Over the past few weeks, here in Australia, we have witnessed a couple of ‘actions’ in sporting circles, which have raised some debate, and controversy,  and I’d like to bring the attention of my readers  to two  articles written recently on those subjects  –   the Australian  cricketer’s ball-tampering incident, and an event that generated some comment towards the end of the recent Commonwealth Games.  The article relating to the cricket, comes from an academic viewpoint, while the Games comment arises from an opinion piece in one of our daily newspapers.  I will allow readers to form their own opinion of the two pieces, and submit them purely out of general interest  – I’ve made my views known elsewhere. .

BANNING CRICKET CHEATS: HOW LONG IS LONG ENOUGH?

Banning Steve Smith and David Warner for 12 months is a serious statement from Cricket Australia  [By Professor Jack Anderson, University of Melbourne, and First published on 27 March 2018 in ‘Legal Affairs’, and subsequently published inj the Melbourne Alumni E-News of the 20^th April]

The ball tampering antics of the Australian cricket team in their Test series against South Africa has left sports coaches and parents around the country trying to explain as best they can why Steve Smith, the captain of the Australian cricket team, cheated. He resorted, and later admitted, to undermining the integrity of the game and breaches of the sport’s code of conduct.

Cricket Australia quickly sent its high-performance director, Pat Howard, and the head of its sports integrity unit, Iain Roy, to South Africa to investigate.

They found the conspiracy to cheat was limited to just three players- Steve Smith, Vice Captain David Warner and batsman Cameron Bancroft, with Smith and Warner banned for 12 months each and Bancroft for nine months. Coaching staff were cleared, reducing the potential damage to reputation somewhat.

The sanctions reflect just how seriously the national governing body is taking the incident. It means neither player will be part of the the four match Test series against India next summer, beginning in November/December 2018. This is a very serious statement of intent by Cricket Australia, and has significant commercial ramifications for the players.

While ball tampering isn’t uncommon in the sport, this incident not only breached the integrity of the game, but reflects the fact that the integrity or ethos of the Australian cricket team itself needs thorough examination.

 

WHAT DID THE INVESTIGATION CONSIDER?

There are usually five key questions in sports integrity investigations of this kind – what was the plan or conspiracy to cheat; how was it achieved; why was it proposed; who exactly was involved; and what is the appropriate sanction?

In this instance, the answer to questions one and two appear clear and indeed have been admitted by many of those involved. There was an attempt, using tape of some kind, to grit the ball on one side to reverse swing the bowling.

The third or “why”’ question also appears clear. Faced with losing another Test match in the series, the Australian team’s leadership group, during the lunch break on Saturday, concocted their ball tampering plan.

This was despite 30 cameras surrounding the field of play and heightened media interest in the game, given so-called sledging incidents between the players. It seems the win-at-all-costs mentality of the team and its core leadership led to the decision that any possible risk of getting caught was worth the potential rewards.

It wasn’t just the side of a ball that was being manipulated, it was, potentially, the outcome of the game itself. It wasn’t just the South Africans being cheated, but all of us who watch the game and expect it to be played competitively but fairly.

 

HOW DO THESE SANCTIONS COMPARE?

This means that the answer to the fourth question is crucially important, with only three players found to have known about the incident.

Smith had already received a one match ban from the International Cricket Council (ICC) and Bancroft was given demerit points. Both had their match fees deducted.

Under the applicable code of conduct, life bans can attach to the gravest offences, including the ‘catch all’ charge likely to be used here – bringing the sport into disrepute or conduct unbecoming to the game.

But placed against the ICC’s punishments, life bans were never likely. In fact, ball tampering bans historically have not resulted in long bans in cricket. In 1994, the then England Captain Mike Atherton held onto the England captaincy and avoided suspension but was fined $3,700 after he was caught using dirt in his pocket while manipulating the ball during a Test against South Africa at Lord’s

In 2010, Pakistan’s Shahid Afridi was bannedfrom two Twenty20 internationals after being found guilty of ball tampering by biting on the seam during an international in Perth.  In 2013, South Africa’s Faf du Plessis was fined 50 per cent of his match fee for rubbing the ball against the zipper of his pants pocket . In 2016, du Plessis was filmed shining the ball with saliva while also having a mint in his mouth. The ICC gave him three demerit points on his record .

When it comes to [the latest incident], Cricket Australia has treated the current misbehaviour in a much more serious manner, as a reflection of the integrity of the team and the game itself.

An added complication for all those involved is that Cricket Australia centrally contracts the players involved – those contracts are up for renewal at the end of April.

 

THE WIDER FALLOUT

There is also more at stake here than any ephemeral notion of the spirit of the game.

Already corporate sponsors, and including those relating to individual players, have expressed concern. Sponsors’ money along with a TV rights deal – the latter with great commercial sensitivity being negotiated at present – underwrite the viability of cricket at all levels.

