HARLEQUINS’ FUTURE was cast into doubt last night when it emerged they could be banned from English rugby under a fresh disciplinary hearing into the Bloodgate scandal, according to the Rugby Football Union’s highest legal authority.

The RFU’s disciplinary officer, Jeff Blackett, will announce in the coming days the composition of a panel that is set to examine allegations of a cover-up involving Quins’ most senior executives.

And although refusing to prejudge the outcome, Blackett set out a range of possible punitive measures, extending to expulsion from all RFU competitions.

“Rule 5.12 says any conduct that is prejudicial to the interests of the union or the game is misconduct,” said Blackett, a circuit judge. If a judgment of the European Rugby Cup (ERC) disciplinary process provides allegations of misconduct that have not been addressed I have to consider whether further investigation is justified, needed or right. Anyone who is a member of a club is subject to the disciplinary process of the RFU.”

Asked what potential sanctions are open to the RFU’s disciplinary committees, Blackett responded: “From a reprimand to expulsion from the union.”

Although it is Harlequins’ chief executive, Mark Evans, and chairman, Charles Jillings, who have been placed under the spotlight by the allegations of the wing Tom Williams released by the ERC, the club as an institution are embroiled.

The misconduct judgment of the ERC-appointed panel discovered Williams was “under intense pressure to tell lies”, prompting a three-year ban for the former director of rugby, Dean Richards.

Jillings is understood to be a substantial shareholder of the club, and a similar judgment against him would lead to him being forced to sell the stake otherwise the suspension would be conferred on to the club. “Any person found guilty of misconduct and banned would have to be no longer able to take part in rugby, therefore the club would have to be removed from the competitions,” Blackett said.

Williams had alleged he had been offered inducements not to appeal against his year-long ban for using a fake-blood capsule. The ERC panel asserted that Quins accepted as “factual” Williams’s account. “Jillings told me he thought I should appeal but it should be on a limited basis, focusing on the sanction and the findings of fact,” read his affidavit. “Jillings apologised and then laid out a compensation offer to me.

“This consisted of a payment of my salary while I was suspended, an assurance I would be selected for the team on merit once my suspension ended, a two-year contract extension, a testimonial, a three-year employment opportunity with the club after I retired from playing and an assurance he would take a direct interest in my post-rugby career.”

There were similar allegations about Evans, who refused to comment yesterday when asked if he would resign. Instead the club countered Williams’s claims. “Harlequins note the issues raised in the judgment and the Tom Williams statement,” their statement read.

“The board is satisfied that subsequent to the July 20th hearing Harlequins have behaved appropriately in the interests of the club, player and other staff. There are a number of matters with which the club would like to take issue but only one judgment out of five has been issued. Therefore it is felt to be wholly inappropriate to comment until all the findings in all the cases have been published.”

With the remaining judgments from the ERC’s disciplinary process for the case expected to be published in full next week, further damning revelations are sure to emerge. But the debacle at Harlequins is just one of a series of recent incidents that has left rugby’s reputation in tatters. - Guardian Service