Leicester Tigers hit out at RFU’s handling of Michael Cheika’s ban hearing

Leicester Tigers have hit out at the RFU’s handling of Michael Cheika’s disciplinary hearing on Tuesday, after the head coach was given a two-match suspension for disrespecting an independent doctor which will rule him out of this weekend’s game against Newcastle Falcons.

While Cheika was found to have not been intimidating or abusive towards the match-day doctor he was deemed to be disrespectful, a verdict which Leicester were “particularly disappointed with... given that multiple witnesses gave evidence at the disciplinary hearing supporting Michael’s version of events”.

It is understood that there is no evidence of abusive language from Cheika during any exchange with the doctor, while Leicester behind-the-scenes are understood to be furious with the outcome.

In a statement the club revealed they had not been provided with the written judgement and exact reasons for the decision behind Cheika’s guilty verdict before the RFU announced their decision, which included reasoning from the independent disciplinary panel chairman which was not shared with Leicester at the hearing.

The club also stated on record that they would “never question the World Rugby HIA process, when correctly implemented, and is rigorously committed to the safety, wellbeing and health of our players”.

Cheika has been banned from all match-day activities for this Saturday’s game at Newcastle, meaning he can attend but is not allowed to be involved in any coaching or substitutions, or to be with the team three hours before kick-off and two hours after the game. A further week’s ban has been suspended.

The panel upheld the charge, which alleged that Cheika had breached Rugby Football Union rule 5.12, which concerns “conduct prejudicial to the interests of the game and/or Union”.

Cheika is understood to have been charged after questioning a series of events during the second half of Leicester’s dramatic win over Exeter on Sept 21, his first competitive game in charge.

Following a head clash between Solomone Kata and Ollie Chessum, which left both with concussive symptoms, the former was allowed to play on. The latter returned to the field, having passed a head-injury assessment.

Both players have since been required to undergo stand-down periods, with Kata also serving a suspension because he was sent off for a high tackle on his return to the field. Tigers have 14 days to appeal the decision.

Speaking before Leicester’s game against Bath, Cheika discussed Chessum’s absence from the side, suggesting there had been “a mistake” at the time.

“Chessum got ruled out through the head injury on the weekend. He came on, came off, but I think they made a mistake or something – I’m not sure. He’s been ruled out afterwards now, so he can’t play this week,” Cheika said.

Cheika is understood to have informed the Leicester squad of his punishment at training on Wednesday morning, with reaction among the players said to be one of shock and disappointment at the ruling.

Chessum is also understood to have attended the hearing on Tuesday to support Cheika as one of five witnesses. Four, including Chessum, supported the coach’s view that he had not intimidated or disrespected the doctor, while the other witness disagreed. The panel sided with the other witness.

The RFU, in a statement confirming the suspension, said: “The [independent disciplinary] panel, chaired by Richard Whittam KC sitting with panel members Dr Julian Morris and Oliver Clarke, found Cheika had disrespected the independent match-day doctor and was given a two-week suspension, with one week suspended until the end of the 2024-25 season.”

Richard Whittam KC, independent disciplinary panel chair, added: “The panel found that Michael Cheika disrespected the independent match-day doctor in challenging the decision he had made that a player was subject to an IPR (immediate permanent removal).

“Although it was an unusual case because there was a lack of clarity about the decisions made about the head injuries, the decisions of the independent match-day doctor must be respected. In this particular case, the appropriate sanction was one of two weeks. The panel mitigated this by suspending one week until the end of the season.”

The RFU’s full judgment on the matter is expected to be released in the coming days.