Domestically, cricket must fight for exposure with the AFL and the rugby codes amongst others. Internationally, the future of Test cricket as a format of the game is being questioned.

Australian sport, recreationally, professionally and commercially holds itself, rightly, to its own high standards of integrity.

The ethos of the current senior men’s team, at least in the last few months, shouldn’t be taken to reflect the ethos of the sport as a whole in Australia. The forceful, sometimes shrill, invective directed against the few (Smith and others) actually shows that the fundamental desire for fair play in sport is still respected by the many.

The bubble that is elite sport means that the moral compass of those who play it is often skewed. It often goes, as does the players’ judgement, into something the Australian players tried but failed to do at the weekend – reverse swing.

 

A GOLDEN MOMENT LOST BUT WHO CAN BLAME HIM?

 

THE Gold Coast Commonwealth Games gave us many great moments — no thanks to the organisers of the closing ceremony.But one missed opportunity for a great moment came in the men’s marathon.

[written by Justin Quill, from the Melbourne Herald Sun.20^th April, 2018]

You might think I’m talking about the missed opportunity to showcaee the organisation of medical support for athletes during the marathon..

When Scottish runnr Callum Hawkins collapsed to the bitumen –especially for a scond time – it was an opportunity for medics to be on the scene and rendor assistance immediately, not minutes later after he had been wailing around on the road and in the gutter. That was certainly a missed opportunity.

But I saw another one. Hawkins fell for the second time about 2 km from the finish line. He was leading by a healthy margin. Before his first fall, he looked every bit the winner. After falling the first time, he gor up and kept running.

But after Hawkins fell a second time – almost headbutting the metal barrier on the side of the course as his legs gave way – it was pretty clear he would not make the finish line.

Enter Australian athlete and reigning Commonwealth Games gold medallist Michael Shelley, who coincidentally hails from the Gold Coast. Shelley seized his opportunity to take the lead and ultimately the gold medal as he ran past a crumpled Hawkins.  But what he didn’t seize was the opportunity to display a golden moment of Australian sportsmanship.

In a perfect world, Shelley would have stopped to render assistance or even just check on Hawkin’s welfare.

But we don’t live in a perfect world. In fact, at that moment the world Shelley would have been in would have been a world of pain. He was no doubt feeling the effect of the heat and having pushed his body close to its limit. He may not have been in as bad a state as Hawkins, but I suspct his brain wasn’t working as it might normally.

He may have known that his legs were on a knife’s edge and even slowing down to chck on Hawkins might have brought on nasimilar fate for him.

Or Shelley could have reasonably assumed that two medical-looking officials standing nxt to a distraught Hawkins would be able to do a better job of caring for Hawkins than he could.

Shelley also didn’t have the benefit of seeing what Hawkins had gone through in the minuts before he ran past. Shelley didn’t see Hawkin’s near headbutting of the railing.

So for all of those reasons, I’m not been overly critical of Shelley.

But it was still a missed opportunity.

And in rcent months, Australia’s sporting image – thanks to our cheating cricketers – has taken a hit.

Think of the oconic image of John Landy in the 1956 Australian national championships going back to help fellow Aussie Ron Clarke who had fallen during thr 1 mile race. In an event that goes so quickly, any breaking of rhythm can signal the end of a runner. It was a remarkable sign of sportsmanship from Landy. Nevermind that he was so good that he went on to mak up nearly 50 metres  and win the race, this would become the epitome of sportsmanship. They’ve built statues to commemorate it. The gesture is far more important than the race in which it occurred.

Shelley’s Commonwealth Gams gold was a grat achievement. Hard fought and well dserved.

But I wonder if he had his tim over again whether he would choose to check on his fallen combatant.

Visualise that image for a moment. Imagine Shelley had stopped and put his hand on Hawkins in a show of solidarity. Or even just slowd down and gestured or spoken with the officials as he ran past to inquire about his competitor’s welfare.

What an image that would be. It could have been the image of the Games.

Like another image I have etched in my mind. The image that is, for me, the best image of the Games.

Australia’s 10,000m runners Eloise Wellings, Madeline Hills and Celia Sullohern finishd unplaced in the gruelling event.

No doubt exhausted and wanting to hydrate and rest, all refused to leave the finish line until the last competitor, LineoChaka from Lesotho – who finished more than five minutes behind the winner –  had crossed the line.

All three congratulated and embraced Chaka. It was a srark picture to what would have taken place if a lonely Chaka had crossed the line with no one there at all. It was a classy act of sportsmanship from the Aussie girls.  Sullohern said  ‘It was lovely to stand there and show what I hope was a bit of Aussie sportsnanship’.

Indeed it was. And it was lovely to watch.