Sanath Jayasuriya was appointed Sri Lanka’s interim head coach with little fuss and fanfare around a month ago. It made sense to turn to a legendary former player to replace their latest foreign head coach, Englishman Chris Silverwood, who resigned after the Twenty20 World Cup.
But there is a stain on Jayasuriya’s record; in 2019 he was banned for two years under the ICC’s anti-corruption code for refusing to co-operate with a year-long, deep and wide-ranging investigation into Sri Lankan cricket and the details of his convoluted story was proved to be wrong by investigators.
Jayasuriya was never charged with spot fixing, or match fixing, but pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to co-operate and obstructing an investigation. He released a statement at the time: “It is clear that there were no corruption charges, betting charges or misuse of inside information charges levelled against me,” he said. ”I decided to admit the said charges at the first instance for the love of the cricket, for the greater good and to protect the integrity of cricket. I reiterate the fact that I have always maintained a high degree of integrity throughout my cricketing career.”
It is still a remarkable turn of events that a former national selector, who was in a position of authority over hundreds of players, was banned under the anti-corruption code but just four years after serving his ban (it was backdated to October 2018) he is back in charge of the national team, stepping up from a role he was appointed to last year of running Sri Lanka’s high performance centre.
Jayasuriya has served his time, is free to work in cricket again and rehabilitation is as important as punishment. He was an entertainer at the crease, and Sri Lankan fans will be desperate to see him bring some of that swagger back to the national side. This is less about him and more about what it says about the sport, and its attitude to corruption, that he can bounce back with barely an eyebrow raised to such an important job? Shakib Al Hasan was banned for a similar offence but was swiftly back in the Bangladesh team when he served his ban, with no long-term implications.
Failing to co-operate with an anti-corruption investigation is the cricket equivalent of an athlete refusing to provide a sample to anti-doping agencies and according to the code “will give rise to an obvious inference that a participant has committed another serious anti-corruption offence”. It is designed to help investigative authorities persuade reluctant individuals to tell them what they know about the murky world of fixing.
Jayasuriya was investigated by the ICC’s anti-corruption unit as just one part of one of its biggest cases, a probe that lasted well over a year and at one stage led to the unprecedented step of an amnesty being offered to help witnesses in Sri Lanka come forward.
One arm of the investigation concentrated on a white-ball series with Zimbabwe in 2017, while Jayasuriya was national selector. He was charged with two offences — refusing to co-operate with an investigation and obstructing an investigation, which related to failing to hand over a mobile phone and SIM card.
The eight-page ICC verdict revealed that, in September 2017, Jayasuriya was asked to hand over mobile phones after investigators were “satisfied that information” sent or received on the devices “might be relevant to their investigation”.
Jayasuriya told investigators he had two mobile phones and handed them over and confirmed he had no other numbers. But 24 hours later, in a second interview with the anti-corruption unit, he said had two other devices but they had been lost in May 2017 after he dropped them “in a grassy area somewhere in Colombo” and had cancelled them with the provider. He claimed to have deliberately “trashed” one of the phones.
However, the ACU had already tried calling the destroyed phone and on each occasion it had rung through with no answer. An explanation was given that Jayasuriya’s driver had recovered the SIM card and put it in another phone. He let his driver use it at weekends, which is why it had rung when investigators dialled the number.
It was later established the number had been used for hundreds of outgoing texts and calls during the period Jayasuriya said he had not been using the phone.
Jayasuriya admitted the two charges and faced a maximum five-year ban. His prompt admission when faced with the evidence, previous good disciplinary record and remorse were taken into account and a two-year ban was imposed.
Domestic game suffers fresh charges of cheating
Corruption allegations continue to dog Sri Lankan cricket. Just last week Praveen Jayawickrama, who has played 15 times for the national team, was charged with three offences relating to the Lanka Premier League Twenty20 tournament.
There is an acceptance at ICC the situation has improved. There has been heavy investment in anti-corruption education, clearer methods for reporting approaches and strong government legislation to make fixing a crime. Recovering the reputation of Jayasuriya is one step on the path, it is hoped, to cleaning the game up.
Jayasuriya is one of Sri Lanka’s finest cricketers, an innovative opener who is the fifth-highest scorer in ODI cricket and played 110 Tests. It will soon be the 26th anniversary of his slaughtering of England at the Oval when he scored 213 off 278 balls in a 10-wicket victory that remains one of Sri Lanka’s great victories and one of only two in England across 40 years.
To repeat that on this tour would be a huge result for a Sri Lankan side with little match practice and exposure to English conditions. Silverwood built a good group of seam bowlers who could harness the conditions and cause problems to England’s high-flying but inconsistent batting. But whether their own batsmen can repeat the run-scoring feats of their head coach will likely determine their success.
