The news about Shane Warne came as a shock, the stigma of drugs amplified by the fact that he was such a charismatic, magnetic personality, a great cricketer and fierce competitor. Then the reality sinks in.that this isn’t the real issue, it doesn’t — shouldn’t — matter who the subject is. Because this isn’t the time to reflect on Warne the cricketer. Yes, he is one of the best, perhaps one of the greatest ever. But this is about the game of cricket, about its future and about some hard decisions that the game’s administrators will have to take if they are to steer the game on the right course. The first important thing to remember is, Never judge a person till you know his motives. Why would Warne have done what he did? Why would he have risked his last great hour in international cricket for a few moments of fleeting fame? One would be that, knowing this was his last world cup, he wanted his shoulder to recover fast. At his press conference, Warne protested his innocence, donned the garb of complete ignorance and said he wasn’t aware of the substance. Ignorance is a lame excuse, however, because everyone knew what the banned substances were. Everyone knew that, for the first time in the history of the world cup, there would be testing for dope. Indeed, Indian physio Andrew Leipus had briefed the Indian team. Unntentional or not, that isn’t the point here; the point is, no one is above the law. Which brings us to the important question: where does it leave the Aussies? It’s important because a team’s composition is like a jigsaw: if even one or two pieces are taken out, the picture doesn’t look right. From a purely cricketing point of view, Stuart MacGill could be the replacement in the jigsaw, but that’s exactly what he would be: a replacement, not the genuine article. And the second important question: can they replace Warne? The rules say such replacements are permissible only in the event of an injury to any player, not for breach of the law. If that’s the rule, that’s what should be followed. No matter how much affection people have for Warney — and emotions will be running high at this particular moment — the committee that decides on this should not allow a replacement. Remember, this is a watershed case in cricket: the first such instance at this level, of a cricketer testing positive for banned substances. The punishment should be exemplary, to the extent that it acts as a deterrent for future potential offenders. This is perhaps a good time to mention that I’ve known people who’ve bowled nine overs, gone into the dressing room and come out fresh as a daisy for another fiery spell. All in exhausting conditions. So any laxity now, any leeway will send out all the wrong signals. Nip this monster in the bud: we don’t know motives but we can’t ignore the law. Finally, will this unite the Aussies? On the strength of today’s game, it certainly seems to have done so. Sport is replete with instances of teams fighting with renewed spirit to avenge an injustice or overcome a handicap, fetching triumph out of adversity. Remember the Indians in South Africa in 2001, when Sachin was charged with ball-tampering? And again in England last summer, when they had to deal with the complexities of the contracts issue? And the Aussies are an especially spirited, well-bonded team. A pity, then, that it will have to proceed without its most spirited member. But it is for the good of the game, and no single player is greater than the game itself.
