Cricket Australia will not lift the current bans imposed on Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft after the infamous ball-tampering scandal.
Smith who was captain at the time had been banned for a year alongside vice-captain David Warner while Bancroft was given nine months for the role he played in taking sandpaper onto the field against South Africa.
FULL CRICKET AUSTRALIA STATEMENT:
Cricket Australia (CA) has today responded to the Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA) submission to amend the sanctions against Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft.
CA Interim Chair Earl Eddings said: “The Cricket Australia Board has carefully considered all elements of the ACA submission and has determined that it is not appropriate to make any changes to the sanctions handed down to the three players.”
Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft were found in breach of Article 2.3.5 of the CA Code of Conduct, namely that their conduct:
(a) was contrary to the spirit of the game;
(b) was unbecoming of a representative or official;
(c) is or could be harmful to the interests of cricket; and/or
(d) did bring the game of cricket into disrepute.
Mr Eddings reinforced the unanimous decision of the Board stating: “Despite the absence of any recommendation regarding the sanctions in the recently released Ethics Centre Review, the Board has deliberated on the ACA’s submission at length. We have reconsidered the sanctions as they apply to each of Steve, David and Cameron in light of the ACA’s submission and the Ethics Centre Review and Recommendations.
“The original decision of the Board to sanction the players was determined after rigorous discussion and consideration. CA maintains that both the length and nature of the sanctions remain an appropriate response in light of the considerable impact on the reputation of Australian cricket, here and abroad.
“Steve, David and Cameron are working hard to demonstrate their commitment to cricket and have our continued support to ensure their pathway to return is as smooth as possible.
“We believe the ongoing conversation about reducing the sanctions puts undue pressure on the three players – all of whom accepted the sanctions earlier this year – and the Australian men’s cricket team. As such, the Cricket Australia Board doesn’t intend to consider further calls for amendments to the sanctions.
“Though we recognise that this decision will be disappointing for the ACA, we thank them for their submission. Our commitment to continue building a strong relationship between CA and the ACA in the interests of cricket in Australia remains and we look forward to meeting with them shortly to that end,” concluded Mr Eddings.
Dave
Roar Rookie
Because that is what it should be about
Omega10
Roar Rookie
It's only Shield cricket and by the time they played the ban would be nearly up in any case. It's a bit rich for CA to be worried about the welfare of the players at this point. I imagine the idea of losing more sponsors due to letting the trio back played it's part. I didn't mind the ban, I thought it was appropriate considering they raised the bar on cheating that is usually has a blind eye turned to it by everyone involved in the game. And as for the bans being for lying, well, convenient cover and excuse for making an example of the trio. I do however think there should have been a suspended component for Smith and Bancroft in particular but in the hurry to reach a conviction to satisfy hypocritical moral outrage this obviously never crossed anyone's mind. Even murderer's get time off their sentences for good behaviour.
The Bush
Roar Guru
So why did you spend the entire comment talking about ball tampering and prior penalties for that, when it’s not about that at all?
Dave
Roar Rookie
I understand fully what they are saying, I just think that is a absolute bunch of crap.
Matt H
Roar Guru
Langer will have the team bus waiting outside Bancroft's house the second his ban is over. Langer loooooves him.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
Agree with you Spanner. Warner was bad for the team before all this happened. Smith will likely be back though, he is good enough to force his way back in. Bancroft was lucky to still be in the team. He has a long road back.
Harvey Wilson
Roar Rookie
It seems that if they were let off it might have been against the code of conduct as well. I am glad the bans stand. Totally sends the wrong message if they didnt see it out to the end. I would be happy if Warner never again comes back. He was team poison before all this cheating business.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
Interesting. I'd be pretty p****d off if I was one of the three in that case.
The Bush
Roar Guru
My understanding is that they did not, but the Union represents the interests of all their members and they need to show all their members that they'll go into bat for them as much as possible.
The Bush
Roar Guru
So despite the fact that Spruce posted it about four times, you still don't seem to understand what the punishments actually relate to? It's even contained in the article if you happened to avoid reading that too...
Dave
Roar Rookie
What they did was just about as stupid as you can get but the punishment was extreme. The expected punishment to be received for tampering with the ball is well established, at most a few weeks of being banned. You personally may think ball tampering is extremely bad (and so do I) but the reality is the people running the game think it is a few weeks ban. Cricket Australia should of protested/appealed the official ban to be greater than a few weeks instead of imposing a ban on its own players of a year. It is extreme hubris by Cricket Australia to say if an Australian tampers with the ball it should be a year ban but if any other team does it it is perfectly happy for a one week ban. I also have a big problem with punishments determined after the fact. When the players did it they would have expected at worst a few weeks ban - as was an established precedent - but instead were banned for a year. That is not just. It would be like getting a parking ticket that you knew was $100 when you chose to double park, but when you got the fine it was $100,000 (and only because you were Australian).
The Bush
Roar Guru
When you say all cricketers, do you mean their members or ALL cricketers? They’re a union for professional cricketers; their duty is to do nothing else but represent their members. I’m sure all their members want to see them sticking up for them, because they all know one day they might need aggressive representation. It is CA’s job to protect the integrity of the sport, not th ACA.
Blake Standfield
Roar Guru
Sugar pockets knew what he was he doing.
Howzat
Guest
Yeah I thought it should have been a life ban. But they're stuck with it.
Don Lampard
Guest
Yeah, SA sure gave it back in spades. Went after Warner's wife and hence his family. Meanwhile double ball tamperer Du Plessis is out here giving us his observations on our mental state - rat cunning resides in the SA captain.
Don Lampard
Guest
"New kid" was 25 at the time.
spruce moose
Guest
You are trying to water down a suspension James. There's no logical reason they should be playing shield cricket. They're banned. Allowing them to play simply to future plan undermines the suspension. The injury analogy is correct...your desire for them to be Ashes/WC ready clouds your better judgement. If they wanted to have proper preparation for those series, they shouldn't have brought the game into disrepute.
Peter Hunt
Roar Guru
I agree. Great post Spruce Moose.
Tom Simon
Roar Pro
Absolutely agree spruce. What so many people don't realise is that the players were never banned for ball tampering by CA, but bringing the game into disrepute. Cricket Australia have made a lot of poor decisions of late, but this is a good one. As much as I would love Smith and Warner out there to help us beat India, it would have sent a terrible message by bringing them back. Also I don't think there was as much public support for bringing the players back as some media outlets would have us believe...
JOHN ALLAN
Guest
This is my "spin" on events in Capetown. Culmination of poor behaviour. Smith a world class batsman but lacked the "strength" to rein in Warner. Stuck his head in the sand & now paying the price. "Attack Dog" did as he pleased & South Africa gave it back to him in spades. I wonder if Bancroft had refused to be a party to the plan, what would have happened? Opinions please.