David Warner’s manager has made a shocking claim that anonymous officials permitted players to tamper with the ball roughly 16 months before the Cape Town debacle of 2018.
Warner withdrew his request to have his leadership ban lifted on Thursday, citing his unhappiness with the transparency of the procedure.
The opening batter returned to the field on Thursday and scored 21 runs off 29 deliveries against the West Indies.
In the opening session of the match, Warner cut, drove, and cover-driven Alzarri Joseph for three boundaries in one over before being caught behind off a West Indies fast.
Warner’s manager, James Erskine, stated in an interview on SEN that players had been permitted to tamper with the ball following a 2016 thrashing in Hobart by South Africa.
Faf du Plessis was later charged with applying saliva to the ball with a mint in his mouth during Australia’s first innings, in which they were bowled out for 85 runs.
Erskine stated on SEN that two top executives were in the Hobart locker room berating the squad for their loss against South Africa.
Warner instructed us to backswing the ball. And the only way to reverse-swing the ball is by manipulation. Therefore, they were instructed to proceed.”
Erskine further asserted that one day the truth would be revealed regarding the ball-tampering scandal in Cape Town, and people would conclude that Warner was unfairly targeted.
Erskine stated, “There were significantly more than three people involved in this incident, and David Warner was thoroughly demonized.”
“He has kept quiet, he has protected Cricket Australia and his teammates on my advice, since no one wanted to hear more about it, and he has returned to playing cricket.
“This is the pinnacle of injustice”
Cricket Australia has not yet responded to the most recent allegations.
Current Test captain Pat Cummins, who is ill and out of action, said he had not heard the Erskine remarks when he completed a commentary stint for Fox Sports late Thursday night, but he offered Warner his support.
Cummins remarked on Fox, “I spoke with Davey today, and he’s terrific.” “We strongly endorse Davey. He has been an outstanding teammate throughout my entire career.
In recent years, he has been an exceptional leader on this side. We wholeheartedly support and respect his decision.”
Erskine’s remarks were made as questions persisted regarding how CA lost control of its code of conduct revisions.
Warner has been advocating for a review of his leadership suspension since February when the governing body launched a modification to its code of conduct.
This modification was finalized last month, allowing Warner to submit a request to have his lifetime ban reconsidered based on his personal growth and contrition since that time.
CA confirmed that they supported Warner’s request that the independent panel holds the hearing in private.
On Wednesday, however, they and Warner were informed that this would not be the case, since the panel of three independent code of conduct commissioners may define their limitations.
“We are dissatisfied with this result, as our objective was to provide David with the opportunity to argue why his lifetime leadership ban should be modified at an independent hearing, and we modified our Code of Conduct accordingly,” a CA representative said.
“We backed David’s request that these conversations take place behind closed doors, and we accept his decision to withdraw his candidacy.”
In a lengthy statement posted to Instagram on Wednesday, Warner said that the panel had not considered the welfare of his family or colleagues, implying that the hearing would be comparable to a public lynching.
In addition, he alleged that attorneys assisting the panel, whom Warner claimed had since been dismissed, had made “offensive and unhelpful remarks” about him.
Thursday, Candice Warner also criticized the procedure.
In an interview with Triple M radio, she stated, “It is not fair that my girls are subjected to abuse because of past events.”
“It’s still raw; we watch David play cricket so frequently, and there are always people shouting in the stands. Our family has already faced so much suffering and anguish. Why act now? What is its intended outcome? ”