Sanath Jayasuriya was appointed Sri Lanka’s interim head coach with little fuss and fanfare around a month ago. It made sense to turn to a legendary former player to replace their latest foreign head coach, Englishman Chris Silverwood, who resigned after the Twenty20 World Cup.
But there is a stain on Jayasuriya’s record; in 2019 he was banned for two years under the ICC’s anti-corruption code for refusing to co-operate with a year-long, deep and wide-ranging investigation into Sri Lankan cricket and the details of his convoluted story was proved to be wrong by investigators.
Jayasuriya was never charged with spot fixing, or match fixing, but pleaded guilty to two charges of failing to co-operate and obstructing an investigation. He released a statement at the time: “It is clear that there were no corruption charges, betting charges or misuse of inside information charges levelled against me,” he said. ”I decided to admit the said charges at the first instance for the love of the cricket, for the greater good and to protect the integrity of cricket. I reiterate the fact that I have always maintained a high degree of integrity throughout my cricketing career.”
It is still a remarkable turn of events that a former national selector, who was in a position of authority over hundreds of players, was banned under the anti-corruption code but just four years after serving his ban (it was backdated to October 2018) he is back in charge of the national team, stepping up from a role he was appointed to last year of running Sri Lanka’s high performance centre.
Jayasuriya has served his time, is free to work in cricket again and rehabilitation is as important as punishment. He was an entertainer at the crease, and Sri Lankan fans will be desperate to see him bring some of that swagger back to the national side. This is less about him and more about what it says about the sport, and its attitude to corruption, that he can bounce back with barely an eyebrow raised to such an important job? Shakib Al Hasan was banned for a similar offence but was swiftly back in the Bangladesh team when he served his ban, with no long-term implications.
Failing to co-operate with an anti-corruption investigation is the cricket equivalent of an athlete refusing to provide a sample to anti-doping agencies and according to the code “will give rise to an obvious inference that a participant has committed another serious anti-corruption offence”. It is designed to help investigative authorities persuade reluctant individuals to tell them what they know about the murky world of fixing.
Jayasuriya was investigated by the ICC’s anti-corruption unit as just one part of one of its biggest cases, a probe that lasted well over a year and at one stage led to the unprecedented step of an amnesty being offered to help witnesses in Sri Lanka come forward.
One arm of the investigation concentrated on a white-ball series with Zimbabwe in 2017, while Jayasuriya was national selector. He was charged with two offences — refusing to co-operate with an investigation and obstructing an investigation, which related to failing to hand over a mobile phone and SIM card.
The eight-page ICC verdict revealed that, in September 2017, Jayasuriya was asked to hand over mobile phones after investigators were “satisfied that information” sent or received on the devices “might be relevant to their investigation”.
Jayasuriya told investigators he had two mobile phones and handed them over and confirmed he had no other numbers. But 24 hours later, in a second interview with the anti-corruption unit, he said had two other devices but they had been lost in May 2017 after he dropped them “in a grassy area somewhere in Colombo” and had cancelled them with the provider. He claimed to have deliberately “trashed” one of the phones.
However, the ACU had already tried calling the destroyed phone and on each occasion it had rung through with no answer. An explanation was given that Jayasuriya’s driver had recovered the SIM card and put it in another phone. He let his driver use it at weekends, which is why it had rung when investigators dialled the number.
It was later established the number had been used for hundreds of outgoing texts and calls during the period Jayasuriya said he had not been using the phone.
Jayasuriya admitted the two charges and faced a maximum five-year ban. His prompt admission when faced with the evidence, previous good disciplinary record and remorse were taken into account and a two-year ban was imposed.
Domestic game suffers fresh charges of cheating
Corruption allegations continue to dog Sri Lankan cricket. Just last week Praveen Jayawickrama, who has played 15 times for the national team, was charged with three offences relating to the Lanka Premier League Twenty20 tournament.
There is an acceptance at ICC the situation has improved. There has been heavy investment in anti-corruption education, clearer methods for reporting approaches and strong government legislation to make fixing a crime. Recovering the reputation of Jayasuriya is one step on the path, it is hoped, to cleaning the game up.
Jayasuriya is one of Sri Lanka’s finest cricketers, an innovative opener who is the fifth-highest scorer in ODI cricket and played 110 Tests. It will soon be the 26th anniversary of his slaughtering of England at the Oval when he scored 213 off 278 balls in a 10-wicket victory that remains one of Sri Lanka’s great victories and one of only two in England across 40 years.
To repeat that on this tour would be a huge result for a Sri Lankan side with little match practice and exposure to English conditions. Silverwood built a good group of seam bowlers who could harness the conditions and cause problems to England’s high-flying but inconsistent batting. But whether their own batsmen can repeat the run-scoring feats of their head coach will likely determine their success.