Stephen VasciannieA BOWLER runs up to the wicket. He turns his hand over, with a very crooked arm, and at the point of delivery, straightens that arm, tossing a barely decipherable off-break to the bewildered batsman. The umpire makes no comment about the bowling action, the batsman is dismissed, fielding colleagues run to the bowler in joyous ejaculation.
Even though the delivery appears to be unfair - to the naked eye, the bowler is flinging - no one puts a stop to it. And so, the bowler continues to be unplayable. And then, at some stage, one umpire indicates that the Emperor is naked. His example influences a second umpire. Eventually, faced with the obvious, the relevant authorities - who so far have anxiously sought irrelevance in this matter - have some kind of analysis done on the Emperor's bowling action.
The analysts declare that the Emperor is not, in fact, throwing, flinging or chucking his deliveries. This is contrary to what the eye has beheld. Meanwhile, the supporters of the Emperor maintain that his critics are motivated by spite, fear and malice.
Spite, they say, is evidenced by the refusal of the critics to notice that the Emperor has a special defect. Anyone with a modicum of human compassion would, rather than criticise, commend the Emperor for rising beyond this problem. Fear, they say, arises from the feeling that the Emperor will become the greatest bowler in the history of cricket. And malice? The Emperor is from a long-suppressed cricketing community: the more traditional, and comfortable, communities are resentful that the greatest is not from their ranks.
So the Emperor continues to reign. In the process, he develops another delivery, one that turns the other way. But, for full effect, the crooked arm must be straightened in an even more obvious way than before. Now, even those of limited sight can see that the rules of the game are being violated. Now, even the analysts who could rationalise the earlier bowling action have a problem. So, they ban the particular delivery that goes the other way, but make no new pronouncement on the bread and butter deliveries.
We must play fair. The Emperor's bowling action is not merely unorthodox. It is visibly against the rules. Moreover, the relevant authorities have threatened to impose sanctions against cricketers who speak up against the Emperor's chucking action. Umpires who call him for throwing could also damage their careers. How can this be right? Where is our sense of fair play? Or is it that, as in many other areas of life, we have allowed political considerations to prevail over principle?
THE RUNNER
She runs like the wind. In some senses, this can be readily explained. She has the height, the style, and the determination to be a champion sprinter. She has also been successful at a relatively early age, a fact that has generated no small degree of resentment. Unlike some of her contemporaries, she is not arrogant.
Her success has, however, come at a time when all athletes are under suspicion. The drug problem is not only at the surface of athletics and there are many stories about runners from the strongest athletic power who have escaped the anti-doping agencies, largely because of the quality of their pharmacists and pharmaceuticals. At the same time, some runners have been caught, and some have opened the door to the world of THG and other chemical mysteries.
There may well be an argument that we need to find some really big fish from the most powerful athletic community: someone outstanding - a gazelle -- needs to be used to demonstrate our collective determination to remove drugs from athletics. The problem is, however, that the evidence against this gazelle that has been made public is not convincing.
In effect, we are told that there is no urine sample or similar hard evidence to implicate the Gazelle. Rather, there are hush-hush, wink-wink allegations. There is documentation with initials on it, initials that could refer to at least three well-known track stars, and numerous yet to be recognised aspirants to athletic stardom. There is a cheque that may or may not have been signed by the Gazelle (for what may or may not have been legitimate purposes), and there is a calendar with notation that could apply to the Gazelle as much as it might apply to your big sister.
Such flimsy signs should not be used to destroy the illustrious career of an athlete in her prime: no stanazalol, no excessive amounts of metabolites of this or that, no refusal to take a drug test, no technicalities as to storage of Sample B. This is clearly an instance in which the presumption of innocence ought not to be displaced by political expediency.
WE MUST PLAY FAIR
The principal lessons to be learnt: (1) don't fling; (2) if you're talented watch your back; and (3) politics might undermine you even in the most unexpected places. Still, merit will sometimes prevail. So Gazelle, more power to your knee-lift, and so Emperor, it's time to straighten up -- without straightening your arm.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law, Head of the Department of Government, UWI, and a consultant in the Attorney General's chambers.
