Without the slightest sense of irony, the International Cricket Council set up a commission on Monday to investigate allegations of breaches of the ICC’s code of conduct on the same day that Australian umpire Darrell Hair was charged with breaching the code for comments he made in a book.
The secrecy mentality of international cricket which led to Monday’s resolution has not changed. Hair’s crime — shock, horror — was to publish something that might bring the game into disrepute. It was his exposition of events surrounding the plentiful no-balling of Sri Lankan bowler Muttiah Muralitharan for having a crooked arm and therefore throwing. Oh gosh, nothing must be made public which might bring the international game of cricket into disrepute.
Yet it was the very sweeping under the carpet by the Australian Cricket Board of fines imposed on Mark Waugh and Shane Warne receiving payments from an Indian bookmaker for information about playing conditions that led to cricket’s present predicament. The ACB’s view was, “”Oh gosh, we better not let this messy business about taking money get out to the public. That might bring the game into disrepute.”
Didn’t they realise that it was almost certain to come out anyway and bring cricket into greater disrepute. Worse, send the message to cricketers — at least for a time — that the code of secrecy would protect them.
At least the Pakistanis when confronted with allegations about payments had the courage to set up an open public inquiry.
The cricketing fraternity may well be slapping itself on the back with congratulations about Monday’s decision to set up a new commission. But that in itself is not a solution. It is what the commission does that counts. And if Monday’s announcements are anything to go by it will require a toughness that has not been evident in the past. ACB chairman Denis Rogers described the decision as “”magnificent”. He has been listening to too much cricket commentary on television. The fundamental problem with Monday’s decision is that it leaves too much in the hands of the national bodies.
The new international commission will not hear any allegations about match-rigging, corruption or payments to bookmakers. These will still be heard by national boards. The international commission will be able to increase penalties, rehear cases, or strike out the national board’s decision and carry out its own investigation. That may sound like tough supervision, but how will it work in practice. It is almost inevitable that national bodies will be more lenient on their own than if such hearings went straight to an international body at first instance.
Allegations of corruption, match fixing, gambling on the game by players or receiving payments from bookmakers are of their nature transnational offences because they lead to a suspicion that the outcome of international games have been affected. They demand an international response.
The structure announced on Monday has no more credibility than in the Australian Football League or the National Rugby League allowed individual clubs to discipline players for misconduct on the field with some overarching power by the AFL to take up unsatisfactory cases.
In the case of cricket, it is likely that international intervention will be seen as interference and will only happen when the national body’s decision is grossly and self-evidently out of order. With cricket’s historic sense of secrecy and fear of disrepute, it is difficult to see the international body making too many waves.
The ICC should have had the courage to set up an internationally composed tribunal to hear all these allegations in public. And it should drop the absurd rules that prevent commentary by players and umpires on the way the game is played.