CA’s tendency to protect backsides gets exposed

Warner has done just that and it’s no wonder that he was incensed by his stiff original punishment while others were treated far more leniently in the sandpaper fiasco

I couldn’t be happier that David Warner told Cricket Australia (CA) the equivalent of ‘go and get stuffed’ when he went public about his decision to withdraw an attempt to review his captaincy ban. 

This indicated Warner, who had been advised by CA against a public outburst, didn’t trust the authorities to be mindful of his interests. This was a wise decision by Warner as CA is renowned for only protecting their own interests and never those of a player. 

Too old to be a captain?

I doubt Warner was expecting to gain an Australian leadership position even with a successful review of the ban he received after the South African debacle in 2018. He’s too old to be considered for a captaincy position in the Australian regime despite the fact that he has always had great leadership instincts.
 
However, I think Warner had hoped he may be able to lead his BBL team Sydney Thunder at some point. A pity, because he would have been the ideal person to guide younger players on their cricketing path. Not to worry CA, because he’ll still be a leader and listened to by any cricketer who wants to get ahead.
 
Young players should be thankful Warner has exposed CA’s tendencies for back-side protecting. They need to keep it in mind the future. Most importantly, though, Warner’s withdrawal of his review highlights the appalling original decision to award him a life-time ban on leadership. 

Warner and Steve Smith should have received the same leadership punishment after the South African debacle. Cheating is indefensible, but so also is the Australian captain Smith saying; ‘I don’t want to know,’ when he walked past Warner and Cameron Bancroft who were deep in discussion in the dressing room. As a captain, it is Smith’s job to know what his players are up to. If their motive is illegal then he needs to put a very quick stop to any shenanigans. 

Smith’s crime was greater than Warner’s. So it was no wonder Warner was incensed by his stiff original punishment while others were treated far more leniently. No wonder also that Warner’s manager James Erskine, incensed at CA’s recent behaviour said: “You’d have to be a blind black Labrador to not realise there was far more than three people involved in this thing.” 

In the lead up to the South African fiasco and in the follow-up, CA has erred regularly because they have self-protection as a high priority.  

The lop-sided punishments, the botched integrity review in South Africa and then the absurd decision to not allow an appeal by the Australian players - their list of failures goes on. No wonder Warner had a gut full, but he chose the right target to attack. The fact that he was subjected to stronger punishment than anyone else over the sandpaper affair smacked of a resentment being repaid. 

In protection mode

The current CA board wash their hands of the matter by saying they weren’t involved. Sure they weren’t on the Board at the time, but they’ve since done nothing to dispel the idea that they are still in protection mode. 

Whether Warner was disliked by an administrator or it was because he was prepared to speak out during the feisty MOU wrangle is unknown and likely to remain that way. What’s known is Warner won’t be bullied. He’ll have his say and if he does reveal all later in a book, it’ll be worth reading. It may take some work to get his book published because there’ll be a lot of red faces around if it does reach the public. 

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!