Is Chris Gayle?being made a scapegoat in the continued saga called West Indies cricket?
I am posing the question on very solid grounds.
How is it that Gayle made the comments he is now being held accountable for in a private capacity and is being sidelined as a result?
At the time of the interview Gayle was not a contracted player or was he in any West Indies squad.
Juxtapose this against certain remarks made recently at a public lecture by Sir Hilary Beckles in a private capacity and he is still a member of the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB). Mind you, Sir Hilary felt compelled to apologise after he came under pressure in Jamaica – Gayle’s homeland. Not only that, as a board member it can be assumed he will be part of the decision-making process that can impact on Gayle’s future. In this regard, fairness has to come into the picture.
And why is it that you would hold a clear-the-air meeting with Gayle and all the concerned parties were invited except the selectors to whom he referred in his now famous interview with a Jamaican radio station? The selectors are key cogs in the process as they are the ones who make recommendations to be ratified by the board.
Furthermore, my point about fairness or the lack of it, is fortified by the fact that the board subsequently left Gayle out of the team for the first test against india pending further clarification from the former captain about his intentions, but in the same breath called Shivnarine Chanderpaul to a similar meeting as Gayle’s, but named him in the squad.
Something is fundamentally wrong with this approach when both players used very strong language to express their feelings about the administration of West Indies cricket.
In fact, can’t it be interpreted that the meeting with Chanderpaul was a mere afterthought having met with Gayle first and it was an attempt on the board’s part to make believe that they are balanced and transparent.
From my vantage point, this is where the notion of the scapegoat comes about.
Surely, it is not for cricketing reasons that Gayle was overlooked for the first test and nobody can tell the selectors who to choose. However, I think it would be much easier to overlook Gayle altogether without the window dressing which can be seen through by the biggest simpleton in the world.
I would agree that comments by both former captains may not help for a healthy environment between them and management, but why appear to treat the situation differently like a big sin and a small sin!
On another matter, I think it was wrong for the Barbados Football Association not to allow its two representatives to attend a FIFA probe in the Bahamas called to investigate alleged wrong-doing at a meeting in Trinidad in May.
Our representatives, BFA general secretary David Hinds and executive member Mark Forde, stated in separate interviews that they were not offered any money to vote for Bin Hamman in the lead up to the FIFA presidential election.
Therefore, why would the association’s executive vote for them not to travel to the Bahamas on a trip that was paid for by FIFA? Would their stories have changed from their original statements once they got to the Bahamas?
To put it mildly, this move may have created unnecessary suspicion where there was none originally.