Cricket Australia Statement on investigation
March 28, 2018
Following the announcements made yesterday in Johannesburg, the Cricket Australia Board has met again today to consider the report of the investigation into the incident in Cape Town.
\
\
\
The key finding from the investigation was that prior knowledge of the incident was confined to three players, Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft.
\
\
\
Key findings:
\
\
\
Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft have been charged with a 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;
© is or could be harmful to the interests of cricket; and/or
(d) did bring the game of cricket into disrepute.
\
\
\
In respect of the individual players concerned, Cricket Australia advises the following:
\
\
\
Steve Smith was charged with a breach of Article 2.3.5 of the CA Code of Conduct based on:
\
\
\
(a) knowledge of a potential plan to attempt to artificially alter the condition of the ball;
(b) failure to take steps to seek to prevent the development and implementation of that plan;
(c) directing that evidence of attempted tampering be concealed on the field of play;
(d) seeking to mislead Match Officials and others regarding Bancroft’s attempts to artificially alter the condition of the ball; and
(e) misleading public comments regarding the nature, extent and participants of the plan
\
\
\
David Warner was charged with a breach of Article 2.3.5 of the CA Code of Conduct based on:
\
\
\
(a) development of a plan to attempt to artificially alter the condition of the ball;
(b) instruction to a junior player to carry out a plan to take steps to attempt to artificially alter the condition of the ball using sandpaper;
(c) provision of advice to a junior player regarding how a ball could be artificially altered including demonstrating how it could be done;
(d) failure to take steps to seek to prevent the development and/or implementation of the plan;
(e) failure to report his knowledge of the plan at any time prior to or during the match;
(f) misleading Match Officials through the concealment of his knowledge of and involvement in the plan; and
(g) failure to voluntarily report his knowledge of the plan after the match
\
\
\
Cameron Bancroft was charged with a breach of Article 2.3.5 of the CA Code of Conduct based on:
\
\
\
(a) knowledge of the existence of, and being party to, the plan to attempt to artificially alter the condition of the ball using sandpaper;
(b) carrying out instructions to attempt to artificially alter the condition of the ball;
(c) seeking to conceal evidence of his attempts to artificially alter the condition of the ball;
(d) seeking to mislead Match Officials and others regarding his attempts to artificially alter the condition of the ball; and
(e) misleading public comments regarding the nature, extent, implementation and participants of the plan
\
\
\
Summary of sanctions
\
\
\
The range of sanctions available to Cricket Australia under Article 2.3.5 are extensive. The CA Board determined sanctions that would be appropriate in each player’s case, following their review of the report.
\
\
\
The Board has considered the recommendations and determined that the following sanctions will be offered to each player in accordance with the CA Code of Conduct process.
\
\
\
Steve Smith
\
\
Suspension of 12 months from all international and domestic cricket
David Warner
\
\
Suspension of 12 months from all international and domestic cricket
Cameron Bancroft
\
\
Suspension of 9 months from all international and domestic cricket
\
\
\
All three players will be permitted to play club cricket and will be encouraged to do so to maintain links with the cricket community.
In addition, all three players will be required to undertake 100 hours of voluntary service in community cricket.
\
\
\
Leadership
\
\
\
Steve Smith and Cameron Bancroft will not be considered for team leadership positions until a minimum of 12 months after the conclusion of their respective suspensions from international and domestic cricket. Any consideration of future leadership would be conditional on acceptance by fans and the public, form and authority among the playing group. David Warner will not be considered for team leadership positions in the future.
\
\
\
Cricket Australia Chairman, David Peever said:
“As I indicated yesterday, the CA Board understands and shares the anger of fans and the broader Australian community about these events.
\
\
\
“They go to the integrity and reputation of Australian Cricket and Australian sport and the penalties must reflect that.
\
\
\
“These are significant penalties for professional players and the Board does not impose them lightly. It is hoped that following a period of suspension, the players will be able to return to playing the game they love and eventually rebuild their careers.”
Cricket Australia CEO, James Sutherland said:
“As the Chairman has noted, the sanctions we have announced are significant for the individuals involved. That is why the process has had to be thorough to ensure that all relevant issues have been examined.
“I am satisfied that the sanctions in this case properly reflect a balance between the need to protect the integrity and reputation of the game and the need to maintain the possibility of redemption for the individuals involved, all of whom have learned difficult lessons through these events.
“As indicated, Cricket Australia will provide more details of an independent review into the conduct and culture of our Australian men’s team in due course.” Sutherland concluded.
APPENDIX
\
\
\
Summary of CA Code of Conduct process
By way of summary, the Code of Conduct process in this instance is as follows:
A report is lodged by the CEO with the Head of Integrity;
A review is completed by the Head of Integrity;
A Notice of Charge (in conjunction with the report) is provided to the player which includes a specific charge under the Code of Conduct and offers the proposed sanctions;
If the player accepts the charge and proposed sanctions, the matter is completed;
If the player disputes either the charge or sanction/s, there is a hearing before a CA Commissioner;
The player may appeal the outcome of that hearing, and if so there is a hearing before an Appeals Commissioner (who is selected from the remaining CA Commissioners).
