BY JOHN DAVIDSON
Two weeks ago the RFL announced Sheffield Eagles coach Mark Aston and physiotherapist Mick Heys had been hit with long bans from rugby league over a medical compliance matter.
Aston and Heys were banned for 18 months (but six months of Heys’ sentence has been suspended for 12 months) after a player Matty Marsh had returned to play after a head injury earlier this year without the necessary clearance.
It was a landmark case and Judge Batty, who chaired the operational rules tribunal, stated at the time: “Head contact has become a serious issue in professional rugby in both codes of the game. Player welfare is and should be paramount. Those who fail to comply with the rules must be brought to account.”
From the outside, it looked like justice had been done. We all know how serious concussion is in contact sport, particularly rugby league, and this was no small matter.
However, you dig a little deeper and all is not what it seems.
The whole tribunal, from the way it was run, and its content to the outcome, is highly questionable. You can read the full tribunal notes here.
After studying them, and speaking to many parties involved in this matter over the past week, it is clear the case raises far more questions than answers. These include how this tribunal was formed and how it came to its very serious conclusion, which may effectively end Aston’s long and proud association with rugby league for over four decades.
For instance, the RFL states that this was an independent tribunal involving HHJ C Batty, Alan Hunte and Chris Chapman. But how truly independent can it be if this was a tribunal paid for and organised by the RFL?
A key component of the case is the actions and standing of Hannah Cole, an employee of Sheffield. The tribunal refers to her as the “Sheffield Eagles Doctor / Equivalent”. But Cole is not a doctor but a nurse and an Advanced Clinical Practitioner with a master’s degree, who runs a skin care business.
rugbyleaguehub.com Long Reads does not suggest any wrongdoing on Cole’s part.
But is it right and fair to continually refer to her as a doctor and as someone with a doctor’s expertise, when she is not?
It is believed Cole holds a Band 8a NHS grade, the same as Heys, the physio. It could be argued she has less experience and knowledge in returning a player from concussion compared with Heys.
The tribunal notes clearly state: “Hannah Cole is the only individual at the Club who can sign off the various stages of the GRTP (Graduated Return to Play protocol) process and the only individual at the Club with the ability to ultimately sign the player off to return to play once she is satisfied the GRTP has been properly adhered to and completed by the player.
“The rationale being that it is imperative for someone with such level of qualification, experience and expertise to ultimately sign the player off to return to play in order to ensure that player welfare is appropriately protected.”
This is significant because the RFL’s case heavily relied on the implied medical hierarchy. The “doctor equivalent” role referenced in the tribunal notes doesn’t formally exist outside of the RFL’s medical standards document, and the tribunal used this perceived authority differential as part of their rationale for the punishment of Aston and Heys.
Another key component that seems to be missed in all of this is that Marsh was completely fit to play.
This fact isn’t disputed by anyone, including the RFL. It appears as though Aston and Heys have been severely banned because the paperwork was completed in the wrong order. Should an administrative error result in such a heavy ban?
The tribunal notes detail the shoddy and amateurish process involved in signing a player off after a concussion and returning them to play. It is clear this process needs to be improved.
rugbyleaguehub.com Long Reads has heard claims alleging that on the morning of the Sheffield vs Wigan Challenge Cup game Cole emailed the RFL stating that she would not clear Marsh to play. The RFL then could have marked him as unavailable in their GameDay system, which would have automatically prevented him playing, but they didn’t. Why?
The tribunal notes also explore the actions of the RFL’s investigator, Vince Butler. According to LinkedIn, Butler is the managing director of VTK Investigations. He is also a former chairman of the Association of British Investigators.
Butler is involved with the amateur club Queensbury ARLFC. Should an investigator with ties to the RFL be appointed to handle this case? Or should it be someone completely independent? Questions worth asking.
The notes show criticism of Butler’s actions in the case by the defense. They state: “(i) The deliberate destruction of investigation notes and records by Vince Butler before the conclusion of the regulatory process;
“(ii) The failure of Vince Butler to obtain or secure the relevant messages from the WhatsApp Group which have since been deleted;
“(iii) The failure by Vince Butler in advance of the Respondent’s interview on 9th May 2024 he was under investigation for any alleged breaches of RFL conduct, that he was not provided with any pre-interview disclosure, that he was not given any warning or opportunity to seek advice prior to interview, and that he was unaware that the interview and statement could be used to construct a case against him;
“(iv) Failure by RFL to provide relevant internal email communication on or about 22nd March 2024.”
In response, the tribunal declared that: “The loss of the WhatsApp messages is unfortunate. It is not clear to us how that has happened given the number of people who were involved in the group.
“We do think that it might have been helpful for Vince Butler to have considered them and recorded some or all of them. This is particularly so when considering the responsibilities of those above Mark Aston and involved in the running of the Club.”
Aston’s was also not allowed to call any witnesses to the tribunal in his defence. Why?
Then there is the size of the hefty ban that has gone to Aston and Heys – 18 months for each, but six months suspended for Heys.
Ben Flower was banned for a total of six months for his brutal double punch assault of Lance Hohaia in the 2013 Super League grand final that was seen by millions worldwide. Is what Aston and Heys did that much worse (three times worse) than what Flower was guilty of? Particularly when Marsh was actually fit to play, but the protocol hadn’t been followed properly?
No.
To further add insult to injury, on October 29 the RFL announced a tender for a new medical management system to “improve medico-legal governance”. It wants a new “sports medical management system – a Medical App – to support clinicians in record-keeping and injury management within the sport”.
The timing seems to acknowledge that the RFL has systemic issues in its current concussion protocols.
rugbyleaguehub.com Long Reads put a series of questions to the RFL relating to this case. An RFL spokesperson today said: “It wouldn’t be appropriate for us to comment while the process still live.”
rugbyleaguehub.com Long Reads has also approached Aston, Cole and Butler all for comment, but none had responded at the time of writing. It is believed Aston intends to appeal his ban, but as of yet the RFL has not received an intention to appeal from him.
This whole multifaceted and complicated case is deeply damaging to the sport, its reputation and specifically the careers of Aston and Heys. It exposes much deeper governance issues at work.
To me, there was wrongdoing here and the current procedure was not followed by Sheffield and its staff. They deserve punishment of some form.
But, equally, the punishment should be fair and proportionate. Aston and Heys should not be made scapegoats for the whole concussion crisis. They should not be hung out to dry. This was not some dastardly conspiracy or evil plan to break the rules, it was an administrative bungle.
They should not have their lives ruined for a mistake.
As Ian Swire, former Eagles chairman, recently succinctly wrote to League Express: “The RFL also appear to be culpable and they dismiss any criticisms with their usual waiver that ‘we can’t micromanage clubs’ despite the fact that they are, and indeed should be, micromanaging clubs with regard to HIAs (head injury assessments).
“They obviously have insurance issues with the ongoing head injury legal cases which is understandable.
“However they then seem to be more interested in checking that teams don’t get a competitive advantage by playing banned players rather than ensuring that head injury protocols
are adhered to in advance of potentially putting players at risk… Will the RFL learn lessons from Mark and Mick’s case and finally make their Gameday system fit for purpose?.”
Swire makes some telling points. Absolutely no one is winning in this situation.
A call to review Aston’s ban has been made. You can join the petition here.
