Chris Gayle: Victim

Who said the administration of West Indies Cricket could not sink any lower?

For the second time in a decade we are about to commence a series against Australia without our number one opener because he is being blacklisted by the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) and its selectors without a disciplinary hearing. Move over Desmond Haynes and Patrick Patterson; make room for Chris Gayle as a member of the ?blacklisted club?.

We know that the Eligibility Rule shot down Desmond Haynes and blacklisted him for life, with little, if any, public or media protest. If you doubt that, please remember that the WICB sought (unsuccessfully) to ban Haynes from playing for the Vice Chancellors XI against a touring team years after he had retired.

Even a constant defender of the rights of players like Michael Holding supported Desmond never again playing for the West Indies, though there had been no disciplinary hearing.

The end result of that WICB mal-administration was division in the team and the loss of the title of ?world champions?. That 2-1 series loss to Australia (with Shiv Chanderpaul the 12th man in all four tests) was the start of our dive to mediocrity in international cricket.

Chris Gayle is now being ruled ineligible to play against Australia because he represented the West Indies in an ICC sanctioned competition held in the West Indies under the auspices of the West Indies Cricket Board. In other words, he was banned from the West Indies team for representing the West Indies.

What makes it doubly unfortunate is that the WICB, now led by the Rev. Wes Hall, is exhibiting the same passion for secrecy and cover-ups as previous administrations.

What can we, the West Indian people, do?

We must demand due process and transparency. If a player is accused of doing something wrong, he must be brought before a disciplinary committee and either sanctioned or found blameless.

If Carl Hooper had been brought before a disciplinary committee for abandoning West Indies cricket before the 1999 World Cup and banned from further representing the West Indies, Michael Holding and others would not have had to protest his appointment as West Indies captain two year later.

If Desmond Haynes had been brought before a disciplinary committee for making himself unavailable for a West Indies tour and banned for a stated period of time, he could have been later re-integrated into West Indies Cricket to the benefit of all concerned.

As for Patrick Patterson, I have never met anyone who knows his alleged ?crime?, though rumours abound.

Contrast these cases with the case of Latrell Spreewell and the NBA. In that case the player admittedly assaulted and threatened his coach and the NBA openly and fairly heard the matter and came to a decision that served both the interest of punishment and rehabilitation.

How does successive West Indies Board deal with such issues? They often cover up the truth and issue secret backroom orders to blacklist or otherwise punish players without seeing the need to convene a formal disciplinary hearing.

Do our media expose and oppose this illegal and discriminatory practice?

In the main, No. For an example of this unfortunate trend see Tony Becca?s recent ?Tit for Tat? article in the Jamaica Gleaner.

In sharp and admirable contrast to Becca?s venom, I was heartened to read about Jamaica?s Captain, Robert Samuels' defence of Chris Gayle. Please note the Captain?s statement that Vivian Richards, Chairman of the West Indies Selectors was in Guyana at the time of Gayle?s decision.

The issue is not whether Chris Gayle made the right choice. Even if we assume that he made the wrong choice, we must ask the following questions;

• Can he be punished without a hearing?

• Did Gayle get all the necessary assistance and guidance from WICB officials?

• Was Gayle told of the potential consequences of his act?

• Can the eligibility rule be properly invoked where Gayle represented the West Indies?

I suspect and the available evidence suggests that in each case the answer is No.

Does Ricky Skerritt remember how it felt to be dismissed summarily without a hearing?

Stand up for your player Brian. If you don?t, you will be the WICB?s captain, not the cricket leader of the West Indian people.

Stand up for your member WIPA. If you don?t, we will know that your recent action was all about money, rather than fairness.

Carl Hooper by withdrawing has given the West Indies Board a chance to correct this matter and put it behind us by selecting Chris Gayle to replace Hooper in the squad for the first test.

If Gayle is selected, I wonder who will be the West Indies number one opener. If it is not Chris Gayle then men capable of a wicked act are in charge of West Indies Cricket.

If Gayle is not selected then men capable of two consecutive wicked acts are in charge of West Indies Cricket.

Should the Eligibility Rule be completely removed from West Indies Cricket? Ask Vasbert Drakes?

Will removing the Eligibility Rule mean that players will control and bully West Indies Cricket?

No, it means that the West Indies Cricket Board if it operates fairly and efficiently will be able to deal with each individual case on its merits. Isn?t that what regulators and administrators are paid to do?

I advocate that the people of the West Indies demand the end to secrecy and cover-ups in the administration of West Indies Cricket and demand the complete removal of the Eligibility Rule and the restoration of Chris Gayle to the West Indies side until his form or a disciplinary hearing dictate otherwise.