There was a quiet and simmering expectation that David Warner would eventually reveal the truth about Cape Town sometime after he retired. Now that he has retired, there still is the expectation.
His manager, James Erskine, has always hinted a book deal in the offering where Warner would tell all. Warner himself has been quite cryptic on it when asked.
He’s never formally said, “Yes, I will tell all,” and he’s never actually shut the door on it either, sometimes just deflecting the question or, as recently as a few days ago, suggesting it wasn’t in his immediate plans to do so but maybe in the future.
I don’t think we’re ever going to hear his version of it. Sure, if the book covers those topics, he would make a killing in sales and promo tour of it. But that would be short-term financial gain, up. against longer-term financial and reputational issues, which will matter more for him. So, these are three reasons why he will be silent.
1. No one would believe him either way
Warner could either tell the absolute unvarnished truth, or he could do what most politicians do in their memoirs and just plainly create an entirely fictionalised version of events. Either way, it’s unlikely a majority of the public would believe either story and the scepticism will ultimately rule out and people will just simply conclude his story to be one of many competing versions of truth.
And eventually, the bowlers (if it’s the bowlers that get named by Warner), will respond and chuck in their own recollection of events. All of a sudden, Warner’s becomes just one version, and not canon.
A famous example is the Kirribilli agreement between Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in 1988. They even ensured two witnesses would be there. The result: four astonishingly different versions of the truth. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have entirely different views of the night Rudd was knifed, as do Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison. Who do you believe?
You believe who you want and you don’t believe the others. The result? No remotely conclusive determining of what had happened. If Warner is aiming to make money and correct the record, he will only ever do the former.
(Photo by Darrian Traynor/Getty Images)
2. He would never cross the picket line
The Professional Cricketers Association, much like the RLPA or the AFLPA, is more than just a union. It’s a brotherhood. It’s borderline masonic. They would never rat on each other. No matter what level of enmity exists between two sportsmen, that unless you want to cop the severe consequences of doing so, never, ever throw the other under the bus.
Assuming that the rumour that the bowlers were all involved in the ball tampering was true, why is it only Warner who people will believe will spill the beans?
Steve Smith hasn’t. Cameron Bancroft has offered some highly cryptic comments, but when push has come to shove has never gone on record and named names (but it’s more because Bancroft is a hopeless media performer, rather than a snitch, that he says such things).
Look at dozens of AFL and NRL judiciary cases. The victim almost never testifies in the judiciary. Take Tyson Gamble in the NRL in 2023. He was bitten by Jack Wighton. He raised a bit of a stink in the heat of the moment during the match, but then immediately after started to water down the incident and decline to testify at the judiciary.
He should have. It was plain to see. But he was never going to do something that would have added more weeks to Wighton’s ticket. You never cross the picket line. You never rat on your professional colleagues.
Tyson Gamble shows referee Ashley Klein his arm. (Photo by Brendon Thorne/Getty Images)
3. He would kill off his future cricket employment opportunities
Linked to point 2. If he crosses the picket line and throws the bowlers under the bus he will have permanently ruined any chance of being a coach of a T20 franchise (which he has publicly indicated he wants to be), and indeed even long-term commentary deals.
The players are a united front. Even if what was said by Warner was 100 per cent truth, it would be seen as the most egregious betrayal and no player would ever want to be in the same room as him because he would irrevocably lost their trust.
Once more, you never cross the picket line. Some secrets, some injustices (if one exists in this instance) just need to stay with you for life. Look at how swiftly Mitchell Johnson has found himself on the outer for expressing a controversial opinion against players.
Warner would sell a lot of books, but he would also sell off his credibility amongst the cricketing fraternity.
So, Warner’s truth of the incident is likely to be taken to his grave. It’s probably quite unfair and he would feel aggrieved that deep down he won’t ever get the chance to clear his name (if his name could be cleared) in the court of public opinion, but weighed against jeopardising his future place in the game, silence is golden.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
If in fact that did happen? I know Warner can be feral but that level feralness is Nick Kyrgios. Warner is a few stops short.
