As I read the 145 pages of the Ethics Committee review into Australian cricket, I started hearing Jack Nicholson’s voice – in the role of Colonel Nathan Jessup from A Few Good Men – creeping slowly into my consciousness, like an insidious, hissing snake.
“Son, we play a sport where we win without counting the cost. Who’s going to do it? You, Peter Hunt? You, the readers of The Roar?
“I have a responsibility you could not possibly fathom. You weep for that tampered ball and you curse the Australian cricket team. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That ball tampering, whilst cheating, wins cricket matches. And that my existence, whilst grotesque and incomprehensible to you, wins cricket matches.
“You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me in Cricket Australia; you need me in Cricket Australia.
“We use words like, “win”, “win” and “win”. We use these words as a backbone of a lifetime trying to win something. You use them as a punchline.
“I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a cricket fan who rises and sleeps under the blanket of victory which I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it!
“I would rather you just said ‘thank you’ and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a ball and start tampering. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to!”
And then little Davey Warner emerged in the role of the dim-witted Downey: “Cricket Australia set the culture which made ball tampering possible. Cricket Australia set the culture which made ball tampering possible! What did we do wrong? We did nothing wrong!”
Followed by a now wise-beyond-his-years, Steve Smith, in the role of Dawson: “Yeah we did, we were supposed to play Test cricket for those who couldn’t play Test cricket for themselves. We were supposed to play for the 12-year-old fan who reveres us.”
Steve Smith sits in the dock. (AAP Image/Brendan Esposito)
(Many thanks to Aaron Sorkin for providing the inspiration for this dialogue.)
Jokes and popular culture references aside, the overall conclusion of the review was that Cricket Australia created a culture of ‘winning without counting the cost’. They distinguish this from a ‘win at all costs’ culture.
I confess to having some difficulty understanding the subtle difference; but it seems that ‘winning at all costs’ implies an intention to accept whatever cost is incurred in order to win, whereas ‘winning without counting the cost’ suggests a reckless indifference to the cost of winning.
It’s worth pausing at this point to highlight that whether you intend to kill somebody or whether you act with reckless indifference to the probability that your actions might kill somebody, you’re still guilty of a crime.
(Before I am flamed by those trolling the darkest crevices of The Roar, let me make it clear that I am not equating ball tampering with murder; I am merely pointing out that the intention to achieve an outcome and a reckless indifference to the probability of that outcome may – from both a moral and a legal standpoint – result in the same level of culpability.)
So, to put it in the bluntest terms, the Ethics Committee’s primary conclusion is that Cricket Australia established a culture which allowed the likes of David Warner to decide that it was his role to show a junior player like Cameron Bancroft how to roughen a cricket ball with sandpaper, in the blind pursuit of victory, without giving any consideration to the consequences.
And the same culture caused Steve Smith to turn a (possibly wilful) blind eye to what was going on; also because his mandate from Cricket Australia was to win and not worry about the cost of winning.
I must say that this conclusion does not surprise me. The only revelation is that there is a vast difference between ‘winning at all costs’ and ‘winning without counting the cost’.
So, if Cricket Australia shares responsibility for the culture which caused the abhorrent conduct, are the 12-month bans meted out to Smith and Warner too harsh? I see from news and social media commentary that many advocate a reduction in those bans to reflect the shared responsibility of players and administrators.
I don’t agree.
I advocated in my first article for The Roar on the Spirit of Cricket that the cricket-loving public are the true custodians of the values of the game.
Whilst members of the Australian cricket team may have been influenced by the culture established by Cricket Australia, they surely knew right from wrong.
They surely knew the difference between playing within the rules and cheating. They must surely have known that the Australian cricket community would not cop a member of the national team taking a piece of sandpaper out onto the field and using it to roughen one side of the ball before trying to hide the sandpaper in his jocks!
Cameron Bancroft of Australia (AP Photo/Halden Krog)
To put it bluntly, no matter how prevalent the ‘winning without counting the cost’ culture was within the team, David Warner should have immediately dismissed from his mind any idea of sandpapering the ball to get a perceived advantage.
