da bet7k： West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) president Ken Gordon has addressed in detail the issues leading to the cancellation of the Stanford 20/20 Super Match and the resignation of Windies great Michael Holding from the WICB’s Cricket Committee.
da luck： Mark Pouchet18-Sep-2006
Ken Gordon finally reveals what transpired during the Stanford SuperStars match fiasco © Trinidad & Tobago Express
West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) president Ken Gordon has addressed in detail the issues leading to the cancellation of the Stanford 20/20 Super Match and the resignation of Windies great Michael Holding from the WICB’s Cricket Committee.At a news conference at the WICB office on Carlos Street, Woodbrook, yesterday, Gordon provided the media with e-mail documentation between billionaire Allen Stanford and himself, the WICB and the International Cricket Council (ICC), as well as correspondence between himself and the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) that he said “outlines the detailed sequence of events”.Addressing what he termed “the major allegation which has been made”, Gordon disputed the claim that the WICB “did not seriously attempt to facilitate the Stanford 20/20 Super Series”.”What are the facts?” Gordon asked rhetorically, before referring the media to a letter written by ICC cricket operations manager Clive Hitchcock.Hitchcock’s correspondence, dated September 8, was in response to Stanford’s request to the ICC official for an explanation of how the dates of November 10 to 12, given to the Stanford Board as “open” by the ICC, “came to be in direct conflict with” the West Indies tour of Pakistan.Hitchcock detailed 25 points describing the entire process of the sequence of events from October 6, 2005, when Laurie-Ann Holding of Stanford 20/20 tournament organiser Kelly Holding Ltd wrote the ICC advising of the Stanford 20/20 initiative to the announcement of the cancellation of the US$5 million Super Match between a Stanford All Star selection and South Africa.Figuring among Hitchcock’s concerns was the need for ICC approval for the Super Match, which originally was to include ICC full members South Africa and Australia.According to Hitchcock, ICC approval was only granted on March 22, and not on January 22, as indicated by Stanford.”The All Star matches were approved on the basis that they would take place on the weekend of November 8 to 11, 2006,” Hitchcock reminded in his reply to Stanford. “These dates were acceptable on the basis that they did not clash with the ICC Future Tour Programme (FTP).”It went on: “You will note that the ICC Champions Trophy was scheduled to conclude by the first week of November and the West Indies tour to Pakistan was scheduled to commence in the third week of November 2006 after the date of the proposed Stanford 20/20 Super Match.”The ICC official further explained that in June the dates of the WI-Pakistan tour became known and only then did the ICC note the conflict before immediately advising the WICB of the clash in dates. He added that official confirmation of the commencement of the tour only came on July 25.And after discussions between ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed and Gordon, the WICB president decided to take up Speed’s offer made by e-mail on August 21 for the ICC to approach the PCB to resolve the issue.However, the PCB stuck to their original schedule, stating that a scheduled 20/20 tournament of their own, to take place at the end of the West Indies tour, was mandatory for their national players, following which they would need at least a two-week break to recuperate before the Pakistanis left for their next tour of South Africa on January 1.When advised of the PCB’s position on August 22 , Gordon was to then raise the option with PCB chairman Shahryar Khan of them shifting their 20/20 competition to the start of the tour. That became redundant after the cancellation of the Stanford 20/20 Super Match.Dealing with Holding’s allegations of side-stepping the Cricket Committee, Gordon said “there is absolutely no merit to this argument”.
Gordon is disappointed with Michael Holding’s approach to the dispute © Getty Images
Gordon also reiterated that he had been truthful when he reported that the selectors had decided to defer selection of the West Indies team based on the recommendation of WI skipper Brian Lara.As for Holding’s claims that Gordon had changed the terms of reference of the Cricket Committee, the WICB president said a special advisory committee, which was to involve Holding, was not approved by the WICB. He also said Holding declined membership of the “Win World Cup” and was never part of this committee which is entirely different to the advisory status of the Cricket Committee. “It is therefore a non-issue to suggest that there was some duplicity about changing the terms of reference,” Gordon stated.Gordon expressed disappointment about Holding’s approach. “I regret that one whom I have long admired as one of our cricketing greats should have so readily descended to personal abuse and even defamation without regard to the facts,” he stated.
