One legal representative was quoted to have said:
“Bringing international cricket into chaos is the best way to bring home the bacon. And what bacon! Have you seen the size of my meat?”Apparently, some evidence was given that proves Hair has been talking bollocks. It was shown that he was never offered money in return for silent compliance.
Nevertheless, the case has thrown open a can of worms at the ICC – this was possibly the reason why Hair took the action he did.
The trial has exposed the Council’s unprofessional practices present at all levels. With key meetings not being minuted in case they “end up in court” the case has revealed the ICC’s amateurish and poorly run infrastructure.
Poor communication is rife. And senior management conducts itself through gentlemanly agreements, ignoring the need for transparent and accountable procedures.
The only member of the executive board to have retained his reputation is Malcolm Speed (interestingly, the only such member to have any professional experience outside cricket). He claims that his actions were ham-strung by his poor relationship with the Indians, who would have refused to co-operate a priori to any of his supposedly reasonable requests.
It was precisely this reactionary, high-personalised set-up that got the ICC into this position, and resulted in Hair’s poor treatment. For that, we must applaud that otherwise twatish Hair.
Weirdly, he is now on a “rehabilitation programme”. Well, he has put on a lot of weight in the last thirty years. He must be an alcy.