RUGBY HARLEQUINS CONTROVERSY:TOM WILLIAMS could be spitting blood for a second time this year following ERC's decision to ban the Harlequins wing for 12 months arising out of an incident in the London club's Heineken Cup quarter-final defeat to Leinster at the Stoop, writes JOHN O'SULLIVAN

On the basis of the judgment, the euphemism for anger is possibly a more genuine outpouring than the substance that gushed from his mouth in London last April.

Television footage of the incident that led to Williams’ departure because of a blood injury – he came on as a replacement for Chris Malone during the match – and the return to the pitch of front-line kicker, outhalf Nick Evans, suggested impropriety at the time based on circumstances: the timing of the incident, the state of affairs that pertained on the pitch, Williams’ injudicious wink that was caught by the cameras and the colour and volume of the “blood”.

Then there was also the reaction of the Leinster management to Williams’ injury led by coach Michael Cheika that led to a kerfuffle on the touchline. ERC promised an investigation into the matter, the result of which was made public at a little before 10pm on Monday night.

The London club was hit with a €250,000 fine, 50 per cent of which is suspended for two years, Williams was banned for 12 months but coach Dean Richards, physiotherapist Steph Brennan and Dr Wendy Chapman had misconduct complaints dismissed.

Harlequins issued a statement in the aftermath that read: “Harlequins are both surprised and disappointed at today’s decision by the ERC disciplinary committee to find Harlequins and Tom Williams guilty of misconduct – particularly so in the light of the acquittal of Dean Richards, Steph Brennan and Dr Wendy Chapman on similar or identical charges.

“The club and the player will consider their position in the light of the written judgement due to be handed down by the disciplinary committee.”

Harlequins appear to make a valid point at face value about how the coach and medical team could be exonerated while a player is deemed the only person culpable of implied behaviour that basically amounts to cheating.

However delving beneath the surface offers an insight into the findings of the independent disciplinary committee. There was footage relating to the incident made available to the committee that wasn’t previously broadcast on Sky television in which there is damning evidence of impropriety relating to the actions of the player in those moments prior to his replacement.

It is important to note that the disciplinary panel is entitled to arrive at recommendations based on the balance of probability rather than the burden of proof.

It’s an important differentiation and offers an explanation as to why the club was hit with the stiff financial penalty while Richards, Brennan and Chapman weren’t indicted of any wrong doing.

No one can prove the coach or the medical team knowingly directed a breach of the rules but the fine reinforces ERC’s unhappiness with Harlequins’ conduct in the whole affair.

It’s reasonable to surmise that Williams didn’t arrive at The Stoop that day planning to break the rules governing blood replacements.

It’s highly unlikely that while sitting on the bench initially, and then while out on the pitch, he managed to find a food dye capsule or bit into the side of his own mouth without direction from elsewhere.

A sympathetic view in relation to the player is that Williams has been made a scapegoat and that the 25-year-old will have his ban reduced on appeal. It’s an interesting standpoint but one which ignores the fact that according to the ERC findings, the player was guilty of breaking rules and in doing so bringing the sport into disrepute. It doesn’t matter whether it was his idea or that of others.

The most obvious mitigation in seeking to reduce the 12 month ban would be for Williams to confirm that his alleged transgression came at the behest of a specific individual or individuals. It’s an unlikely scenario. Neither Harlequins nor the player in question will consider commenting further until they have received the written findings of the disciplinary panel.

One sanction that was open to ERC and still would be in the event of any appeal by Harlequins would be to impose stiffer penalties. They could have banned the London club from next season’s Heineken Cup or elected to deduct points prior to the start of the campaign.

Harlequins’ defeat may have saved them from just such a ruling.

If Leinster had lost out, not alone on progressing in the competition but the attendant financial rewards from prize money, sponsorship bonuses and sundry other financial gains that could have run into seven figures, ERC might have taken a different stance.