The findings of the investigation into Harlequins’ controversial blood substitution during their Heineken Cup quarter-final clash with Leinster are set to spark yet more debate after seemingly singling out Tom Williams as the guilty party.

The Quins fullback/wing has been hit with a 12 month ban for his part in the unsavoury incident that played out at The Stoop having been found guilty of, “fabricating a wound or blood injury” that allowed specialist kicker Nick Evans back onto the field. A late drop goal effort from Evans that could have won the game for the hosts sailed wide but the damage was already done as he should not have been on the field.

Williams’ guilt is not in question – his wink to the bench that was caught by TV cameras will have sealed his fate - but what does not ring true is the fact that he appears to have been made the scapegoat with team management, coaches and medical staff cleared of wrongdoing.

The club may have been hit with a hefty £215,000 fine – with half of it suspended for two years – but the implication that Williams was acting alone is laughable.

Do players carry blood capsules (or whatever else was used on this occasion to mimic blood) as part of their kit these days? No. Is Williams blessed with amazing foresight to the point that he would have tucked such a device down his sock that day? No. But the findings of this investigation expect us to believe otherwise.

It has taken over three months for the independent inquiry to reach this unsatisfactory conclusion which is the latest example – following recent cases such as the Schalk Burger eye-gouging row and Justin Harrison’s drug-related suspension – of the disciplinary system letting the game down.

On that theme, how does Williams' crime compare to that of Burger and Harrison? And how does his 12-month ban rack up against the eight-week and eight-month suspensions handed down to his South African and Australian rivals respectively? None of these offences made for happy viewing or reading but the apparent premeditated nature of the Williams/Quins offence does cause great concern. However, it seems more than a little harsh on Williams to shoulder the responsibility to such a degree in light of the punishments handed out elsewhere.

If Williams was acting alone then why has the club been fined at all? If others were involved why have they not been punished? Even if it was just the club doctor or physiotherapist, why has no other individual been called to account?

The independent disciplinary committee rightly described this incident as, “a very serious offence and one that damaged the reputation of the tournament and of Rugby Union” but Harlequins will take their place in this season’ Heineken Cup all the same.

If they were guilty of tarnishing the reputation of the game and in particular the most-prized, respected and entertaining tournament in club rugby surely a more significant statement needed to be made? Have they not been found guilty of cheating? They should not be playing in next season's competition.

Harlequins and Williams have the right to appeal this case but the player may end up taking this one for the team. For a promising player such as the 25-year-old, a year on the sidelines will no doubt prove costly in terms of his international aspirations. And despite being cleared by the investigation, Quins boss Dean Richards is unlikely to escape unscathed from the long-running saga.

In light of recent high-profile cases, the International Rugby Board instigated a review into whether the scope of appeals should in the future extend to other appropriate parties, including the IRB itself, as a safeguard against dubious results from independent inquiries.

The IRB “works tirelessly with all 116 Member Unions and key stakeholders to ensure that the safety of players and the reputation of the Game is protected” and there is no doubt the this latest black mark, with Harlequins apparently flouting the laws of the game for their own personal gain, will not have been lost on the sport’s governing body.