Dear Editor,
If Tony Cozier were not so influential in WI cricket I would not bother to refer to his writings, which I find so detached, if that is the right word, and generally so unilluminating. In his latest piece, one short paragraph, two short references and the particular focus on one player are of particular interest.
Writing about the India tour fiasco, Cozier says:
“The crisis was triggered by a conflict between the WICB and the players over the terms of a new contract. Already signed on the team`s behalf by the WI Players Association (WIPA) it was not presented to them until their arrival in Delhi. Bravo and his team, with the exception of Marlon Samuels, were adamant that they did not correspond with what they signed.”
For reasons that are not clear, Cozier here continues the decision apparently made by most WI journalists in writing about this matter, not to mention the obviously relevant fact that Marlon Samuels was not a member of WIPA, which would not, therefore, have bargained on his behalf when he negotiated with the WICB.
Cozier later referred to Samuels “vigorously den[ying] match-fixing charges.” It is common knowledge that some truly prominent Australian names, none of whom was charged,were associated with the issue of communicating at one time or another with bookmakers. Their names do not continue to be associated with this issue. While apparently most fans assume that Samuels was convicted of match fixing, that is not the case. Samuels was convicted of the offence of bringing the game into disrepute in the following circumstances: At the start of a tour to India, a person whom ICC cricket officials knew to be a bookmaker, and whom Samuels admitted to having met when he was much younger and not known by him to be a bookmaker, asked Samuels who would open the bowling for the WI and who would be the first change. Samuels gave him what turned out to be the correct information.
After the tour had ended, in consequence of a breach of a contract of personal service by another Indian businessman in not covering the cost of two days’ accommodation in a hotel on behalf of Samuels, the latter sought and received the money needed to pay the hotel (about US$1500) by way of a loan (repayment of which was not demanded) from his “friend.” There was one dissenting opinion on the three- man tribunal that decided the case against Samuels. He was a distinguished Guyanese jurist. One of the two-man majority was Sir Richie Richardson, who said publicly after the decision that if he were fully aware of the consequences of the decision, he would not have found as he did. The reasons for judgment attracted my attention as a judge myself, for among other reasons, the finding that there was no evidence of corruption on the part of Samuels, and even more surprising, the panel, in writing, urged the WICB to do whatever it could to reduce the length of the term of Samuel`s suspension because they found it disproportionate to the offence, and was given because they had no other choice, it being the minimum sentence provided in the relevant ICC rules.
Persisting in associating Samuels’ name with match-fixing is unfair and does not become a journalist of Cozier`s standing in the Caribbean.
Finally, the issue raised in the title of the article has nothing to do with Samuels. It concerns allegations by the coach of interference, indeed of influence peddling in the selection process, and a consequent weakening of a WI touring team. It is not right to divert attention from that issue by writing about the need for production from Samuels.
Yours faithfully,
Romain Pitt
