Sandpapergate: Warner 'proven CA withheld information' in 2018, says manager Erskine
Synopsis
Key Takeaways
David Warner's manager James Erskine has claimed that the former Australian vice-captain would never have accepted his one-year ban in the Sandpapergate scandal had he known that bowlers Nathan Lyon, Mitchell Starc, and Josh Hazlewood were interviewed as part of Cricket Australia's (CA) 2018 investigation. Erskine alleged that Warner has now 'proven without any hesitation' that CA withheld critical information during that process.
How the Controversy Resurfaced
The Sandpapergate affair has re-entered the headlines after Warner recently claimed — prefacing his remark with 'as far as I am aware' — that Hazlewood, Lyon, and Starc were not interviewed by CA during its immediate post-scandal investigation. The clarification became necessary after a Sydney Morning Herald report confirmed that all three bowlers had, in fact, been interviewed. Warner subsequently stated he had 'never been told the bowlers had been interviewed or provided statements' when he signed the agreement accepting his ban.
What Erskine Alleged
Erskine, speaking on Sunday, applied direct pressure on CA to release the full report of the investigation conducted by Iain Roy, who was then CA's head of integrity. According to reports, Erskine said Warner would not have put his name to the ban agreement had he been aware that the trio were interviewed. 'The Roy report has never come out. Roy was basically muzzled, signed an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) and ended up leaving Cricket Australia,' Erskine said, as quoted by the Australian publication.
Erskine further alleged that Warner was specifically misled about who had given statements. 'When David was told these people had made statements, he was not told it included those bowlers (Lyon, Starc and Hazlewood). He has now proven without any hesitation that in 2018, Cricket Australia withheld information. They told him these were the only people that had been interviewed, but it wasn't true. He was told in 2018 one was Pat Cummins, and the others were Smith, Bancroft and him,' Erskine added, according to the report.
Warner's Own Statements
Taking to Instagram over the last two days, Warner issued a series of posts challenging CA's handling of the affair. On Saturday, he wrote: 'As far as I am aware, CA did not interview Josh Hazlewood, Mitchell Starc or Nathan Lyon in their 2018 investigation. If that's correct, then how can CA push the idea that the bowlers didn't know? It looks like they had decided who they wanted to blame from the very beginning, ran a shoddy investigation to serve the purpose, and now they want to maintain the false narrative that the bowlers had no idea. That stinks of a cover-up.'
After the SMH report confirmed the trio had been interviewed, Warner clarified in a follow-up post: 'Just to clarify, 'as far as I am aware' was the POINT. I was never told the bowlers had been interviewed or provided statements. That information would've been pretty useful when I was forced to make decisions in 2018. Why weren't we given all the evidence by CA?'
Background: The 2018 Ball-Tampering Scandal
The Sandpapergate scandal erupted during Australia's 2018 Test series against South Africa when television cameras caught Cameron Bancroft using sandpaper to illegally alter the condition of the ball. The fallout saw Warner and Steve Smith each handed one-year bans, while Bancroft received a nine-month suspension. Warner was additionally barred from holding any leadership role in Australian cricket. The severity of the penalties — widely seen as placing disproportionate blame on a small group — has been contested by Warner's camp ever since.
What Happens Next
Erskine's statements add fresh urgency to calls for CA to publicly release the Roy investigation report. Warner has also reportedly sought to review the original statements given to Roy during the probe. CA has not yet publicly responded to the latest allegations. With Warner pushing for the suppressed findings to be made public, the board faces mounting pressure to either release the report or explain why it remains under an NDA.