TOM WILLIAMS’ decision to produce an affidavit and supplemental statement drastically amended his original submission pertaining to the “Bloodgate” affair and led to the suspensions imposed on former Harlequins director of rugby Dean Richards and physiotherapist.

While the Independent Appeals Committee didn’t agree with all his assertions – specifically finding in favour of Richards and Brennan in the timing of the decision to have the player fake a blood injury – it did accept the vast majority of his testimony and therefore reduced his original ban from 12 months to four.

Williams opened his affidavit with the following observation: “As I will explain below I did not give a true account of the relevant matters to the Disciplinary Committee. This is a cause of great regret to me and I apologise unreservedly for it. I pride myself on honesty and integrity and I am extremely disappointed that I allowed myself to get caught up in events.”

The player pointed out that he didn’t take independent advice legal or otherwise prior to the disciplinary hearing and it was only when he did and in conjunction with ERC disciplinary officers that he realised he had to come clean. He asked the appeals committee to understand the pressure that was brought to bear on him from a number of areas.

The minutiae of events pertaining to his introduction as a blood substitute during Harlequins Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster at The Stoop, biting into a capsule to fake a blood injury and the lengths he went to go to collude in covering up what amounted to cheating were well documented in the ERC findings released last week but there are aspects of his testimony that attempt to partially explain his behaviour.

His perception of his relationship with Richards is interesting. “All matters relating to rugby at the club were controlled by Dean. There was no doubting that he was the boss and he ran the show. He did not discuss his decisions with me. He gave directions and these were followed. There were occasions when I disagreed with his decisions. However, I did not feel able to challenge his authority. I do not think I have ever seen another player challenge Dean’s authority.”

He went on to cite an example of Richards’ management style. Williams picked up a haematoma during a game against Plymouth and didn’t get back into the defensive line. Richards would pull him up on this and direct him to train with Harlequins rugby league team to harden him up.

This is Williams’ version of events, one that would subsequently be disputed by Richards. It wouldn’t be the only time that Williams and Richards would be offering differing perspectives to various issues. The most contentious surrounded the player proclaiming that Richards told him that he would be coming off with a blood injury prior to going on the pitch to replace Chris Malone.

In evidence Richards’ legal team disputed this claim as did that of Steph Brennan, and the appeals committee would find in favour of the Richards/Brennan view of this incident. Williams was not told when to fake the blood injury but understood that it would have to be after contact. He described “letting the capsule fall out of his mouth” when he tried to bite it first and having to put it in again. “Not only is this aspect of the episode shameful but very embarrassing. However it is a good indication that I was not thinking about what I was doing. I could not have picked a more exposed position on the pitch to take the capsule. I was not thinking straight and my execution of the fake injury was unplanned.”

The player would then go on to ask the team doctor Wendy Chapman to cut his mouth. He spoke about receiving phone messages and texts from Chapman subsequently, expressing her concern regarding her medical career.

Brennan drew up statements corroborating testimonies, Richards amended them and Williams, along with the other two, signed them. The player felt under massive pressure to do so and would attest accordingly. The appeals committee found in favour of Williams’ view.