Take this hypothetical. Pick any Australian professional sports franchise; doesnt matter which one, or which sport. Say its the off-season and a player organises a lunchtime barbecue at his joint for his teammates, coaches and staff.
When the beer runs out, they head to a nearby club. Not the least bit fazed by two dozen burly athletes and associated hangers-on who have all been left out in the sun too long with their heads in buckets of Corona, the licensee of the club permits entry for the entire group. What ensues is predictable enough to a point. Steins are chugged, with extreme prejudice.
Funny business: Cameron Bancroft hiding the now infamous sandpaper.
Predictable … up to a point. A subset of the players punching patrons and each other before midnight – that would always be odds-on. The clubs licensee being assaulted by other drunk players – that would be as repugnant as it is rare.
All the players and coaches subsequently banned from the establishment forever – that would be appropriate. The whole story smothered up – yup, predictable.
Now remember, dear readers, all of the above is a complete fiction. If this occurred and journalists could stand the story up, itd be front-page news.
Advertisement
Fantasy it might be but perhaps youve still got a hundred questions. Which team? Whose house were they drinking at? Who bashed the licensee?
Fair questions. But you know what – even if what Ive detailed actually happened (and of course, it didnt), knowing all the sordid minutiae serves very little actual purpose. In many situations, it only makes matters worse.
Id love answers . . . but part of me wonders whether the answers are still required or even obtainable.
Throughout the five days (hopefully) of this fourth Test against India at the SCG, questions will again be asked, about how different the fortunes of the two teams mightve been had Steve Smith and David Warner been out in the middle. Those questions will become louder should Cameron Bancroft elaborate on comments made in his ill-advised Boxing Day tell-some, or if the Australian team lacks potency.
Opinions will be voiced, regarding the severity of 12-month bans from international cricket. Those opinions will morph into more questions and hand-wringing, regarding exactly what went on, second-by-second. Who knew what, and when?
Exactly what happened in that dressing room at Newlands, during the lunch break on March24, 2018? How did Warner bring up in dispatches that it might be a remarkable idea for Bancroft to whip out the 80-grit when nobodys looking, and shine the ball? Did Warner bully Bancroft into submission, or was Bancroft an enthusiastic co-conspirator? Was Warner the inculcator of such tactics within the wider Australian set-up?
Why didnt Warner just do the sandpapering himself? Did captain Smith really do nothing other than turn a blind eye? Was this episode seriously the single, solitary occasion such sorry and ineffective tactics (the umpires didnt even change the ball after the scheme was uncovered) were deployed by the Australian team? Did Darren Lehmann, the head coach, have any knowledge whatsoever? Him not knowing raises just as many questions as if he did. And how could the bowlers not at least suspect that their only weapon – 22 overs old by lunch on the third day – was being attacked with sandpaper?
Id love answers to all those questions. But part of me wonders whether the answers are still required or even obtainable. Bancrofts interview was, at best, the highlights reel of his version of the truth. Unless a player writes a book at the end of his career, the whole truth of the matter will never be uncovered – too much effort has been taken to sugar-coat it.
Moreover, all these questions are about the chronology of events leading to Bancroft being caught trying to alter the ball. The International Cricket Council penalised, but did not ban, Bancroft for committing that offence. Smith was banned by the ICC for a solitary Test match, for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game. The ICC didnt touch Warner at all.
Heres a better question: athletes do worse things on the field of play in other sports, every day, so has this whole sandpaper thing been way overblown?
The much harsher bans handed down by Cricket Australia werent for the ball tampering, with all the unanswered questions hanging in the air. Rather, the CA penalties were for bringing cricket and the team into disrepute and censure.
But the sanctions were unreasonably harsh and would very likely have been reduced on appeal by an independent legal mind. Thats notwithstanding that the penalties were within the range prescribed in the CA code of conduct. Alas, though, no player had the intestinal fortitude to challenge the decision. If the choice by any player had been to appeal, thats the likely juncture at which the truth wouldve come out.
The time for the ugly and unvarnished whole story to be made public is not five minutes to midnight before the players bans end, as some sort of act of contrition. One can only hope Warners PR mavens get at least that bit of advice right.
Finally, on the whole proportionality of the disrepute that has been occasioned on Australian cricket, and the obsession with knowing the whole truth, lets compare Sandpapergate with other recent incidents.
In the eye of the storm: Jarryd Hayne, Zane Musgrove, Dylan Walker and Jack de Belin.Credit:AAP
Is this disrepute greater than that caused by Phil Mickelson flippantly hitting a moving ball at the US Open last June because he didnt give a fig? What about Greg Inglis being caught drink-driving last October hours after being named Australian captain? Or Serena Williams tantrums and apocalyptic meltdown at Flushing Meadows against Naomi Osaka? For mine, Inglis conduct is way worse than Smiths.
How about the damage done to the reputation of rugby league by the likes of Jarryd Hayne, Jack de Belin and Dylan Walker, even just by putting themselves in situations where its possible they might be charged with crimes against women. Inglis has indicated he will plead guilty. Hayne, de Belin and Walker each deserve their days in court; each must be presumed innocent. If the converse is proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, then by Sandpapergate standards only a Spanish inquisition will do.
Darren Kane is a sports columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald.
