ICC sets out stance on corruption

It was hardly a giant step forward for the administration of cricket, but there was just a hint of progressive government in Nairobi on Thursday when the ICC President Malcolm Gray and Chief Executive David Richards conducted a Press Forum just ahead of the weekend's ICC meetings.

The agenda was open, and Gray and Richards answered questions on a variety of topics, ranging from corruption in the game through the future of umpires to development.

Many of the answers were necessarily vague and dealt with principle and process rather than specifics; some issues were glossed over and on one or two occasions it was evident that both officials had been misinformed on certain matters.

But there was no ambiguity when it came to the ICC stance on match-fixing. They supported the Pakistan Cricket Board's request for a judicial inquiry into Pakistan's World Cup matches against Bangladesh and India last year.

"If, from their point of view, this could rid the sport of corruption then we welcome it," Gray said. "We have asked them to put things in place."

For both Gray and Richards, the value of the Nairobi press conference may well have been in hearing the concerns of cricket writers, an uncoordinated and haphazard group that, for better or worse, also has the well-being of the game at heart.

The greatest threat to the game is self-evidently the corruption scandal that has slithered out of dark corners into the open this year. Gray as much as acknowledged that in the past the ICC all but turned a blind eye to the rumours of match-fixing that have circulated for years.

Gray likened the ICC executive to a country's cabinet, with the recently-appointed anti-corruption investigator as the police force and Lord Griffiths' code of conduct committee the judiciary. He stressed the need for the functions of the three arms to be kept separate.

But there is a certain fuzziness about the existing structure insofar as the ICC's relationships with its member countries and their various legal systems are concerned. Who is responsible for what, and how should conflicting methods, cultures and values be reconciled?

All of which leads to the role of the ICC and the type of organisation it should be. While it is standard operating procedure to regard the ICC as toothless, it is not at all clear that cricket wants or needs an all-powerful, top-down governing body.

Yet as money starts to flow in, it is beyond dispute that a greater coherence of purpose is essential if the game is to survive and prosper.

This is a matter that will not be resolved this weekend or, indeed, for some time to come. But it seems that under Gray's stewardship, the ICC might at last be willing to discuss exactly what course it should take and what needs to be done to get it there.