COACHES in any sport will tell you that the dressing room is the sanctuary for any team and it's manager.

It, traditionally, has been the place where players and management can feel safe to air their opinions and expletives without them ever being heard beyond the door.

Not any more.

The money-grabbers have long since broken ranks and begun to delve into this previously untouchable refuge.

Years ago when ethics and principles in sport actually mattered, players and coaches knew what was acceptable and stuck to the boundaries. Neil Back's revelations in his new autobiography Size Doesn't Matter are the latest to break those boundaries and drag Worcester Rugby Club's chief executive Geoff Cooke's name through the dirt.

Saint Glen Hoddle went down the same road when he launched into similar levels of character assassination. The reality is simple enough. Publishers and tabloids do not pay big advances for the philosophical ruminations of major-league sports figures.

They are reserved for Jeffrey Archer. What the Backs and Hoddles are required to do is dish up something acceptably close to dirt. Not real dirt, of course. But in the case of Back, the kind of wounding observations which might just pass muster at a convention of fishwives.

Back, who was overlooked for England selection when Cooke was in charge, claims he and Jack Rowell were "too cautious, narrow-minded and shallow" when they refused to pick the Leicester flanker. Also in the book Back said both Rowell and Cooke "lacked the vision and the guts to really go for it."

He added: "They were frightened to try and compete with the Southern Hemisphere nations and instead were content for the England side to be bullies in their own back yard.

"I found them narrow-minded, unimaginative and downright rude. In the wider picture they lacked any kind of innovative tactical vision and they were weak when it came to selection."

You might have a smidgen of sympathy for Back if his claims were justified but they just don't hold water.

Everyone believes, of course, that they have a right to whine if they don't get their way but slating a former coach, thoroughly respected in rugby, simply to satisfy the bank manager is an unforgivable act of betrayal.

Cooke kept a dignified silence after Back's story was serialised in a national paper.

He did not feel the need to put the record straight because his shining record of achievement speaks for itself.

He was England's most successful manager, leading the side in 49 matches between 1987 and 1994 during which time the team won successive Grand Slams in the Five Nations and even reached the final of the World Cup in 1991. In 1993 he took the British Lions to New Zealand, was awarded the OBE, and more recently guided Bedford to the second division title. He was also the man who had the insight to give Will Carling the captaincy at the tender age of 22 - a gamble which paid huge dividends.

Basically, the accusations don't add up but, in a way, they don't have to. The fact that it brews up a bit of storm and points the finger is enough for the publishers. When we talk about money ruining the game, we do not necessarily think of it damaging it in this way. We think of the Premiership chairman squabbling over how much more cash they can squeeze out of the sport. We think of the foreign stars on thousands of pounds a week playing in front of sparse crowds.

Cooke is a man of principle, someone who has given his all to the sport and has been highly successful for his nation. Not somebody whose reputation can easily be tarnished. Snipers like Back will never shoot down that reputation despite the "sensational revelations". It may sell books and a few papers here and there but the words should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Back will pay the traditional price for flogging his memoirs to the tabloids. He betrayed an essential part of sport in his moment of total moral laxity. He won't be trusted again as coaches fear he will tuck yet more tasty morsels away for another paperback. Back should have had the strength of character to look at himself and wonder why he wasn't picked for England while Cooke was in charge. He should have the ability to recognise he just wasn't ready for the national side. There is just one problem with this. Who would he blame when he came to write his memoirs?