Most Viewed in Sport
Take this hypothetical. Pick any Australian professional sports franchise; doesnt matter which one, or which sport. Say its the off-season and a player organises a lunchtime barbecue at his joint for his teammates, coaches and staff.
When the beer runs out, they head to a nearby club. Not the least bit fazed by two dozen burly athletes and associated hangers-on who have all been left out in the sun too long with their heads in buckets of Corona, the licensee of the club permits entry for the entire group. What ensues is predictable enough to a point. Steins are chugged, with extreme prejudice.
Funny business: Cameron Bancroft hiding the now infamous sandpaper.
Predictable … up to a point. A subset of the players punching patrons and each other before midnight – that would always be odds-on. The clubs licensee being assaulted by other drunk players – that would be as repugnant as it is rare.
All the players and coaches subsequently banned from the establishment forever – that would be appropriate. The whole story smothered up – yup, predictable.
Now remember, dear readers, all of the above is a complete fiction. If this occurred and journalists could stand the story up, itd be front-page news.
Advertisement
Fantasy it might be but perhaps youve still got a hundred questions. Which team? Whose house were they drinking at? Who bashed the licensee?
Fair questions. But you know what – even if what Ive detailed actually happened (and of course, it didnt), knowing all the sordid minutiae serves very little actual purpose. In many situations, it only makes matters worse.
Id love answers . . . but part of me wonders whether the answers are still required or even obtainable.
Throughout the five days (hopefully) of this fourth Test against India at the SCG, questions will again be asked, about how different the fortunes of the two teams mightve been had Steve Smith and David Warner been out in the middle. Those questions will become louder should Cameron Bancroft elaborate on comments made in his ill-advised Boxing Day tell-some, or if the Australian team lacks potency.
Opinions will be voiced, regarding the severity of 12-month bans from international cricket. Those opinions will morph into more questions and hand-wringing, regarding exactly what went on, second-by-second. Who knew what, and when?
Exactly what happened in that dressing room at Newlands, during the lunch break on March24, 2018? How did Warner bring up in dispatches that it might be a remarkable idea for Bancroft to whip out the 80-grit when nobodys looking, and shine the ball? Did Warner bully Bancroft into submission, or was Bancroft an enthusiastic co-conspirator? Was Warner the inculcator of such tactics within the wider Australian set-up?
Why didnt Warner just do the sandpapering himself? Did captain Smith really do nothing other than turn a blind eye? Was this episode seriously the single, solitary occasion such sorry and ineffective tactics (the umpires didnt even change the ball after the scheme was uncovered) were deployed by the Australian team? Did Darren Lehmann, the head coach, have any knowledge whatsoever? Him not knowing raises just as many questions as if he did. And how could the bowlers not at least suspect that their only weapon – 22 overs old by lunch on the third day – was being attacked with sandpaper?
Id love answers to all those questions. But part of me wonders whether the answers are still required or even obtainable. Bancrofts interview was, at best, the highlights reel of his version of the truth. Unless a player writes a book at the end of his career, the whole truth of the matter will never be uncovered – too much effort has been taken to sugar-coat it.
Moreover, all these questions are about the chronology of events leading to Bancroft being caught trying to alter the ball. The International Cricket Council penalised, but did not ban, Bancroft for committing that offence. Smith was banned by the ICC for a solitary Test match, for conduct contrary to the spirit of the game. The ICC didnt touch Warner at all.
Heres a better question: athletes do worse things on the field of play in other sports, every day, so has this whole sandpaper thing been way overblown?
The much harsher bans handed down by Cricket Australia werent for the ball tampering, with all the unanswered questions hanging in the air. Rather, the CA penalties were for bringing cricket and the team into disrepute and censure.
But the sanctions were unreasonably harsh and would very likely have been reduced on appeal by an independent legal mind. Thats notwithstanding that the penalties were within the range prescribed in the CA code of conduct. Alas, though, no player had the intestinal fortitude to challenge the decision. If the choice by any player had been to appeal, thats the likely juncture at which the truth wouldve come out.
The time for the ugly and unvarnished whole story to be made public is not five minutes to midnight before the players bans end, as some sort of act of contrition. One can only hope Warners PR mavens get at least that bit of advice right.
Finally, on the whole proportionality of the disrepute that has been occasioned on Australian cricket, and the obsession with knowing the whole truth, lets compare Sandpapergate with other recent incidents.
In the eye of the storm: Jarryd Hayne, Zane Musgrove, Dylan Walker and Jack de Belin.Credit:AAP
Is this disrepute greater than that caused by Phil Mickelson flippantly hitting a moving ball at the US Open last June because he didnt give a fig? What about Greg Inglis being caught drink-driving last October hours after being named Australian captain? Or Serena Williams tantrums and apocalyptic meltdown at Flushing Meadows against Naomi Osaka? For mine, Inglis conduct is way worse than Smiths.
How about the damage done to the reputation of rugby league by the likes of Jarryd Hayne, Jack de Belin and Dylan Walker, even just by putting themselves in situations where its possible they might be charged with crimes against women. Inglis has indicated he will plead guilty. Hayne, de Belin and Walker each deserve their days in court; each must be presumed innocent. If the converse is proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, then by Sandpapergate standards only a Spanish inquisition will do.
Darren Kane is a sports columnist for The Sydney Morning Herald.
