witnesses and advocates are based.

Added to this litany of defects is the continued failure to answer proper questions such as: was there any private meeting between the initial hearing and the appeals in the Quins blood-injury affair between the representatives of ERC and Williams? When did they occur, who was present, what was discussed, was there any deal or inducement given? Why were the judgments released separately?

Why were the misconduct charges, those relating to the cover-up, not made the subject of separate proceedings? Because the charges were all rolled into one set of proceedings there was no right of appeal against what were effectively separate and distinct charges. What is being done to prevent the issue of double jeopardy?

When ERC meets on Monday, five months after the incident, to consider yet further charges and more bad publicity for the game, it should address these issues and stop hiding.

ERC has to stop acting as a loose association of amateurs meddling in a professional world.

The rest of this article is made up of postings relating to this article that Brian made on the thread: Brian Moore questions the ERC, they are repeated in this format with Brian's permission in order that the questions will receive a wider readership.

Date: 08 September, 2009 14:10

The problem here is not my pursuit of Williams, the evidence is out and whatever was put to him by the club the final communication, 6 hours before the expiry of his deadline for appeal, he instructed his lawyers to make a 12 point demand of the club in return for his 'sacrificing' (his word) his appeal. The club replied saying they would not do anything that was tied to the non-exercising of his legal rights.

This is what is lost in spin that has been created by his PR team and which was allowed, if not encouraged, by the ERC choosing, for no legitimate reason, to release his judgement before the others. In which, incidentally, they allowed reference only to those communications between the club and Williams' adivsers that portrayed the club in a bad light and did not include the concluding e-mails referred to above. Why was that? Nobody will answer.

In addition the continued feeding of information to the press is behind the last 2 Souster articles. Far from it being me going after Williams, it is his PR team that are keeping this live. I would pose this question, what is the contractual position of an employee who continues, through proxy, to to ensure that his employers are kept in the glare of publicity and in an unfavourable way?

I tried to move the scrutiny to the remaining parties with questions to answer - the PRA and the ERC. In doing this I sent a text to Damien Hopley asking if he had anything he wanted to say to me. I got a text back saying he would call later. With few minutes Eastwood, Williams' lawyer called me and suggested I meet him the following day, subject to him getting instructions to do this.

About an hour later he called me again to tell me that he could not meet. I waited for a call from Hopley who did not get in contact.

The following day i saw the 1st Souster column that decried the release of the 2 sai e-mails saying they were part of a series and Hopley stated that this was deplorable, leaving out that he had not thought so when they were selectively released in the Williams judgement. That article also said that there was some vendetta against Williams.

Hopley texted saying he had had problems with his phone but seemingly those problems did not prevent him speaking to other people that day and it is curious that he was directly quoted in the Souster 1st article. I replied saying that I was not interested in meeting now as I did not like what had happened. This has nothing to do with the getting of stories it is about who is telling the truth and everybody being seen by the public for their part in this saga - no more, but no less.

All this from my first enquiry, which was made on a on a neutral basis - that is how quickly the agenda was managed, that is how quickly he spoiler story was planted; they didn't even know what i was going to ask, but the very fact that I indicated I would be looking at other parties roles drew this response. And, if this is how it is working now, how was the PR machine working between the first judgement and the appeal? This goes back to what was said between the ERC and the PRA and Williams and his advisers - note we are being steered away from these questions by the leaking of further information about the interchanges between Williams and the club. this is under the guise of questioning ME's role, but it has the desired effect of focusing the media on matters other than those I have raised.

I am seemingly the only journalist that is making these enquiries and there have been, i believe, purposeful attempts to undermine these enquiries by continually suggesting that my agenda is as an apologist for the club and my friend Dean Richards. I have no such agenda and have never and will never excuse what happened; just because I do not deal at length with their guilt does not mean I have not accepted it.

All i am doing is trying get the whole story out and that includes the reasons for the severe failures in the ERC process and whatever part the PRA played in this affair. To those that say this does not matter - you won't say that if you find yourself on the wrong end of it in the future; my efforts are to ensure that you don't and you should want the answers as well, unless your agenda is merely to inflict as much damage on those already sentenced. And come to think of it - what agenda is behind your refusal to address these legitimate questions of the other parties and to falsely continue to accuse me of conducting a witch-hunt/vendetta/campaign to exculpate the already punished?