When Warner suggested the nefarious plan to Bancroft, the latter should have said, “bugger off mate, I’m not doing that; I don’t care whether it means I never play for Australia again”.
And when Steve Smith found out what was planned, he should have shouted, “no way, not on my watch!”
I don’t care what the team culture was. No team culture could possibly contemplate manifest cheating. It’s about standing up for what is right.
All three players failed to do so and I believe they should serve their respective bans.
If losing to India, at home this summer, is the cost which nobody bothered counting, then so be it.
Andre Leslie
Roar Guru
Some good points... although the "A Few Good Men" references are lost on me. Time for me to find the Video Ezy card and rent it out ;-)
JuBe
Guest
That is correct but the actual result of the action, ie death, is the same
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
Bancroft should never have gone along with it. Blind Freddy could already see that Warner was a bad influence in the team. Unless Bancroft was living in a cave, he would have known his history. Warner's card should be marked, "not to be selected again".
Just Nuisance
Roar Rookie
A brilliantly written article Peter . I think this might be first I have read of yours and if this is the kind of stuff you are putting out then I look forward to reading more . A while ago I watched an interview of Mike Haysman ...some may remember him as one of the players who played for The Australians in the infamous rebel series during South Africa's sporting isolation . He was subsequently banned from playing cricket in Australia or anywhere else so settled in SA , married and played a lot of domestic cricket here . When he retired from cricket he became a commentator . But I digress . ...During the said interview Haysie had the stump mike on during the spiteful 1st Test between SA and Aus . He said ...and these were his own words ... " I became so annoyed at the gutter level comments and insults coming from the Australian players that I switched off my stump mike ." Mike Haysman has played test cricket for Australia and is a vastly experienced cricketer and commentator . To have said what he did speaks volumes as to the spiteful culture that had enveloped the Australian team . The fact that it has been identified and addressed means simply that it existed . The recent 1 day series between these same 2 sides was tough with some very good cricket played . More importantly there was restored mutual respect and sportsmanship on display . I much prefer it that way .
Onside
Guest
Enjoyed that Peter. One question remains unasked by The Ethics Committee, 'who else knew' ?. It beggars belief, dispenses with the law of probability , that nobody else in the team on the day knew about the sandpaper, or those in authority at CA were aware of previous incidents of ball tampering. Maybe it was covered but redacted . But seriously, only three blokes knew , yeah right.
Nawal
Guest
Peter, thank you for another insightful article. Governance is important in any organisation, and especially so where the organisation’s membership is pertinent to its continued viability. I believe governance is the ‘way we do things around here’. If this is the case, the report is a sad indictment on Cricket Australia’s board and executive. The tone is set at the top, and as an avid fan of the sport, these gatekeepers have let me down. The Chairman and Board play an important role in the stewardship of Cricket Australia and the report demonstrates a clear need for Board and executive team renewal. I remain hopeful that the Board and executives will consider their role in this dubious chapter of the sport’s great history and do the right thing. The only exception to this disappointing situation is the penalty meted out to the three players; it was appropriately harsh and should hopefully deter any future such actions. It should not be revised!
Hoy
Roar Guru
The bans are harsh compared to what others in the world have had... and it is entirely hypocritical of fans of those countries to heap ridicule on Aus and our cricketers as cheats... utterly hypocritical, and if there is something I can't stand, its a hypocrite. Not saying I am not one at times, but then I am allowed to be... The bans should stay. The most upsetting thing about all this is that we have allowed these unfortunate clowns to take away our moral high ground. Because of that, we are now deemed in the eyes of hypocrites to be cheats etc etc... I have submitted an article here (probably a very poor one) stating the other issue coming out of this to me, is that the actions of the three have now thrown chaos at the Australian cricket team. We are in a state of meek guilt, and as such, seem not to want to play good cricket anymore. I did say this was compounded by terrible systems put in place by CA, but the team at the moment just don't seem to want to fight hard at difficult times, and collapsing in heaps is easier and better for everyone because morally, we have no leg to stand on.
