Cricket Australia CEO has responded to David Warner’s manager James Erskine’s bombshell claims in relation to the ball tampering scandal that caused his client’s leadership ban.
Erskine claimed the ball tampering plot was common knowledge in the team and that the players were told to do it by some unnamed executives after a Test in Hobart and felt Warner had been hung out to dry and made to pay too high a price.
Speaking on SEN radio, Hockley slammed Erskine’s comments us unfounded and unhelpful to Warner and the process of trying to have his leadership ban overturned, despite withdrawing his application.
Watch Australia v West Indies. Every test match live and ad-break in play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >
NEW FOLLOW-ON PODCAST – Ultimate test series preview; summer of Smudge?
Listen below or subscribe in Apple Podcasts or Spotify
Warner ‘is so loved by the group’ | 00:28
“I think they’re really unhelpful and unfounded comments,” Hockley said on SEN radio.
“I think as an investigation was done at the time – but I think it’s been said repeatedly, if new information is to be brought forward then as with any matter of integrity there are those avenues to bring forward information at any stage.
“But I think it goes to the point raised at the outset, this was never and not about relooking at the events or the decision. This was about looking at the sanction and whether behaviour since, and remediation, and the remorse was such that the ban could be modified.
“So I think to open up if, anything has been opened up, I think that’s totally counter to the objectives of the process. I think it’s precisely what David was hoping would not happen when he applied for it to be done in private.”
MORE CRICKET NEWS
TALKING POINTS: ‘Plays on your mind’ — Big Warner issue amid cricket furore
‘SUMMER OF MARNUS’: Aussie run machine unstoppable; hometown boy smacks ton
‘YOU CAN HEAR HIS VOICE’: Ricky Ponting’s heartbreaking tribute to Shane Warne
‘UNDERSTANDABLY FLAT’: Aussie star sidelined with same injury that derailed Ashes
Hockley was pressed on whether ball tampering plot was sanctioned by the governing body.
“I haven’t heard before and again I can’t comment on these unfounded allegations,” Hockley said.
Hockley revealed Cricket Australia wanted the hearing to be private, but ultimately the independent panel decided that in the interest of transparency it had to be public, and CA was fine going along with that.
“I think the contention was around whether the hearing was to be private or public,” Hockley said.
Get all the latest cricket news, highlights and analysis delivered straight to your inbox with Fox Sports Sportmail. Sign up now!!!
“We made an application as did David to the independent panel for it to be private. We don’t think it is anyone’s interests for this to be public.
“But the panel as is their right, they felt it appropriate for it to be transparent and on that basis David has chosen to withdraw.
“The opportunity remains in the future for him to reapply if he so chooses.”
Warner was of the belief that Cricket Australia wanted to conduct a public spectacle to in the panel’s words have a “cleansing”.
Council assisting the review panel appeared to be determined to revisit the events of March 2018 and he was not prepared to expose himself to that.
Watch BBLI12. Every game live and ad-break free during play on Kayo. New to Kayo? Start your free trial now >
‘Told to do it!’ – Aus ordered to cheat? | 03:58
But Hockley denied the hearing was designed to review the sandpaper scandal and ball tampering.
“I don’t think that is right,” Hockley said.
“The hearing and throughout this it is really important that an independent process is undertaken.
“It was purely to look at behaviour since and purely to look at the sanction and we have worked very hard with some very eminent experts in the field in line with best practice to ensure a fair and independent hearing was able to be had.
“So I just want to absolutely clarify that fact.”
Warner withdraws from ‘public lynching’ | 02:30
Hockley was pressed on whether he had heard the use of the word “cleansing” in relation to the review process.
“I have and in public commentary my understanding of that reference was purely in relation to whether select media or accredited media would be able to be in the hearing,” Hockley said.
“I think it was not in relation to the original events of six years ago. Purely in relation to the re-looking at the sanction by an independent panel was to be done with a level of transparency and I think that was the recommendation of the panel.”
Hockley also denied Warner’s fears that the review process would be like a public lynching.
“I don’t think so,” Hockley said.
“The purpose of the hearing was to talk about remediation and remorse and what David had learned so far and certainly in my experience he has had an exemplary record since.
“And I think we worked hard to provide David with an opportunity to put forward how he has grown and how he wants to contribute.
“I’m disappointed that at this stage he has not taken up that opportunity.”
