|
|
|
| August 29, 2006 | Tuesday | Sha'aban 4, 1427 |
Hair says he was encouraged to make the offer
LONDON, Aug 28: The simmering Oval Test row which has dominated world cricket in the past seven days took yet another intriguing twist on Monday after conflicting statements from the ICC and umpire Darrell Hair who appeared on collision course over the chain of events surrounding the Australian's offer to resign in return for a pay-off of $500,000.
On Friday, the ICC released an email correspondence between Hair and their umpires and referees manager Doug Cowie during which the offer was made. In a later email, also made public by the ICC, Hair withdrew the offer, saying that he wished to seek further legal advice.
The ICC have now stated that, although Hair and Cowie spoke on the phone, no reference was made to any pay-off or other conditions of resignation which were covered in the email exchange.
An ICC spokesman said: "There were many informal discussions between Mr Hair and Mr Cowie between the end of the Oval Test and Mr Hair's first email on Tuesday, including a discussion on the potential impact on Mr Hair's umpiring career.
"Mr Cowie's role was to support and counsel Mr Hair, as his manager, at a difficult time — and it is our understanding that at no stage during their conversations was there any discussion of a pay-off, nor secrecy, nor deadlines, nor misleading the public regarding reasons for retirement — all of which were subsequently laid out in Mr Hair's email.
"We have no desire to be in conflict with Mr Hair. He is one of the world's best umpires, and we have no doubt that he was under a great deal of stress when he sent the emails he later revoked.
"There remain two simple cricket matters arising from the Oval Test to be resolved, and we look forward to the effective resolution of these matters and the resumption of on-field action."
But Hair responded on Monday by issuing a statement through his lawyers which was “intended to address certain misconceptions that appear to have arisen as a consequence of the release of certain confidential correspondence between Mr Hair and ICC."
"I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on August 25," reads the statement from Hair.
"During an extended conversation on Aug 21 with Mr Cowie, I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the email correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC.
"I would have thought that it was quite apparent from the text of correspondence that I had been in discussions with ICC about the issue. The opening words of my email to Mr Cowie confirm this: 'Just [to] firm up what we discussed earlier this evening ...' "
That leaves a clear conflict with the version of events given by the ICC, which stressed nobody was aware of Hair's intentions until he put them in writing. —Agencies
|
|
|
|
