I'm very interested to get the timeline on these events, because it is reported that Hair withdrew his offer two days after it was first made. Speed made these mails public and accused Hair of "embarassing the game" but if he revealed these private mails after the revocation, there was no need to reveal them and it is Speed who is embarassing the game. Regardless of whether the revocation was received before the press conference, these private mails should have remained private. They were revealed because they might have been leaked. On those ground nothing should ever remain private. This is politicking and right now I am very disturbed with the ICC's actions. Where's the sense of fair play?
26 August 2006
Hair Hung Out To Dry
Darrell Hair must have a strong case for breach of privacy following the actions of the ICC in revealing private mails. His offer to resign for compensation doesn't look good from a PR perspective, but was a fairly reasonable course of action. In the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the first Test match to be forfeited in 129 years of Test cricket, Darrell Hair has been completely left hung out to dry by ICC chief Malcolm Speed. 
I'm very interested to get the timeline on these events, because it is reported that Hair withdrew his offer two days after it was first made. Speed made these mails public and accused Hair of "embarassing the game" but if he revealed these private mails after the revocation, there was no need to reveal them and it is Speed who is embarassing the game. Regardless of whether the revocation was received before the press conference, these private mails should have remained private. They were revealed because they might have been leaked. On those ground nothing should ever remain private. This is politicking and right now I am very disturbed with the ICC's actions. Where's the sense of fair play?
I'm very interested to get the timeline on these events, because it is reported that Hair withdrew his offer two days after it was first made. Speed made these mails public and accused Hair of "embarassing the game" but if he revealed these private mails after the revocation, there was no need to reveal them and it is Speed who is embarassing the game. Regardless of whether the revocation was received before the press conference, these private mails should have remained private. They were revealed because they might have been leaked. On those ground nothing should ever remain private. This is politicking and right now I am very disturbed with the ICC's actions. Where's the sense of fair play?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
One problem as I see it is that anyone preparing a "defense" for the Inzamam hearing would as a matter of fairness have to be told that the person who made the main accusation against him had made such an offer. I would think it material anyway. Even if it was later withdrawn (and it seems only withdrawn in order to rethink the amount of the settlement). And if the hearing is imminent as yesterday's news was suggesting it would happen sooner rather than later.
I don't disagree that the whole thing smells quite nasty, but I can understand why they might have felt the need to release this news (though I'm not sure it was necessary to release the actual e-mails rather than the gist of them).
The key accusation is that Inzamam kept his team in the dressing room after being warned by Hair that if his team did not take the field as the umpires walked out again they would forfeit the match. In relation to this charge subsequent behaviour by Hair is not and can not be material. For me, the only question is the severity of the punishment and a lot of the comment from sports correspondents are mere apologies for unacceptable rule-breaking. When are Pakistan next due to tour Australia?
Post a Comment