1
Leicester 'disappointed' with RFU over handling of Michael Cheika ban
By Josh Raisey
Leicester Tigers have questioned the RFU's handling of head coach Michael Cheika's hearing, which resulted in the Australian being banned for two weeks (with one week suspended).
In a statement issued after the decision, the Tigers voiced their disappointment that Cheika was charged with being "disrespectful" to a matchday doctor after witnesses supported his version of events.
What's more, the club are disappointed that the RFU released a statement revealing the disciplinary panel's decision despite not seeing the written judgement themselves.
The Tigers have confirmed that they are "seeking clarification" and "reserve the right to lodge an appeal of the decision."
The statement reads: "Leicester Tigers welcome the panel's finding that head coach Michael Cheika was not intimidating or abusive towards the match day doctor following the recent game with Exeter Chiefs, however the club would nevertheless like to express its dissatisfaction with the finding that Michael Cheika was disrespectful.
"Whilst the panel have yet to provide reasons for its decision, the club is particularly disappointed with the disrespectful finding given that multiple witnesses gave evidence at the disciplinary hearing supporting Michael's version of events.
"The club is also disappointed that despite its request not to do so, the RFU issued a statement announcing the panel’s decision despite the club having not yet been provided with the written judgment and knowing the exact reasons for the decision.
"Additionally, we find it regrettable that the RFU's statement included some reasoning for the decision from the Chairman of the panel which was not shared with the club at the hearing and before the written judgment has been provided.
"Leicester Tigers would like to place on record that it would never question the World Rugby HIA process, when correctly implemented, and is rigorously committed to the safety, wellbeing and health of our players.
"We will be seeking clarification on the above and reserve the right to lodge an appeal of the decision, within the fourteen day period allowed, once we have been provided with the written judgment by the RFU."
Trending on RugbyPass
2
Initial Immanuel Feyi-Waboso injury update does not sound promising
3
Ex-Wallaby explains why All Blacks aren’t at ‘panic stations’
4
Leinster player ratings vs Connacht | 2024/25 URC
5
Latest Comments
Hopefully Joe stays where he is. That would mean Les, McKellar, larkham and Cron should as well. It’s the stability we need in the state programs. But, if Joe goes, RA with its current financial situation will be forced into promoting from within. And this will likely destabilise other areas.
To better understand some of the entrenched bitterness of those outside of NZ and NSW (as an example 😂), Nic, there is probably a comparison to the old hard heads of welsh rugby who are still stuck in the 1970s. Before the days where clubs merged, professionalism started, and the many sharp knives were put into the backs of those who loved the game more than everyone else. I’m sure you know a few... But given your comparison of rugby in both wales and Australia, there are a few north of the tweed that will never trust a kiwi or NSWelshman because of historical events and issues over the history of the game. It is what it is. For some, time does not heal all wounds. And it is still festering away in some people. Happy holidays to you. All the best in 2025.
Go to commentsNot surprised to see Barretts rating. He has always been a solid defender for the ABs but not particularly effective in attack situations.
Go to comments