ICC to blame for disciplinary muck-up

A clash between South African and International cricket Council bosses is looming -- from which both sides will almost certainly emerge with even more egg on their red faces. Let me explain.

South Africa is under pressure from the International cricket Conference to toughen up its "soft" sentences on those found guilty in the cricket corruption saga.

That in turn is because the ICC has been exposed as incompetent in the way it communicated its own set of rules over match-fixing. These were promulgated last year.

When I covered the emergency meeting of the ICC at Lord's soon after the Cronje scandal broke, the ICC's legal adviser was delighted to hand me a copy of the rules he had helped compile.

Indeed they clearly covered match-fixing and involvement with book- makers. The penalties were strong, though they did not show minimum punishments, only the most a player or administrator could get.

What the legal adviser did not tell me was that these rules had not in fact been distributed to the various national cricket bodies -- until April 20 in the case of South Africa's UCB.

That fact was relied on by the defence lawyers of herschelle Gibbs and Henry Williams in the disciplinary hearing. And it was cited by the three- man disciplinary panel when they explained why the sentences were so short -- bans from International Cricket only till December 31.

It was a dubious, even a ridiculous, argument. In the first place there had by early this year been so much publicity about cricket corruption and alleged march-fixing that any SA player must have known how serious an offence this was. Just because he had not received a copy of anti-match- fixing legislation would surely not in any way absolve them from punishment if they went and did it.

Secondly, there must have been negligence on the part of the UCB, too. The UCB attended the ICC meeting last year when the decision to impose such penalties was approved. They should surely have written off or phoned for a copy of the new rules.

In any case, in all UCB contracts with their players there is a clause in which the player promises to comply with all rules and regulations applicable in international cricket.

The problem now is that the ICC must be under pressure to show its own teeth by telling South Africa to toughen the penalties against Gibbs and Williams. If that does happen, South Africa will almost certainly be unable to comply: Dr Ali Bacher and even the Sports Minister Ncgonde balfour have described the sentences as fair. And the decision was made very publicly (the hearing was, bizarrely, televised) and by three top lawyers.

Another fine mess the UCB has got into. The ICC is certainly to blame for slow and weak action against match-fixing and corrupt dealings for many years. Malcolm Gray, the new ICC boss, admitted that as he stood outside the King Commission hearings in June.

There is even talk now in SA newspapers that the ICC may try to suspend SA for being weak on sentencing. I very much doubt that will happen. If that were tried then I can foresee a very lucrative few years for SA and international lawyers: there would be suits and counter-suits and writs flying between South Africa and London.

More likely is that the ICC will perform as it usually does -- with strong words and weak actions.

Paul Martin Cainer is CEO of Sport Africa and Live Africa Network News.

Mail Cricket Editor