Hair accuses ICC of giving in to Asian pressure

“It is no understatement to say that the ICC’s actions as regards the claimant have been devastating for him,” he said. Griffiths accused the ICC of yielding to “racially discriminatory pressure” from Pakistan and India.

“The Asian bloc is dominant in cricket,” he said. “Sometimes, as here… it appears that it uses that dominance unlawfully.” Hair’s counsel said the important issue was whether Hair was punished to save Pakistan’s cricketing reputation, “and/or to teach a white Australian umpire a lesson, and any other like umpires” who dared to repeat his action.

Giving evidence, Hair said he believed the ICC wanted to blame him for the abandonment of the Test, even though he explained he had been following the rules and had even pointed out that the match could be restarted on the orders of the ICC chief executive. The game’s governing body subsequently banned Hair from presiding over top matches.

However, Griffiths said, the tape recording and transcript of the crucial part of the board meeting was missing. “Whether by accident or design, there is no record of this most critical aspect of the meeting.”

Michael Beloff QC, appearing for the ICC, dismissed any suggestion that Hair had been a victim of racial discrimination. “In cricketing terms, Hair ran himself out,” he said. Beloff shrugged off accusations that the ICC had acted hypocritically by not punishing Doctrove.

“In fact, if not in law, Hair was by far the senior partner of the pair in terms of experience, and the moving force in what occurred,” he said.