Mark Petrakis
Guest
“ win at all costs” that’s Australian sport in a nutshell, what was the moto for afl cheating, “whatever it takes” maybe James Hird was secretly hired by Cricket Australia, unfortunately when administrators bonuses are tied to the performance of a team or club , then fair play suffers, sportsmanship suffers. Yet the people who instilled the culture survive. Again more finger pointing by Australian sport, I’m surprised CA didn’t reel out the my coffee was spiked, meat was tainted, or the we don’t know what we injected into them but knew it was legal, The Australian sporting supporters are held in contempt by our elite administrators. Rant over
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Paul. As you can see, I agree you 100% on this issue.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Matt. I had some fun with that!
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Insiyah. I agree with those who say that the administrators must be accountable for the appalling culture they bred, but I don’t agree with the assertion that the players are somehow less culpable. They should have know right from wrong, irrespective of the corporate culture.
Insiyah
Guest
Wow this is great!! I completely agree with you when you say no team culture could ever contemplate manifest cheating.
Matt H
Roar Guru
I have nothing much to add that I haven't said elsewhere, but I loved the Few Good Men parody!
Paul
Roar Guru
Peter, I've written in other posts that we often hear tragics saying the "position of Australian Test captain is the second most influential in the country, behind the PM". I grew up hearing and believing that. This statement effectively means people in these positions MUST be held to higher account than those who are players, etc. The crime for the 12 month punishment is because Smith and Warner in particular completely destroyed the reputation of these positions, by inducing a junior player to break the law. A clear message MUST be sent to future Test captains that the rewards for being good enough to captain our Test side are great, but the penalties should be equally severe when the Test captaincy is tarnished. I'd suggest Smith and co went way past "tarnishing".
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks JamesH. Those are some interesting comments. I need to think more about whether I am confortable with the banned players playing Shield post-Christmas.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Jeffrey, the only thing you are, perhaps, missing is the link to the A Few Good Men theme. Although, I did have in mind that some commentators cannot handle the truth that our players outright cheated and no finding about an insidious corporate culture can excuse that.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
Thanks Snert Underpant! I also agree with your last comment. It doesn’t matter whether other countries take cheating seriously or not. And at least when another team cheats in any way, we can say, “well, we banned our two best batsman for 12 months, what are you going to do?”
JamesH
Roar Guru
I agree with your view that the bans should stand. I thought they were excessive when they were handed down but it would send the wrong message to go back and reduce them now. The circumstances of the crime itself haven't changed. What I would like to see is all three batsmen playing in the Shield post-Christmas, simply because the timing of when the ban finishes doesn't give them any immediate opportunity to then push for national selection. In that sense it's a longer ban than just 12 months. But I don't think that will happen. The thing that really bothers me, though, is that we have a situation where the organisation which investigated the incident and determined the ban was the same organisation responsible for creating the environment which enabled it. I don't think it's at all ethical for CA to announce that it is reviewing its own role in facilitating the incident and at the same time act as judge, jury and executioner for Smith and co. The right thing to do would have been to arrange an independent panel to review the players' conduct and recommend penalties. As an aside, your comment that: "the intention to achieve an outcome and a reckless indifference to the probability of that outcome may – from both a moral and a legally standpoint – result in the same level of culpability" isn't true. There are plenty of crimes across the various Australian jurisdictions that require specific intent (or at least a higher level of intent than recklessness). Sentencing, too, will generally factor in the degree of intent behind the particular crime.
Jeffrey Dun
Roar Rookie
I'm a bit confused Peter. If we (or CA) can't handle the truth, then surely the Ethics Committee would have produced a whitewash of a report. I think the cricketing public in this country can handle the truth - hence the outrage at the cheating. Also, CA can handle the truth, which is why they commissioned the report. The bans on the three concerned are widely supported. I must be missing something.
Snert Underpant
Roar Rookie
A great article Peter! And I agree with your summary. We live in an age where many large corporations push the boundaries of both legality and morality. But despite the culture the CA administrators condoned, grown men still know right from wrong. They chose to cheat. And a year out of the game is fair. The fact that other players who have similarly cheated and not been punished by their countries to the same extent is irrelevant and indicative of a lack of respect for the game and sportsmanship in general.