Date: 08 September, 2009 14:38

The best thing is for my posts like this to be as widely disseminated as possible. I do not have a daily facility to publish things that come to me and I have to consider what i write in any column because of the need not to neglect other important stories in other sports (another by-product of Bloodgate and one gleefully accepted by those who would rather their own misdemeanours do not receive an airing)

I have actually been genuinely taken aback at the way the press has been manipulated and continues to be so. It is interesting that on ERC own fanzone there is only one thread on this affair and only one negative comment.

i again called them today and they say that as they are still in the process - they are meeting again today to consider still further action and further dragging this out - they cannot address my questions. I am about to make a formal request, on top of those put in my public columns to see whether they are brave enough to reply. If there are simple and cogent answers you would think they would be forthcoming immediately.

Date: 08 September, 2009 14:58

What people are conveniently glossing over is the 9 points in my last article come from details of other disciplinary hearing as well as Bloodgate, they are not isolated defects.

The RFU, to its credit, have realised that they cannot do justice on the cheap, nor can they refuse to answer proper questions without there being negative consequences. The fact is that if ERC reserves the jurisdiction to try matters like this and hand out serious sentences they should be equipped to do so properly. It is no excuse to say that it is Quins and Richards fault that their process is not fit to handle cases that involve such issues. As has been suggested elsewhere, if they cannot deal with such complexity they should cede the function to a body that can deal with such matters.

Lest anyone thinks i have concocted these concerns on my own, they are an accumulation of the most serious concerns of senior legal figures and high profile administrators from several areas and three different sports.

Date: 08 September, 2009 18:18

What saved Quins, ironially, was the ERC delay which meant that all the schedules, announcments and so on were out, thereby causing major disruption to ban them and substitute Wasps. This doesnot mean the ERC should not answer the questions raised. Although you think that your posts may not be of much use the more people registe their disquiet the more they have to consider doing something.

I notice they have now sad they will only pass 'relevant' documentation on to the RFU. I presume this will be as selective as before. The RFU would be perfectly within its rights to look at the player as well if it wanted. How much faith do you have in the transmission all all the relevant material being transfered? Moreover, what is relevant to Jeff Blackett may be different to the ERC panela nd disciplinary officer so the only way to be sure is to pass the totality of evience they have - will this ahppen?

They reserve thei rights against the docotr - this intolerable; they cleared her, then admitted they had no case to bring (any fool could have seen that from the charge brought) and now leave this hanging over her as well as her having to face investigation in other quarters. They should either make their case against her or shut up and formally withdraw.Moderate: Delete Message•Delete Message And Replies•Split Thread•Hide Message and Replies•Edit Post
Options: Reply To This Message•Quote This Message•Report This Message•Reply via PM•Follow This Thread
Re: Brian Moore questions the ERC
Posted by: bcm666 (86.176.101.186)

Date: 08 September, 2009 18:23

Sorry I didn't address the question of expulsion - if ERC had followed their own precedents yes Quins should have been banned. It would have been hard but I couldn't argue against it - however, the questions now still unanswered would not have changed. If the club had been banned I would have expected the individual sentences to have been less severe.

The fact that in several publications they have let it be known the O'Connor has been 'spitting blood' questions their detachment and though some will allege this is another part of the exculpation agenda, I do not believe mature and responsible bodies should approach the judicial process and particularly sentencing with emotion.

Date: 08 September, 2009 22:00

A copy of my e-mail to the RFU.

Dear Sir,

I understand that the ERC has said it intends to pass to you, where appropriate, the relevant information they gathered whilst investigating, charging and sentencing those involved in what has now become known as Bloodgate.

Can I please have your assurance that the RFU will seek disclosure of all the evidence obtained by the ERC and not just what the ERC considers should be sent to you. I say this because many people have registered their disquiet about the manner of the ERC investigation, the conduct of their hearings and the way the judgements were released and that those judgements contained what appears to be selectively chosen evidence.

I feel sure Mt Blackett will not accept that another party can decide for him what is relevant or appropriate.

Further, will you confirm that should the totality of the evidence not be forthcoming you will make his publicly known and not continue with the enquiry until you have received the same.

There is no problem with the RFU investigating and if necessary bringing its own charges, but surely this can only be done if it is satisfied it has all the relevant evidence available.

Yours truly,

Brian Moore

View a Printer Friendly version of this Story.

Bookmark or share this story with:

• Digg
• Delicious
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Stumbleupon

Related Articles:

• Tom Williams' Statement
• Bloody Hell - The Verdict