ICC World Twenty20 June 5, 2009

Symonds broke CA ban on public drinking

48

A pledge to refrain from drinking in public will likely cost Andrew Symonds his international career. The clause, inserted into his personal contract with Cricket Australia, was breached when Symonds indulged in a late-night drinking session after Australia's warm-up match against New Zealand on Tuesday, and again when he and several team-mates watched the telecast of the State of Origin rugby league game at a west London establishment the following morning.

Under the terms of his personally-tailored deal with CA, Symonds was permitted to drink with team-mates in the dressing room after matches and at team hotels. Drinking in public, however, was banned under the agreement, following a series of altercations at bars in Australia, South Africa and the Caribbean in recent years. No other player on CA's central contract list is bound by such an agreement.

The personal contract was drawn up after Symonds' infamous fishing excursion which resulted in him being ordered home from Australia's limited overs series against Bangladesh in Darwin. The allrounder was told that he would only be considered for future Australian sides if he submitted to regular counselling, and abided by the agreement with CA which prohibited him from drinking in public.

So eager was CA for Symonds not to be seen drinking in public that senior management had instructed players to "drag him out" of bars if they spotted him. Team-mates did assist in removing Symonds from a Brisbane pub last year when a member of the public threw a punch at him, but it remains unclear what role, if any, Australian cricketers played in Symonds' latest drinking excursion in London. He was in the company of several team-mates when watching the State of Origin game, some of whom were drinking moderately. There was no suggestion Symonds' behaviour was unseemly on Wednesday.

The question now appears to be who will initiate the move to end his international career. Will Symonds, who feels his freedom has been severely curtailed by the public drinking clause, walk away from the game? Or will Cricket Australia tear up his contract, pointing to the breach of their personal agreement?

Players and officials contacted by Cricinfo on Thursday were of the opinion that Symonds would call time on his 26-Test, 198-ODI career of his own accord and focus on his IPL career with Deccan Chargers. "The culture of the (Australian) team has moved on, but he hasn't," said a source close to the player. "It's probably time to look at other options."

Symonds' agent, Matt Fearon, said his client could consider becoming a freelance Twenty20 specialist, travelling the world to play in domestic leagues such as the IPL and England's P20 competition.

"He definitely wants to continue playing cricket, and he has tried his hardest for that to be with Cricket Australia," Fearon told Cricinfo. "He had some really clear goals surrounding the Ashes and the World Cup, and he will sit down now over the next few days and decide whether he needs to set new ones.

"The thing he has learned in the last few months is that he loves playing his cricket, and he loves playing it with people he fits in with. The Twenty20 route is an option, but there are still a lot of unknowns. I suppose Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist have demonstrated that you can be successful in Twenty20 cricket for a long time. That might be something he wants to concentrate on.

"He is really disappointed that all this has come about, but perhaps it needed to happen. He arrives home (Saturday) morning, and I think over the next week we will sit down and decide what is his next move."

Paul Marsh, the chief executive of the Australian Cricketers' Association, said Symonds would retain the support of the players' union even if he chose to leave the game. "Does he want to go on, pull the pin or just play IPL? That's the decision before him," Marsh told Cricinfo. "He has definitely taken on restrictions that other players have not, but he knew that if he wanted to play for Australia again, he had to operate under certain guidelines. It's up to him now to decide whether he can do that.

"This is a sad day for Andrew and a sad day for Australian cricket. His history has caught up with him. Whatever he decides, he will have our full backing and support."

Alex Brown is deputy editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Prats6 on June 7, 2009, 4:50 GMT

    The people supporting CA have been harping on the "contract" with Roy. OK now, first things first, why such a draconian contract in the first place ? Second, it also said that if Symmo went to a public bar, his team mates were told to forcefully take him out of there,others kept on drinking and no one cared. The important point is that CA have always found faults with Symmo .. always treated him with disrespect .. I dont quite understand why, all I know is that Clarke has some huge issues with Roy, I dont have much respect for Clarke anyway , but CA have been sucking up to Clarke all the while. I am an Indian, not a Deccan Chargers fan though, but I loved the way he fought on the field for his team in the finals. Its easy to say you play for the team and to win, difficult to do it, this man epitomised the same. And now we have the Aussie team, filled with no godders.. No charm remaining in the side.. All the stars gone. I am so sad .. Love You Symmo !

