And just a note to those naive or stupid enough to be falling for the line that Mr Howard wasn't qualified for the position of vice president (and thus eventual president) of the International Cricket Council, a background in cricket administration has never been seen as the single most important prerequisite for the job. The Australian's cricket writer Malcolm Conn: IT is more than anti-colonial resentment that has led the dominant Afro-Asia bloc of the ICC to snub John Howard's nomination as president. There was a collective fear that he would ask awkward questions about one and do his best to dilute the other. The last Australian to ask difficult questions about money was former International Cricket Council chief executive Malcolm Speed, who tried to bring Zimbabwe to heel for dubious financial dealings. A decent, well-run governing body would enthusiastically endorse its chief executive strictly enforcing propriety and good governance. Not the ICC. It sacked Speed and buried the audit he commissioned. The second and more telling factor is that Mr Howard would show more rigor as a steward of cricket's administration and finances than duplicitous officials would like. The sport's reputation has been damaged in recent years by allegations of match-fixing and corruption, especially in regard to the Indian betting industry. And the rot has spread. In May, Malcolm Conn reported that reliable sources described last year's IPL in South Africa as a "bet fest", with a plane-load of illegal bookmakers flying in from India. And two Australian players reported approaches by illegal bookmakers during last year's World Twenty20 in Britain. Zimbabwean cricket is also riddled with financial corruption and the ICC has no interest in cleaning it up. Its former chief executive, Australian lawyer and sports administrator Malcolm Speed, was sacked when he tried to bring Zimbabwe to account. It is tragic to see the game split along racial lines, with only England, Australia and New Zealand supporting Mr Howard's candidacy. Afro-Asian nations, partly out of a sense of resentment over grievances stretching back to colonial times and, in some cases, to avoid a much-needed clean-up, have opted to tear up the rules and protocols. Isn't it great to be able to blame Howard again? Some are rejoicing like its Bennelong November 2007 all over again The Sydney Morning Herald editorialises yesterday: JOHN Howard's past seems to have caught up with him, with his post-retirement dream job as world cricket supremo vetoed by the non-white members of the game's top governing body. This is not a snub by the "new" cricket world to the old white circle, but a rejection of Howard, both for his perceived lack of empathy and for his lack of credentials in cricket administration. It is a lesson for Cricket Australia. Its board has shown itself completely out of touch in thinking that Howard's "statesmanship" was the remedy for the ills of commercialism and gambling besetting cricket. The Age's online readers concur: POLL: Do you think John Howard would make a good president of the International Cricket Council? Yes: 36 per cent. No: 64 per cent. Total votes: 4063. So do listeners at ABC radio Melbourne's 774 Mornings with Jon Faine: FAINE: I've had an email from someone saying this is payback from the Indians for the way he treated Dr Haneef. Malcolm Speed: Er . . . I don't think so. Somehow Peter Roebuck breaks free of the groupthink in The Age: NO one emerges with the slightest credit from the debacle over John Howard's failed nomination. Howard never was the issue. Corruption is the issue, and it is dancing tonight. |
Posted via email from Garth's posterous
No comments:
Post a Comment