matth
Roar Guru
In terms of consequences this is more like someone who got done for micro match fixing (eg not throwing a match but manipulating all the little things the Indian bookmakers bet on) going on the record naming who else was in on it. Would they do it ? Honestly not sure. My impression of Warner is that his standing with his cricket mates might be more important to him than spilling the beans
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
1. The bowlers were in the leadership group. You didn’t know this? Oh dear… 2. This is just gibberish. You really need to quit now. You’ve embarrassed yourself enough for one day.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
You're having a lovely time being rude aren't you? People like you are very easy to ignore.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
i never know with people like you on here. just what the actual blindness comes from. high horse. snarky.... you call people or their positions laughably naive. you imply that those who have a different view must have no experience or knowledge. then you cherry pick and try and imply "ignorance" through poor understanding of logic. and the you imply you are the righteous. bah. bah humug. before I leave, because leave I shall, because you just ain't worth it., even i have better things to do than deal with your passive aggressive tone deaf junk... 1. Smith did not ADMIT that the bowlers knew. he nervously chucked out "the leadership" group as a vague statement and undefined group. it makes sense, he could say "Warner" without saying "Warner". players previously identified as the leadership group i.e. the bowlers - they went berserk. that night. you have been told this. you won't concede. you can't concede. whatevs. Smith has never been re-examined. this gossamer thread sustains you. yay. 2. Der. I know the laws. of cricket. and many other things. but the fact that the bowers didn't see any change makes it completely plausible that they didn't know there was tampering. the fact it is still a crime is irrelevant. in comparison, if the umps had reported that the ball was significantly and obviously damaged, this would make it that harder to argue they didn't know it was going on - still not evidence that they asked for it, but starting to be a bit of smoke. but it wasn't they didn't and all you have is a theory. now, riddance is achieved. you win the internet. whacko the daddyo.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
“ there is no evidence the bowlers knew” Apart from the captain admitting they did. Inconvenient for you I know, but there you have it. “ there is public evidence the umpires did not detect any changes to the ball” We’ve been through this already. Again, you seem to be unaware that the Laws of Cricket prohibit an ‘attempt’ to alter the ball - whether players succeed or not is immaterial. So maybe climb down from that moral high horse you seem to be on and return to reality? So far all you’ve done is display your ignorance of the laws of the game, the facts of this incident and the reality of being part of a cricket team. But I’m sure you’ll attempt some snarky response, yes?
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
PS :stoked: :stoked: :happy: :laughing: :silly: thought i would be laughably naive, not just naive.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
see. there's the thing. the attack. i know cricket. you don't. i am a proper bowler. you weren't. laughably naive. not you though. worldly wise. therefore right. let's just say you don't know the first daddying thing about my cricket experience or my history of tampering, or not. not. a jot. there is no evidence the bowlers knew there is public evidence the bowlers were furious to be implicated, immediately, and ongoingly there is public evidence the umpires did not detect any changes to the ball, so that is clear evidence the bowlers could not see changes you have cynical suspicions dressed up as superior knowledge that reinforces your confirmation bias. as they say, big whoop. you want someone to prove a negative. that's not how it works. except here.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
Oh they all know. But I highly doubt any of them will go on the record - even Bancroft.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
Except that I haven't seen any contrary evidence. It all supports my theory. And if you think a batsman is attempting to alter the ball without the knowledge of the bowlers you've clearly never played the sport seriously. Even semi-seriously.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Me? I think he was the perpetrator. He is no victim. But that's my own opinion. I won't ever know for sure because he didn't contest the charges CA laid out and he was entitled to do so...and I also think he'll never talk. It's not quasi legal.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
Lemon, who knows them and was onsite, concludes "In the effort not to implicate anyone, Smith implicated everyone"... "As it would turn out, Smith and Bancroft were lying through their teeth. The idea had come from Warner, who they were trying to shelter with their vagueness". Pages 154-159, Steve Smith's Men.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
that's what he did. he breached X Y and Z. he made x happen and failed to stop x happen. i think you are looking for things that aren't really legal. but want to use a quasi-legal approach to get them? isn't not contesting the charges and accepting the punishment effectively an admission of guilt? it's clearly not a statement of innocence. no such claim has ever been made. do you want a transcript? a re-enactment? do you think the "popular" record of events - he suspected if he did it he would get caught, so he asked/bullied Bancroft to do it, and showed him how - then watched briefly as Bancroft pretended it was his doing, and while Smith suggested others knew, warner didn't step forward and say "it was my idea" -all that, and you suspect (I think) something different, god forbid even worse, actually happened? - i can't actually work out whether you suspect Warner is actually a victim; or an even worse offender.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
No. We actually don't know what Warner did. We only know what CA charged him of. He simply didn't contest the charges laid out by CA. That's neither a personal admission of any guilt or a statement of innocence.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Clearly.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
I'm inclined to agree. I think Warner, or preferably Bancroft (as he was the foot soldier caught with his prints on the gun) would have the definitive account of what happened.
Pedro The Fisherman
Roar Rookie
I am not sure how Warner could hold down a commentary gig and not be questioned by fellow commentators at some stage (especially during a rain delay). I also suspect that there will be the odd book coming from South Africa which may make some serious allegations (although people in glass houses ...)? Nonetheless, the full truth will never be known or acknowledged.
Wikipetia
Roar Rookie
yes you think that despite all of the contrary evidence, and therefore you think that anyone who doesn't is naive. you're allowed that.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
I think he inadvertently revealed the unpalatable truth - everyone knew about it. And let's be honest - to think otherwise is laughably naive.
Ouch
Roar Rookie
we know "the beans". They conspired to alter the condition of the ball but got caught before they could do it.