The ball tampering saga

[K]

[K]

Cricket's sticky wicket in dealing with Warner, Smith and Bancroft

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 50h63.html

...
New Cricket Australia chief executive Kevin Roberts has regularly been in touch with the trio. ...

There had been suggestions the three men had not supported the Australian Cricketers Association to push for their bans to be cut. The theory was that the ACA had left the trio in an invidious position. If they had publicly backed the push, they could have been accused of not taking ownership of the mess the game was in, and angering an already aggrieved public. On the other hand, they could not distance themselves from their own union. However, those close to the players on Tuesday insisted the ACA had acted in their best interest.

Of course, the CA board had its own interests to look after, and understood its hold on the game would have been again questioned had it altered the bans it initially had imposed.

It could not afford to look uncertain, even weak, particularly at a time when it has been under fire and endured casualties as a result of the Longstaff report.

There was also overseas reaction to take into account, for CA's standing in the sport, particularly its finely honed reputation as one of the sport's leaders, could again have been hurt should it have done a double take.

"Any relaxation of the suspensions would have done nothing for CA's or cricket's culture," one insider with deep knowledge of the issue said.
...

The board also took into account the media's varied opinions on the bans, and fan reaction, which is understood to have been evenly split on whether there should have been change. There were also legal, ethical and integrity matters to take into consideration, while it has been pointed out the players opted to not appeal their original sentences.

"The whole thing is a mess, even the handling of the case back in March when they (players) were suspended just days after the incident and did not want to appeal for fear of what this would look like to the public and the like," one cricket insider said.

In the end, the decision review system CA turned on itself as the sport's umpire found Smith, Warner and Bancroft were - and will remain - out. But, as we know, the DRS isn't always right.

[K]

Smith, Warner, Bancroft bans to stand as CA rejects submission

http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/ ... bans-stand

The ACA's statement:

"While the ACA respectfully disagrees with CA's decision, it is accepted. The ACA regards CA's decision as disappointing. It remains the ACA's view that a recalibration of these sanctions would have been a just outcome. The ACA has done all it could in support of our submission, and now considers the matter closed.

"The ACA's submission was made because: CA's sanctions were issued without consideration of the findings of the Longstaff review; CA said that it accepted Dr Longstaff's findings that concluded CA needed to take responsibility for its 'winning without counting the costs' culture that contributed to the events in Cape Town; CA's sanctions on the players were excessive.

"The ACA's submission provided an opportunity for CA to recalibrate its player sanctions by permitting a return via domestic and/or international cricket."

[K]

...
In another development, Fairfax Media understands interim chairman Earl Eddings' home state, Victoria, is the association leading the questioning of the process behind his ascension to the top job.

Victoria does not want to be seen as blocking Eddings, a former state board member with whom they are understood to have a sound relationship, but it's believed other states have followed them in wanting the full board to be elected before he is made the permanent chair.

There are however states who have privately told Fairfax Media they believe Eddings should be officially made chairman as titles matter in international cricket diplomacy while another believes CA now needs stability after a turbulent few months.
...

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 50h3j.html
[updated]

[K]

ACA loses its appeal

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 50h83.html

So, the infamous trio neither challenged nor appealed their suspensions, and Cricket Australia did not overturn or even remit them, which makes you wonder what that was all about. It had all the hallmarks of grandstanding.
...

Besides, the individuals implicated or ensnared at CA level have all copped bigger whacks than the players: chairman, chief executive, integrity officer, high performance manager, coach, even the marketing man: all are gone for good. The players are gone only for now.
...

This, the players accepted. All three had recourse to challenge their bans at the time, but did not. Since, they have gone about their business stoically, playing what cricket they can without demur about what they cannot. This suggests true remorse, even in a humble way an element of leadership.

As best can be told, none of the three were party to the ACA's appeal, even tacitly. Perhaps Smith should have distanced himself from it publicly, but that would have created another rift in a game trying to heal them. His further silence was statement enough.

So on whose behalf did the ACA take up its cudgels? ...

That leaves only one explanation, that ACA was acting on its own behalf only, stamping its territory in the aftermath of the Longstaff review. Despite a statutory exchange of mutual respect after Tuesday's announcement, it bodes poorly for the new era.

CA has no option but to reject this speculative appeal.
...

[Comment: Not for the first time this year, Pie-supporting journo Baum has written an article I find very flawed. Unlike his feeble foray into baseball and statistics, though, cricket is supposed to be familiar territory for him.
I have no idea how he can conclude that the CA board members and staff were punished more than the three players. Cricket is not the CA guys' vocation; making money is. Resigning did not cost them millions of dollars, and they are free to get other jobs immediately. With all their contacts, they probably will. Often in sport a player never fully recovers his sporting powers after a break of a year. It should not be lightly assumed Smith will definitely recapture his best batting form.
As other articles have mentioned, there was no appeal from the players because CA disgracefully manipulated and exploited the public in such a way that the players would not dare to appeal. In particular, Smith knows that any hope of getting the captaincy back relies on more than the length of his ban. The idea that if someone does not appeal a decision the decision must be completely fair is a ridiculous one. There are always practical and political influences on such a decision. Has Baum lost the plot?]

[K]

[K]

[K]

Cricket Australia and players' union to smoke peace pipe

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 50i8j.html

...
It's understood there will not be a mediator present at the meeting, which will not be attended by all board members from either side, despite the allowance for one as set out in the review by The Ethics Centre.
...

[K]

'Important step': Cricket Australia, players finally break bread

https://www.theage.com.au/sport/cricket ... 50ip9.html

Earl Eddings:

"Cricket Australia is committed to building stronger, more collaborative and positive relationships with our partners and stakeholders.

"We understand the critical role the ACA plays in representing the players and in driving the success of many of the recommendations made in the Ethics Centre Review.

"Today's meeting was an important step, not only for CA and ACA, but for Australian cricket. We look forward to more of them in the new year."

Greg Dyer:

"There was significant goodwill between the ACA and CA displayed at today's meeting given we have much in common including the objectives of growing and improving Australian cricket.

"The Ethics Centre Review provides the framework for a more collaborative relationship between us, and the ACA is committed to supporting this as a matter of priority.

"For more than 20 years, the strength of our partnership has seen the two organisations working together for the advancement of the game.

"And today's meeting was a demonstration by both parties of their ongoing commitment to that partnership."

[K]

[K]

[K]

[K]

[K]

[K]

Michael Clarke's long response to Whateley:

https://twitter.com/MClarke23/status/10 ... 889586176/

"... to insinuate that I am responsible for the ball tampering issue makes him nothing more than a headline chasing coward.
Perhaps if he was talented enough or courageous enough to make it onto a cricket pitch he would have a better perspective than from behind a microphone.
Finally Mr Wheatley, if you think that the current No. 1 team in the world of cricket right now puts being liked as of higher importance than being respected and playing to win inside the rules of our game than you're as delirious as you are ill informed."

[Linguistic errors are all MC's, but bold-font emphasis is mine.]