Integrity of Heineken Cup could be under threat, says Tigers' Peter Wheeler
Leicester Tigers' rugby director Peter Wheeler says the credibility and integrity of the Heineken Cup could be under threat.
Dublin-based European Rugby Cup (ERC) have been in control of Europe's biggest competition involving the cream of the northern hemisphere's club sides for 15 years.
But two incidents involving the Ospreys this season have put a question mark over their regulatory procedures.
The Welsh region were fined £20,000 for their part in Lee Byrne's 'Subgate' saga after a 16th man was allowed onto the pitch for 70 seconds of the Ospreys clash with Leicester.
Then the club were investigated over the eligibility of South African scrum-half Ricky Januarie.
On both occasions, clubs or bodies had to ask for ERC to look into the incidents.
Leicester queried the '16th man' incident while Premier Rugby (PRL) – the Guinness Premiership's umbrella organisation – raised the issue of Januarie's registration.
In that particular case, tournament rules state that any loan player must sign "at least" a three-month contract. Januarie's contract was announced as a "two-month deal" by his Super 14 club, the Stormers.
Although the Ospreys were cleared of any wrong-doing, ERC saying they had "no case to answer", the details of how they escaped any punishment have never been published.
Wheeler says that European clubs are doing their bit to make the Heineken Cup successful.
And he believes that ERC need to take a long look at the way they run the competition.
"The European Cup has been a great competition since its inception," he said in his programme notes from last weekend's game against London Irish.
"The clubs and provinces of Europe have embraced it and made it what it is today.
"Their role is to provide the teams within the regulations of the competition – and the supporters to make the matches real rugby occasions of the highest level. This they have achieved.
"European Rugby Cup's responsibilities are to ensure that, apart from the competition generating appropriate income levels for the commercial rights, all teams comply with the competition's regulations so they can be sure that all are operating on a level paying field.
"This, crucially, applies to only properly registered players being eligible to play in matches, and that only they in the proper number are allowed on to the playing field.
"If they fail to undertake these responsibilities fully, the credibility and integrity of the competition is compromised and tarnished.
"Any breaches of the regulations in our match against the Ospreys should not have occurred, and competing clubs or other bodies should not have to make complaints to have them investigated. This is European Rugby Cup Ltd's job."
9 Comments
View all
by Neil Hughes, Wickford
Thursday, March 11 2010, 11:25AM
“Although the Ospreys were cleared of any wrong-doing, ERC saying they had "no case to answer", the details of how they escaped any punishment have never been published.
Shoddy, shoddy journalism. What part of no case to answer means that there ARE any details of how they escaped punishment?”
by Tony, Leics
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 2:35PM
“Andrew, I see what you mean. So the next time Tigers have to play a H Cup game with 17 first choice players out they can offer 17 internationals a 3 month contract with an option to leave after 2 weeks and no other teams in the group would complain. I don't think so.
And Lee its time people got over the hand of Back. If seen it was a penalty and 3 points would not have been enough for Munster to win. The idea that a game should be made void if a team gets away with a penalty is laughable and would mean virtually no result would stand.
You are right about one set of laws for one etc. Tigers were deducted a point in the GP a few years ago for playing one of their own players who had been loaned out. They came second behind Gloucester that year on points difference.
I have never wanted Tigers to be reinstated because of this but I suspect that the main reason for 'no case to answer' is because of the chaos it would cause in the next round, hence nothing being published by ERC.”
by Nick, London
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 10:44AM
“Wow, what a lot of rubbish being written. Here's what we know
1) The Ospreys had 16 men on th3 field briefly. They were fined for this - in the same way England were, for the same offence, in 03. Should we say that England are kicked out of the 03 WC because of it? No, didnt think so
2) Pete Wheeler moaned about the contract - but the contract was within rules, in fact ERC said they had no case to answer. So now he is complaining about the fact that he had to complain - made more farcical because he didnt have to complain at all, as nothing was wrong.
What this has achieved is dragging the name of Leicester down. They are now being associated with someone who whinges and complains because his team managed to finish 3rd in their group, above only an Italian side. He doesn't like this and is using nonrugby means to try achieve what his side couldnt.
The fans deserve better than this. Richard Cokerill did very well after the Ospreys game, impressed me with how he handled things. Mr Wheeler should take a leaf out of his coaches book and move on.”
by Andrew, Wales
Wednesday, March 10 2010, 10:15AM
“You all need to check the rules of the competition whcih states the player must be contracted - please note that word - for 3 months. it states nothing about playing for 3 months. The Ospreys and MUNSTER had palyers contracted for three months hence no case to answer.”
by Lee, England
Tuesday, March 09 2010, 3:55PM
“Leicester seem to think they have a god given right to win everything, thats why they are seen as the Man Utd of the Rugby World! Seeing as Leicester want to stick rigidly to the Heineken Cup rules, why dont they void the result when Neil Back illegally used his hand? hmmm... didnt think so, one set of rules for one....”