  • crossfirehurricane on June 7, 2009, 2:09 GMT

    The contract was unreasonable and while he wasn't coerced into signing it - he more or less had to - to be considered for CA. It was unfair. That being said he is a dirty sledger and I could always see him mouthing off vicious comments on tv towards other teams. This sets a bad example for young cricketers. So perhaps this is his Karma. On another note - I think that ponting and clarke come across as being pious and unsympathetic to his situation. I still remember clarkes attitude when they kicked him out of the team for going fishing. What ever happened to giving someone a warning. It is like they don't want him in the team.

  • ashman92 on June 7, 2009, 0:25 GMT

    hang your heads in shame, CA, Ricky Ponting, Tim Neilson & Michael Clark.. What a disgrace!! Are we Australians? Its a huge part of Australian culture to have a beer with mates and watch the footy. Now we send home our best one day player in disgrace for being a normal bloke. I wonder how long players like Rod Marsh, Doug Walters, & Dennis Lillie would last under the existing team rules? I even wonder if such a restrictive contract is even legal.. Im also wondering at which point we started to expect our sportsman to behave like angels. I would think that a bit of fire and rebellion would be good for the game. Obviously now we have a team of tea drinking angels taking on the world..

    We have really shown how good we are without him against the Windies. Any chance we have of winning this tournament flew home on saturday. good work CA

  • Sudhir1 on June 6, 2009, 13:00 GMT

    How would you feel if you went to a bar...and all your team-mates are allowed to drink except you?

    Rather strange...I'd say. What sort of a law is that?

  • neuter on June 6, 2009, 10:13 GMT

    It seems someone in CA is intent on making life tough for Symmo. IMHO, he deserves a better deal than a blanket ban on public drinking. If this clause would end his international career, I would blame CA - not Symonds.

  • Governor on June 6, 2009, 7:48 GMT

    How can CA and James Sutherland insert a clause in a player's contract that stipulates that he can only drink alcohol at the team hotel and the team dressingroom. And, he is banned from drinking in public places!

    Is not this a restraint of trade on a player's right to do what he wants.

    I think Cricket Australia has taken the drinking issue too far to the extreme pont where the individual's right to do what he wants is being restricted.

    Andrew Symonds has a problem with the booze. He has admitted it and CA should have sent him to Beyond Blue.

  • rnarayan on June 6, 2009, 7:44 GMT

    This is a problem of, largely, CA's making. Symonds strikes me as fine cricketer, but an immature, self centred boor.And CA pandered to his bratish behaviour. How stupid to put a no-drink clause in his contract, presumably it was some sort of compromise to give him a further chance. All that was required was to have told him "You're a big boy, Roy. We won't tell you what you can or cannot drink, but you do something we feel is damaging to Australian cricket and we'll bounce you", and done it some time ago. Ponting sorted himself out didn't he? Personally, I have enjoyed watching him, but I do not feel he is that much of a loss to Cricket.

  • Copernicus on June 6, 2009, 5:41 GMT

    Sure, it seems like a bit of an overreaction, but I can't really se what all the fuss is about - Symonds breached his legally binding contract so CA are well within their rights to send him home. End of story. (As a side note to everyone referring to him as Australia's best player in the squad, yada yada yada, he averaged less than 15 for Queensland in the domestic season so based on actual form he was probably fortunate to be in the squad in the first place.)

