RFU hit back at Saracens over Venter ban

The Rugby Football Union have slammed Saracens for criticising the manner in which their director of rugby Brendan Venter was banned from the Premiership final against Leicester.

Former South Africa centre Venter received a 14-week touchline ban on Tuesday after being found guilty of making inappropriate gestures and comments to spectators during his side's 32-23 win at Leicester on May 8.

He was cleared of a charge of pushing a female Leicester supporter but the ban means he will not be allowed any contact with his side when they face a re-match against the Tigers in the Premiership final a week on Saturday.

Saracens leapt to Venter's defence upon the news of his charges, with chief executive Ed Griffiths quoted as saying: "It is astonishing that the RFU has brought and publicised these charges after requesting statements only from Leicester supporters and stewards and so hearing only one side of the story.

"Brendan, a medical doctor, is rightly appalled that charges have been brought before anybody has even had the courtesy of speaking to him."

But the RFU responded strongly and their written judgment from Venter's disciplinary hearing read: "The response of the Saracens management to these proceedings has been very disappointing and statements on their website criticising these proceedings do the club no credit.

"Their staff were clearly involved in some unpleasant events on 8 May which could have led to significant crowd trouble, but they have sought to lay blame elsewhere. All clubs have a responsibility to maintain the core values of the game and to ensure their staffs' conduct is exemplary.

"On this occasion Saracens should have done more to ensure better behaviour amongst their own staff and to reprimand them for their poor behaviour afterwards."

RFU Judge Jeff Blackett, in his summary comments, added: "Any criticism that they should first have interviewed Saracens staff before deciding to lay the charge is unfounded.

"There was sufficient evidence from the complainant and others to provide a strong prima facie case and gathering contrary statements would not have prevented a hearing."