Australian cricket board is at the heart of cheating

On March 24, Steve Smith seemed irredeemable. As he admitted to his involvement in the ball-tampering incident, hell broke loose. Roars of disapproval were released and perspective imprisoned by outrage. It was not enough that the International Cricket Council (ICC) gave its maximum punishment for balltampering, in accordance with its Code of Conduct, to the captain and his teammates. Collective bloodlust had to be satisfied. An example was sought to be made out of Smith, vice-captain David Warner and Cameron Bancroft.

By the time the sacked skipper and the young upstart fielded questions from the press, much had changed. Cricket Australia (CA), in its characteristically bungling fashion, had intervened in the matter. The long bans, though, were not going to be enough. For some reason, it was considered necessary that Smith and Bancroft hold a press conference after days of vilification and name-calling.

The players had to be seen as genuinely remorseful. Cricketers, who only hours ago were deemed to be guilty of the worst ‘crimes’, now had to be paraded in public. Their guilt had to be washed in front of the world, their tears to be savoured by those who had been guilty of the same error in the past. No rehabilitation could be complete without a morality play.

Some of the shame felt by Australians and Australian cricket is real. As Brydon Coverdale argued, the men’s national cricket side preceded the formation of Australia as a nation-state. One cannot overlook the weight of history.

But the burden of the present deserves our time, too. CA’s disproportionate sanctions on the cricketers have rubbed many the wrong way. They are not only without precedent, rather they seem to reveal a self-serving agenda behind CA’s actions. The administrators seem to be on a mission to prove that they are custodians of Australian cricket, with the guilty players relegated to the role of errant employees who have caused harm to the game and business of cricket.

A closer look at this claim, however, exposes its weak footing. CA’s actions in recent years have uncovered an ethical and strategic vacuity in its operations. It was CA, after all, that championed the ‘Big 3’ takeover in 2014 that led to the board benefitting financially from the administrative overhaul while the remote control of international cricket was firmly placed in the BCCI’s hands.

CA has also been a supporter of the decision to trim the 50-over World Cup to 10 countries at a time when every other sport is opening the doors of its showpiece event to more nations. The 2019 tournament in England will revert to the format used in 1992. Talk about taking cricket forward.

And then there is CA’s record in the pay dispute with Australian cricketers last year. Forced to concede ground to the united players, the governing body had made its displeasure known over their tactics. David Warner was among the more outspoken members of the Australian Cricketers’ Association during that period. While his transgressions on and off the field are considerable, was his public disagreement with CA last year also behind reports that said the governing body was fed up of the batsman?

Perhaps so. It is baffling that in a sport where ball-tampering remains a confusing and minor offence — Smith is the first player to miss a Test match because of it — CA chose to hand its players an unprecedented sentence. The heavy sanctions were for the damage caused to the game.

It is worth asking to what degree is cricket damaged by an inept attempt at altering the ball’s condition. A tampered ball rightfully remains an infringement because it does not amount to manipulation of the result and corruption of the players involved. Cheating or breaking of the rules is an inherent part of any sport. If there was no possibility of that, would umpires or referees even exist?

Ethical or financial corruption, however, is a more serious offence. Fixing and doping belong to this category. In light of the ongoing scandal, it becomes important to state that ball-tampering merely hampers the conduct of a match (as the ball may need to be changed) while giving one team an advantage that till date remains questionable. Doping or fixing, on the other hand, is an attempt to manipulate the result and questions the integrity of those involved.

If the CA’s standard had been implemented in football, anybody who commits a foul would be in danger of a long ban. Imagine the consequences.

But the CA’s real culpability arises from its description of the suspended cricketers as a “few rotten apples” in a sport that is relatively clean. Cricket’s marketability is its overarching concern. No wonder the harsh sanctions have come at a time when CA is renegotiating a new television rights deal. Top dollar may be hard to attract now.

In light of past incidents of ball-tampering, it is tempting to consider whether Smith and his teammates could have avoided the scrutiny and moralising if they had not owned up to their mistake. Players from other sides often publicly deny the charge and move on. Australian society, though, likes to hold its sportspersons on a pedestal that they share with nobody else.

But more than anyone else, it is CA that has let Australian cricket down. Through its high-handed approach, it has sought public approval and corporate support to the detriment of the men’s cricketing team. No sponsor, even considering the support of AUD 20 million in three years, is worth punishing your best players. The Australian team does deserve to have its culture scrutinised, but the inquiry must not stop with the players. It is Sutherland and his team who pose a more serious threat to Australian cricket. —The Wire

Priyansh is a freelance sports writer based in Delhi

But more than anyone else, it is CA that has let Australian cricket down. Through its high-handed approach, it has sought public approval and corporate support to the detriment of the men’s cricketing team