'Arrogant and controlling': Cricket Australia slammed in scathing review

Arrogant, dictatorial, controlling, disrespectful, hypocritical, responsible for the normalisation of verbal abuse and turned a blind eye to bullying.

Monday’s scathing independent review, which painted a grim picture of Cricket Australia’s culture and its link with the environment in which Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft erred, was impossible to spin as anything but a bouncer barrage.

The Ethics Centre’s 145-page report, a seminal document compiled after CA asked the think tank to conduct a full and frank assessment after the Cape Town cheating scandal, produced 42 recommendations after polling 469 people in the industry.

It detailed CA’s failings, some of which were said to be unintended consequences resulting from the 2011 Argus review that was compiled to address poor on-field performance.

The report highlights concerns about the “commercialisation of cricket”, “winning without counting the costs” and “multiple instances of disrespect running through CA”, noting “perceived causes of the ball-tampering incident at Newlands significantly overlap with the perceived current state of cricket in Australia”.

CA chairman David Peever, who refused to stand down once again, pointed to positives and vowed good would come from the 42 recommendations.

Peever conceded “we didn’t put sufficient emphasis on the spirit of the game in our pursuit of wanting to be the very best we could on the field”.

“That’s been recognised and we’re using the report now as an opportunity to do better,” Peever said.

Peever’s problem is there are so many areas in which his under-fire organisation needs to do better, according to stakeholders.

The Ethics Centre called for a revamp of winning bonuses, which will now be discussed between the governing body and players’ union, a rejigged code of conduct and greater transparency.

Every recommendation has either been accepted by CA’s board or is under consideration, with the exception of a request that Test and ODI players are excused from playing Twenty20 Internationals to ensure they are available for at least two Sheffield Shield games and one grade game per summer.

Other recommended measures include empowering umpires to remove players from the field for sledging, that players penalised for on-field behaviour should not be eligible for awards like the Allan Border Medal, and that formal leadership training be provided so players can improve their “capacity to display moral courage”.

The review also recommends the minutes of CA board meetings are published (subject to issues of confidentiality) and for sledging to be included under CA’s anti-harassment code.

The report’s executive summary is damning, suggesting “CA is perceived to say one thing and do another”.

“The most common description of CA is as “arrogant” and “controlling”. The core complaint is that the organisation does not respect anyone other than its own. Players feel that they are treated as commodities,” it notes.

“The ball-tampering incident … can be seen as an aberration. It can be dismissed as the failure of a handful of players.

“However, to think this would be mistaken.”

The report also critiques CA for its “consistent failure to hold players accountable” and “lack of appropriate sanctions”, observing “incidence of verbal abuse extends beyond player behaviour”.

“A culture of disrespect for the opposition, as seen in the common practice of abusive sledging, runs through Australian domestic and international cricket, to a degree not practised by other nations,” it notes.

“There is nothing enjoyable or fraternal about abuse. It is simply crude and brutal.”

The Ethics Centre’s key recommendations

* The review has 42 recommendations – 10 for Australian cricket, seven for the national men’s team and the rest for CA

* While the review says Australian cricket “has lost its balance and has stumbled badly” it says the reputation of women’s cricket remains unaffected

* The review surveyed current and former players, CA staff and board members and State and territory officials. Fans were not included in the survey

Cricket

1. Australian cricket establish a three-person ethics commission, which would have no formal powers. Its purpose would be to hold everyone in Australian cricket “accountable to the ethical foundations for the game”

2. The establishment of the Australian Cricket Council, a consultative body to meet twice a year

3. Require CA to set up a mechanism for consulting with fans

5. Player honours, such as the Allan Border Medal, take into account character and behaviour as well as performance

7. CA and the Australian Cricketers’ Association to start a process where they establish a constructive working relationship within 30 days

9. Umpires have the power, after one informal warning, to send off players in Test, Sheffield Shield and grade matches

National team

12. The current performance bonus is converted so it recognises contributions to the game such as positive relationships with fans and sponsors

14-15. The vice-captaincy is de-coupled from being the heir apparent to the captaincy. Players with leadership capacity have formal leadership training

16. Players on CA contracts encouraged and enabled to have active involvement with Shield and grade cricket

17. Test and one-day players be excused from playing international T20 cricket so they can play in Shield and grade matches (this was the only recommendation that CA rejected)

Cricket Australia

19. CA leadership accept its share of responsibility for the circumstances that gave rise to the ball-tampering scandal

28-29. CA amend its anti-harassment code so that the definition of harassment includes sledging. Also, CA makes explicit a general prohibition against bullying conduct

37. High Performance Unit staff are banned from industrial negotiations with players. CA says this recommendation is under consideration

41. Selectors be required to take into account a player’s character as well as their skills when picking teams.