FIVE months have passed since the Arlidge Report failed to achieve anything but a few aimless shots at the messenger.

Cecil Duckworth - a man who had the audacity to stand up to the sickening self interest which dominates thinking at Premiership level - was hung out to dry in public by the inquiry's rather clumsy findings.

A charge of £10,000 was put at Worcester and Duckworth's door for his part in the affair which alleged National One champions Rotherham had agreed in principle to accept money and stay down -- outside of the Premiership -- two seasons ago.

The Rugby Football Union's disciplinary officer Jeff Blackett not only ordered Worcester to pay £10,000 of the inquiry's costs but also alleged that Duckworth's actions in triggering the investigation 'brought the game into disrepute' because of open interaction with the Press.

Understandably, after ploughing so much time into the inquiry, Duckworth was fuming not only with the outcome but with the allegations that he had somehow brought the game into ill repute

The Evening News can exclusively reveal, however, that the RFU has backtracked dramatically on its original conclusions and will not be ordering Worcester to foot part of the bill.

RFU insiders have admitted that discussions over the phrasing of this fresh information have dragged on but revealed that the £10,000 'cost' will now be forgotten while the Premiership clubs have still made a substantial contribution to the inquiry's costs.

Duckworth refused to comment on the financial implications but added that he was a little happier with the re-worked statement by Blackett.

It said: "In relation to my adjudication as it effects Cecil Duckworth, he has requested me to note publicly that it was he who was contacted by the Press with regard to the allegations concerning the Premiership clubs and Rotherham, which brought about the above inquiry and was invited to comment - and not the other way round.

"He has also asked me to note that he was under constant pressure from the Press to make comments on the issues and, apart from the initial conversations, he declined to comment further and was content to leave matters in the hands of the RFU.

"He has also brought to my attention that there is no criticism of him by Mr Arlidge in his report and that he was given no advance warning of the view I would form in my decision as to his conduct.

"Cecil Duckworth has indicated to me that he believes that there should be no criticism of him as, in his opinion, he behaved perfectly properly when initially contacted by the Press, by reporting the matter forthwith to the RFU. Nonetheless he has agreed not to contest my findings for the best interests of the game, which is exactly what I expected from someone who has given so much to Worcester, First Division Rugby and rugby generally.

"Cecil has also asked me to clarify publicly one further point of detail in my statement dated June 9, 2003 and I am delighted so to do.

"In paragraph 12 I described Mr Duckworth's actions of tape recording telephone conversations as 'particularly unattractive'. This was not a slur on his character but my opinion of the surreptitious recording of telephone conversations without the other person's knowledge. I acknowledge that the Arlidge Report (in chapter 15) addressed this issue and concluded that such a recording was permissible.

"Further, I now understand that Mr Duckworth was advised by his legal adviser to make the recording. While I remain of the view that this sort of conduct is unattractive, I make no personal criticism of Mr Duckworth, who acted entirely on legal advice.

"Mr Duckworth has also asked me to note that the purpose of the recording was for him to hold a convincing record of what had been said to him and to hold the 'evidence' for his own personal protection and without any intention to release the recording to the press. I am happy to accept Mr Duckworth's word on this. I also accept entirely the above narrative concerning the background as to how Mr Duckworth was contacted by the Press and that he did not seek out the press to initiate the publication of any allegations."

Duckworth today released this statement on the affair. "It is some time since the report was issued which I did not agree with from two points of view," he said.

"One, that I did not agree with his conclusion which, of course, is still the case, and secondly I did not agree with his implication that I, in any way, was responsible for the RFU having to make an independent inquiry.

"After a considerable amount of correspondence we have now agreed on a statement. This, from my point of view, is not totally satisfactory but I believe it is in the best interest of the game for us to move on. I also am encouraged that having recently met Jeff Blackett, he indicated his desire that the RFU should ensure fairness and transparency in all aspects of governance and administration throughout the game in future."

If the game is now to seriously address those almost mythical values of fairness and transparency within the Premiership, this unfulfilling inquiry must be the starting point of a new era within rugby. This is not a time to once again brush everything under the carpet and hope the argument disappears.

There is, at last, a chance to pull the rug from under people's feet and shake up the thinking with the game, an opportunity to bring some sort of justice back to the sport.

It is a responsibility the RFU cannot afford to pass on this time.