Michael Grant

DIVING and cheating is a disgrace and anyone who does it deserves all the punishment they get. Unless it's us.

To listen to some of the anger and indignation which spewed out in the aftermath of Eduardo's dying swan routine to "win" a penalty for Arsenal against Celtic on Wednesday, you would think that football had finally made its mind up about gamesmanship. Eduardo has been exposed, criticised, ridiculed and is now likely to be punished with a suspension. There is no need to feel sympathy, he deserves what's coming.

So has football finally decided that diving is to be placed alongside spitting, elbowing, bungs and match-fixing as one of the unpardonable taboos? Not quite. Apparently he has been "treated like he's killed someone" according to Arsene Wenger. The Wenger who in 2006 said "players should get lengthy bans for diving, it's the only way to stop it" sang a different tune when it was one of his own boys in the dock.

Well, of course he did. Fifa and Uefa may as well change their slogans to "Let's kick hypocrisy out of football" because that's what ensures that the culture of diving, cheating, simulation, gamesmanship and anything else you want to call it, is never genuinely addressed and challenged. Those are the words used if an opponent is guilty. If it's one of "our" lads, it's about how they were streetwise, or cute, or were "entitled to go down". Suddenly it's about fair enough rather than fair play.

Hypocrisy runs right through football. Football managers, players and supporters don't care about cheating half as much as they let on; what they actually care about is being cheated against. When there is an injustice against a team they spit fury: mobbing the referee, jabbing accusatory fingers at their opponents, mouthing off long and hard about it in interviews after the game. But when something goes their way it's a different story. A smirk to each other, barely a peep about it or an "I didn't see the incident" when they're asked to comment and a general culture of "if you can get away with it, you take it". When players get a dodgy decision in their favour they treat it like a cash machine giving out free tenners.

Wenger pointed a finger at the Scottish media. Back-page tabloid coverage of Eduardo's play-acting was powerful and it did set the agenda. It was the catalyst for SFA chief executive Gordon Smith to issue a statement and for Uefa to decide that the Arsenal player will have a case to answer at a disciplinary hearing on Tuesday. The reporting was fuelled by furious comments from Artur Boruc, Massimo Donati, Glenn Loovens and Danny Fox, and it was easy to feel sympathy for them. Especially for Boruc, who was the most wronged of all. But will he, Loovens or Fox pipe up if Scott McDonald or Aiden McGeady "wins" a dodgy penalty for Celtic between now and the rest of the season? Of course not, because Celtic follow the same code of omerta practised by every other club.

The most perceptive and intelligent reading of the entire scenario came from their boss. "Football managers have to be very careful in condemning other players," said Tony Mowbray. "I could be sat here after Sunday's game after one of my players has dived." That is football's attitude to cheating in a nutshell. He could see the trap: if he had criticised Eduardo he would look two-faced if a Celtic player did something similar against Hibs today and he didn't condemn him. And if he did condemn him, he could fracture his relationship with that player and others in the dressing room.

The vocal indignation about cheating in football will only be honest and believable when managers, players and supporters come out and criticise one of their own in the way they would an opponent. It will not happen. Among his Arsenal team-mates there will not be the slightest stain on Eduardo's character because of what happened on Wednesday. No-one at Celtic was remotely troubled when Stiliyan Petrov used to "go down easily" to win free-kicks or penalties. There was no dip in Kyle Lafferty's popularity around Ibrox when he pretended he had been head-butted to get Charlie Mulgrew sent-off.

Celtic were badly wronged by Eduardo and they had plenty to say about it. But that doesn't mean they react differently to any other club when it comes to diving. Check the volume level the next time a big, controversial decision goes in their favour.

And Mark Twain thought he had it bad? At least reports of his end were greatly exaggerated only once. Sir David Murray once again went through the unsettling business of reading his own obituaries last week. In 2002 he stepped down as Rangers chairman and there were gushing retrospectives of his time in charge. Then he came back. In 2008 he reached his 20th anniversary and there were gushing retrospectives about his time in charge. And he carried on. Last week he announced that he was stepping down as chairman again and there were gu....well, you get the drift.

Alastair Johnston will be a refreshing new face on Ibrox matters but for the time being there is still - still! - only one voice which truly matters. Murray owns Rangers, a whopping 90 per cent of the shareholding. No major decision will be taken without his approval. Nor should it be. So what are we all going to write when he finally sells the club and the Murray years are over for good?

Take a guess.