  • MAK123 on June 6, 2009, 5:25 GMT

    My question to Sutherland is: how many of the cricket following public know your first name? not sure? well then who on earth are you to deprive them from seeing one of the greatest all rounders of all time? I hope you regret this decision soon. What goes around, comes around - i sincerely hope it comes around soon and you're hit hard in your back side - the prayers applies to both you and Michael Clark.

  • Boofy on June 6, 2009, 4:03 GMT

    This is all too weird. Remember when Simon Katich grabbed Clarke by the throat in SA and CA brushed it off as nothing happened, and imagine what they would have done if it was Symonds who did that. And CA hung Symonds out to dry in that Sydney incident. Disappointing.

    Michael Clarke is like the school prefect everyone hated because he keeps dobbing to the teacher.

    Sent home by Clarke for missing a team meeting for a winter game against Bangladesh. Hello? What's to discuss.

    They can't leave the team Hotel unless they ask team management. Do we live in a communist state now?

    Things are going to be so dull now. Can you imagine Michael Clarke's Ashes tour diary/book - "Put my socks on and cleaned my teeth,..." and compare it to say Dougy Walters' books. zzzzz. It's just a little too sanitised.

  • Prats6 on June 7, 2009, 4:50 GMT

    The people supporting CA have been harping on the "contract" with Roy. OK now, first things first, why such a draconian contract in the first place ? Second, it also said that if Symmo went to a public bar, his team mates were told to forcefully take him out of there,others kept on drinking and no one cared. The important point is that CA have always found faults with Symmo .. always treated him with disrespect .. I dont quite understand why, all I know is that Clarke has some huge issues with Roy, I dont have much respect for Clarke anyway , but CA have been sucking up to Clarke all the while. I am an Indian, not a Deccan Chargers fan though, but I loved the way he fought on the field for his team in the finals. Its easy to say you play for the team and to win, difficult to do it, this man epitomised the same. And now we have the Aussie team, filled with no godders.. No charm remaining in the side.. All the stars gone. I am so sad .. Love You Symmo !

  • crossfirehurricane on June 7, 2009, 2:09 GMT

    The contract was unreasonable and while he wasn't coerced into signing it - he more or less had to - to be considered for CA. It was unfair. That being said he is a dirty sledger and I could always see him mouthing off vicious comments on tv towards other teams. This sets a bad example for young cricketers. So perhaps this is his Karma. On another note - I think that ponting and clarke come across as being pious and unsympathetic to his situation. I still remember clarkes attitude when they kicked him out of the team for going fishing. What ever happened to giving someone a warning. It is like they don't want him in the team.

  • ashman92 on June 7, 2009, 0:25 GMT

    hang your heads in shame, CA, Ricky Ponting, Tim Neilson & Michael Clark.. What a disgrace!! Are we Australians? Its a huge part of Australian culture to have a beer with mates and watch the footy. Now we send home our best one day player in disgrace for being a normal bloke. I wonder how long players like Rod Marsh, Doug Walters, & Dennis Lillie would last under the existing team rules? I even wonder if such a restrictive contract is even legal.. Im also wondering at which point we started to expect our sportsman to behave like angels. I would think that a bit of fire and rebellion would be good for the game. Obviously now we have a team of tea drinking angels taking on the world..

    We have really shown how good we are without him against the Windies. Any chance we have of winning this tournament flew home on saturday. good work CA

  • Sudhir1 on June 6, 2009, 13:00 GMT

    How would you feel if you went to a bar...and all your team-mates are allowed to drink except you?

    Rather strange...I'd say. What sort of a law is that?

  • neuter on June 6, 2009, 10:13 GMT

    It seems someone in CA is intent on making life tough for Symmo. IMHO, he deserves a better deal than a blanket ban on public drinking. If this clause would end his international career, I would blame CA - not Symonds.

  • Governor on June 6, 2009, 7:48 GMT

    How can CA and James Sutherland insert a clause in a player's contract that stipulates that he can only drink alcohol at the team hotel and the team dressingroom. And, he is banned from drinking in public places!

    Is not this a restraint of trade on a player's right to do what he wants.

