These have not been the happiest times in the histories of Harlequins and Bath. Tomorrow is likely to be another bad day at the office for both. Harlequins, for the second time in a month, will face European Rugby Cup’s (ERC) disciplinary process over their scandalous substitution of Tom Williams in last season’s Heineken Cup quarter-final against Leinster. It will be a surprise if they are not kicked out of this season’s competition.

Tomorrow is also the day when three former Bath players, suspended earlier this month for refusing to submit to an out-of-competition drug test, will say whether they are going to appeal the RFU Disciplinary Panel’s decision to ban them for nine months. It is likely the players will appeal and it is also possible they will pursue a parallel action in the High Court. The most notorious drug scandal in the history of English rugby is expected to run and run.

Harlequins’ use of a capsule filled with red dye to falsely create an impression of injury to Williams has been called “Bloodgate” after its political forerunner, and perhaps the greatest similarity is that again on this occasion the cover-up has been more reprehensible than the original offence. It is also likely that the role of Harlequins chief executive Mark Evans will be called into question.

Reports yesterday claimed Williams’ witness statement for tomorrow’s appeal contains details that the inside of his mouth was deliberately cut with a scalpel in the team dressing room after the game to make it look like he had been injured. This would tally with the post-match observation of his teammate, the international scrum-half Danny Care, who said he saw the cut inside Williams’ mouth and that it needed stitches.

Any decision to cut the inside of Williams’ mouth might have had something to do with the fact that the Leinster doctor, Professor Arthur Tanner, was knocking on the Quins dressing room door insisting on seeing the player’s injury. In the ERC’s original decision Williams was suspended for 12 months, a draconian sentence for a player who was clearly acting on the orders of Harlequins team management.

Last weekend it became clear that Williams was determined to tell the truth at the appeal and once that happened, Harlequins’ house of cards began to crumble. First director of rugby Dean Richards resigned, which some saw as his belated acknowledgement of responsibility for something that happened on his shift. It should have come months before but Harlequins tried to brazen it out, insisting they had done nothing wrong. Without evidence of their involvement the three club officials originally charged, Richards, club doctor Wendy Chapman and physio Steph Brennan, were exonerated.

The decision to dismiss the charges against the three officials was appealed by ERC’s prosecuting officer, Roger O’Connor, and with Williams apparently set to tell a different story at tomorrow’s appeal, there could be consequences for one or more of the club officials.

O’Connor has also appealed the £215,000 fine given to Harlequins, half of which is suspended for two years, and he will be pressing for more punitive action against the club.

But the most important question that must be asked of the club is who among their top management knew that the club was not going to accept responsibility for the fake injury at the original hearing? Is it conceivable that chief executive Mark Evans didn’t know what happened at the end of the Leinster match and wasn’t aware that his club would not own up to cheating in their evidence to the ERC disciplinary committee?

Other questions that should be asked of Evans are whether he spoke with Williams before the first hearing and what the player told him regarding that strangely coloured substance flowing from his mouth. If Evans knew that Williams had been used in a fake injury substitution, did he advise the player to come clean at the hearing? Did he agree with Williams’ original stance, which was, effectively, to take a hit for the club?

In his lengthy apology to supporters on the club website last week, Evans did not say what he knew and didn’t know before the first hearing. It is likely the ERC committee will want to know what the chief executive knew and what role he played. So far, Dean Richards has been the one high-profile casualty in Bloodgate. He may not be the only one.