GORE VIDAL'S advice never to turn down an opportunity to have sex or to be on television has an addendum for the sportswriting fraternity.

It is this: never miss the chance to have a boot at a blazer.

This, loosely translated, means that the Scottish Football Assocation should be treated in the same manner as a grouse on a Scottish moor on the morning of August 12. It is an injunction I have enthusiastically followed.

The governing body has been the subject of much of my invective over the years, though strangely it has survived. However, it is difficult to join in the mob pursuing Stewart Regan, the chief executive, over what can crudely be termed the Court of Session wrangle.

The story has so many intricacies it would be difficult and indeed tedious to investigate all of them. It is clear, though, that the blazers at the SFA cannot be blamed for a saga that has come through three hearings only to face a fourth.

Now, there will be howls at any attempt to exonerate Regan but what precisely is the level of his guilt?

The process that indicted, judged and sentenced Rangers was agreed unanimously by all clubs last year. This series of events was not populated by a bunch of amateurs baffled by the complexity of the situation. The inquiry was conducted by Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith, a former Senator of the College of Justice. The independent judicial panel included QC Gary Allan. The subsequent appellate tribunal was chaired by Lord Carloway. He is a Senator of the College of Justice, a judge of the Supreme Courts of Scotland, sitting in the High Court of Justiciary and the Inner House of the Court of Session.

I am no judge, but these strike me as competent figures to be involved in football inquiries. And yet the punishment against Rangers was overturned by his colleague Lord Glennie at the Court of Session. This happens. Indeed, if the SFA was minded to appeal, it is not impossible to believe another judge would reach a contrary decision.

Wisely, Regan is minded to accept the Glennie verdict and for the appellate tribunal to come to another punishment. It would be impossible for the SFA to reconcile an appeal to the Court of Session with its stated aims of keeping football rulings in-house.

So Lord Carloway will be given another kick of the ball and a ban from the Scottish Cup for a year for Rangers now seems the likeliest sanction, although suspension or even termination of the club's membership of the association is still an option.

The story then has at least another twist and Regan will almost certainly be cast as the villain. Yet his role in the affair is restricted to setting up a process that was designed to be independent and transparent and was agreed by every club. He took no part in the investigation, judgment or punishment.

It is, remember, only the punishment that is an issue and, for the record, I believe it was harsh and would have crippled the club.

In an interview just before the Court of Session storm broke, Regan stated: "At the heart of everything that a governing body is responsible for has to be sporting integrity. If you don't have [that] you might as well pack up and go home." There is room for disagreement about the severity of the sanction imposed on Rangers but Regan's sentiment and motivation should surely stand unchallenged.