DELON ARMITAGE BANNED FOR 12 WEEKS

First topic message reminder :

Breaking news on Twitter apparently (herself subscribes, I don't). Ah, here it is http://www.epcrugby.com/news/29893.php


Delon Armitage, the RC Toulon player, has been suspended for 12 weeks as a result of a misconduct complaint lodged against him by EPCR ...

following his club's European Rugby Champions, Round 3 match against Leicester Tigers at Welford Road on 7 December 2014.

Armitage appeared before an independent Disciplinary Committee made up of Antony Davies (England, Chairman), Roger Morris (Wales) and Pat Barriscale (Ireland) in London today (Wednesday, 17 December). He was accompanied at the hearing by his legal representatives, Mark Milliken-Smith QC and Julian Pike, and by the RC Toulon Team Manager, Tom Whitford, and the RC Toulon player, Drew Mitchell.

The misconduct complaint against Armitage was that during and after the match he was alleged to have conducted himself in an unsportsmanlike manner by making a number of comments to, or within earshot of, spectators using foul and abusive language and may have brought into disrepute the sport of rugby union, the European Rugby Champions Cup, other clubs and persons and/or EPCR in contravention of the Disciplinary Rules of the European Rugby Champions Cup Participation Agreement 2014/15.

After considering evidence and hearing submissions on behalf of Armitage, who pleaded not guilty, and on behalf of the EPCR Disciplinary Officer, the independent Disciplinary Committee was not satisfied that a comment allegedly made by Armitage during the match had been made as the inconsistencies in the evidence were too great.

However, the Committee was satisfied that Armitage had directed abusive language at Leicester Tigers supporters after the match, and while it found that his comments were provoked, the Committee decided he was guilty of misconduct.

The Committee determined that the sanction entry point should be eight weeks, and as this was Armitage's second post-match misconduct case in the last four years, and as there were no mitigating factors, it decided to add four weeks to the ban before imposing a suspension of 12 weeks. Armitage was also ordered to pay costs.
The suspension will run from 17 December 2014 until 8 March 2015, therefore Armitage will be free to play on 9 March 2015. Both the player and EPCR have the right to appeal the decision.



Notes
a) Independent Disciplinary Committees are chosen by the Chairman of the independent Disciplinary Panel, Professor Lorne Crerar.
b) EPCR'S Disciplinary Officer will present the case against the club/individual.
c) Both parties to the hearing (EPCR and the club/individual) have the right to appeal decisions of the independent Disciplinary Committee. Appeals must be lodged within 72 hours of receiving the full written decision from the Chairman of the independent Disciplinary Committee.
d) The full written decision of the independent Disciplinary Committee will be available on http://www.epcrugby.com/discipline/index.php when the disciplinary process is complete.

So Boudjellal's euros can buy good enough representation to frighten the Commission. It has ever been thus.

Strange one.

Did he appeal the finding of guilt or the sentence or both?

So the sentence was reduced purely because they made an error in calculating it, ie at which stage they include his previous rather than because of the strength of the case against him?

Did that happen with one of the SF players (?Attoub or Dupuy) a few years back too?

I think it'll just be the starting point. So it'll be 6 to 8 rather than 8 to 12... At a guess

I'm not sure there is a specific offence for abusing a spectator still in the ground after a match. It sounded like the original panel chose a similar offence, and their selection - which gave the eight week starting point - has been overruled.

The whole procedure has seemed very unsatisfactory.

They based it on abusing the red I think

Interesting that the Wales member was replaced by a frenchman

The Great Aukster wrote:So Boudjellal's euros can buy good enough representation to frighten the Commission. It has even been thus.

Or, given quite a few people thought 12 weeks was excessive, the Appeal panel thought the same?

Rugby Fan wrote:I'm not sure there is a specific offence for abusing a spectator still in the ground after a match. It sounded like the original panel chose a similar offence, and their selection - which gave the eight week starting point - has been overruled.

The whole procedure has seemed very unsatisfactory.

Couldn't agree more with this, it's been utterly shambolic.

I do not see it as being shambolic in the least.

The original panel deemed that Armitage was guilty of misconduct and bringing the game into disrepute. The minutes of the hearing suggest it was handled in a professional way.

The appeal panel agreed with the guilty verdict.


The original panel then set the starting point at 8 weeks, likening it to abusing the ref. Many felt this too high and compared to foul play bans - but appeal panel agreed.

The only disagreement was whether they should then have taken past behaviour into account and added the extra 4 weeks.



As far as I can see, due process has been adequately followed and mob law avoided.

HammerofThunor wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:So Boudjellal's euros can buy good enough representation to frighten the Commission. It has ever been thus.

Or, given quite a few people thought 12 weeks was excessive, the Appeal panel thought the same?

There will always be quite a few people who believe the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so. Rugby is known for being a tough game, but it is also known for its sportsmanship. Players play hard on the pitch and then put their differences aside off it - the fans have always been the same. It is important that the custodians of the game show zero tolerance to chav behaviour as the very foundations of the game become eroded. Reducing the sentence based on a technicality smacks of being brow beaten by smart legal footwork from defending Counsel rather than an admission that the original 12 week period was too long.

The original sentence was not 12 weeks.

It was 8 for the offence plus 4 added because of past misdemeanours. The appeal panel have decided that adding 50% was not permissible.

LondonTiger wrote:I do not see it as being shambolic in the least.

Ozzy outlined earlier in this thread the main areas of concern about how the original panel arrived at their decision. The fact that the appeal panel has now rolled back part of their judgement can't be taken as a ringing endorsement.