Australian Cricket's Cultural Review
CA's 'arrogant' culture slammed
I think they [the banned players] should be back but it's up to the board to make that decision, not me. I think the general feeling around Australia, certainly the people I talk to, is they want them playing again, at worst domestic cricket.
Former Australian coach Darren Lehmann, who stood down as coach after the ball-tampering scandal, speaking to the Sydney Morning Herald.
A scathing review has blamed Australian cricket's ball-tampering scandal on an "arrogant" and "controlling" culture overseen by the game's national governing body that led to players cheating in pursuit of victory.
The independent review by the Sydney-based Ethics Centre accused Cricket Australia (CA) of only paying lip service to the spirit of the game, leaving players without moral guidance.
The review, which CA commissioned and was partially redacted to prevent individuals being identified, also included complaints from those involved in the sport that there was a bullying culture in elite men's cricket.
|
RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE ♦ In Test, Sheffied Shield and Grade matches, following at least one informal warning, umpires be empowered to exclude players from the field of play, for set periods of time and with immediate effect, as a penalty for continuous abusive sledging, deliberate breaches of the cricket's laws and conduct inconsistent with the Spirit of Cricket. ♦ Honours such as the Alan Border Medal take into account a player's character and behaviour as well as their performance in batting and bowling. ♦ CA leadership accepts its share of responsibility for the circumstances that gave rise to the incident at Newlands as a demonstration of responsible leadership and accountability. ♦ Selectors be required to take account of a player's character as well as their skills as a cricketer when making a selection. |
"Responsibility for that larger picture lies with CA and not just the players held directly responsible for the appalling incident at Newlands," said the review, which was released on Monday.
The scandal involved Australian players using sandpaper to alter the flight of the ball in a Test against South Africa last March in Cape Town. Captain Steve Smith, deputy David Warner and batsman Cameron Bancroft received lengthy bans.
The scandal also claimed the scalps of CA chief executive James Sutherland and team performance boss Pat Howard.
"The broad consensus amongst stakeholders is that CA does not consistently 'live' its values and principles," the review said. "The most common description of CA is as 'arrogant' and 'controlling'."
It said under such circumstances, the ball-tampering scandal was foreseeable but CA failed to act.
The Australian Cricketers' Association said the 145-page report, written by Ethics Centre chief Simon Longstaff, clearly showed CA placed too much pressure on players to win.
"Given this, there must be a reconsideration of the harshness of the penalties handed down to Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft," it added, calling for the bans to be reduced.
But the players did not escape criticism. Longstaff said they existed in a "gilded bubble" of privilege and wealth that left them isolated from everyday life and unable to keep their feet on the ground.
Longstaff said some felt pressure to "play the mongrel" against opponents but could lose perspective and "risk becoming that person".
He likened cricket's relentless pursuit of victory to the Australian banking sector's drive for excessive profits, which has led to revelations that dead people were charged for services that were never provided.
CA chairman David Peever said the review was a chance for the body to "look in the mirror".
"It has been a difficult and confronting time for everyone involved in Australian cricket, and for that I am sorry," he said. "Mistakes have been made, lessons have been learnt, and changes are and will continue to take place."
Peever said the 12-month bans on Smith and Warner and a nine-month ban on Bancroft would stand.
The review was non-binding but he said he was considering the report's 42 recommendations.
"CA is already well advanced in some areas with more than half of the recommendations in development or already implemented before we commissioned the review," he said.