Cricket Australia’s handling David Warner’s appeal is defended by Nick Hockley

Hockley stated that Warner’s welfare would have been at forefront of the process. He also suggested that there could have been private submissions to have certain parts of hearings in private. He Warner suggested that the hearing wouldn’t have been a rerun of 2018 events at Newlands. He reiterated this point. He stated that the process had to be transparent.

Hockley stated, “We are disappointed that he has chosen to withdraw our application.” “This is not what we wanted. It is completely contrary to what we wanted to achieve. David has clearly felt the need for some truth. This was not about looking at the original events or the original sanction. It was about reviewing behavior since.

“There is a lot of public interest in this clearly and the commissioners felt it appropriate to have some transparency. Alternative to putting in a proper process, is to make reactive decisions. This is not acceptable in matters of integrity. I don’t apologize for the fact that we’ve engaged in dialogue with the best people, that our class governance is top-notch, and that we have an independent, fair, and fair process.”

Hockley, speaking separately to SEN radio, stated that Warner can still submit a bid for the ban to be overturned. However, Todd Greenberg (the chief executive at the ACA) had previously told the same radio station that events in the last 48 hours were a likely end.

Greenberg stated, “I don’t believe anyone, let alone Dave, has an appetite for this to drag out longer than has.” “I think there is a clear, complete stop on this one.

“The code amendments were created to allow for the review application and not to appeal the original offence. It was not like that. David was able to participate in the process, but it was a long way from where we were. That’s where we ended up. David didn’t have much choice, so I believe he did what he had to.”

Greenberg stated that he had hoped Warner’s ban would have been reviewed by CA, and that this outcome may have prevented the process from being started.

He said, “I understand the complexity of codes of conduct, but ultimately governing body are designed to govern.” “And on that occasion the moment it went to an independent panel control was lost, and so we end up in this position today.

“I hoped that the question of leadership would be decided by governing bodies who took the leadership away, but sadly, nine month later, with the benefit fo hindsight, we may not have asked the question if the answer was known.”

“It would not be an understatement to say that we are not unbelievably frustrated. We are very frustrated for David and his family as well as his team-mates, who I know are really upset about the process that has been allowed drag into the Test summer.