    I think Cricket Australia has taken the drinking issue too far to the extreme pont where the individual's right to do what he wants is being restricted.

    Andrew Symonds has a problem with the booze. He has admitted it and CA should have sent him to Beyond Blue.

  • rnarayan on June 6, 2009, 7:44 GMT

    This is a problem of, largely, CA's making. Symonds strikes me as fine cricketer, but an immature, self centred boor.And CA pandered to his bratish behaviour. How stupid to put a no-drink clause in his contract, presumably it was some sort of compromise to give him a further chance. All that was required was to have told him "You're a big boy, Roy. We won't tell you what you can or cannot drink, but you do something we feel is damaging to Australian cricket and we'll bounce you", and done it some time ago. Ponting sorted himself out didn't he? Personally, I have enjoyed watching him, but I do not feel he is that much of a loss to Cricket.

  • Copernicus on June 6, 2009, 5:41 GMT

    Sure, it seems like a bit of an overreaction, but I can't really se what all the fuss is about - Symonds breached his legally binding contract so CA are well within their rights to send him home. End of story. (As a side note to everyone referring to him as Australia's best player in the squad, yada yada yada, he averaged less than 15 for Queensland in the domestic season so based on actual form he was probably fortunate to be in the squad in the first place.)

  • MAK123 on June 6, 2009, 5:25 GMT

    My question to Sutherland is: how many of the cricket following public know your first name? not sure? well then who on earth are you to deprive them from seeing one of the greatest all rounders of all time? I hope you regret this decision soon. What goes around, comes around - i sincerely hope it comes around soon and you're hit hard in your back side - the prayers applies to both you and Michael Clark.

  • Boofy on June 6, 2009, 4:03 GMT

    This is all too weird. Remember when Simon Katich grabbed Clarke by the throat in SA and CA brushed it off as nothing happened, and imagine what they would have done if it was Symonds who did that. And CA hung Symonds out to dry in that Sydney incident. Disappointing.

    Michael Clarke is like the school prefect everyone hated because he keeps dobbing to the teacher.

    Sent home by Clarke for missing a team meeting for a winter game against Bangladesh. Hello? What's to discuss.

    They can't leave the team Hotel unless they ask team management. Do we live in a communist state now?

    Things are going to be so dull now. Can you imagine Michael Clarke's Ashes tour diary/book - "Put my socks on and cleaned my teeth,..." and compare it to say Dougy Walters' books. zzzzz. It's just a little too sanitised.

  • desolationmike on June 6, 2009, 3:51 GMT

    Why must we allow Cricket Australia to dictate what the viewer will tolerate. The viewing audience is not a bunch of new age, politically correct, tea drinking, saints of high moral virtue. We want to be entertained. 20/20 is all about entertainment and it requires characters that are interesting. Keep your tailored contracts for those you let into the white uniforms of role model purity. Children get to see all manner of reality on the news and in movies so why must sport be free of all the character traits that have made sportsmen and women so good in the first place. Yes, the world is changing but it is leaving the old people, who would stop Symonds from playing cricket, behind.

  • jazzaaaaaaaa on June 6, 2009, 3:35 GMT

    And here come some of the Australian cricket haters saying CA did the wrong thing. Symonds signed a contract which he must follow legally, if he knew he wouldnt be able to follow the contract, then he shouldnt of signed it. Legally, CA could sue Symonds for breach of contract (Although it wont happen, nor it should). The reason why they made him sign this contract is because he has a problem with alcohol and he cant control himself whilst intoxicated, add to that he admitted that has anger management issues. Those two things combined are a lethal combination that could cost CA many $$$ in sponsorships and endorsements if Symonds got into another public altercation, if he wanted to continue playing then CA needed to take this tough stance to prevent another incident occurring.

  • __PK on June 6, 2009, 3:33 GMT

    What a disgraceful, tyrannical move by CA. And I can't believe ordinary Australians support them on this! Remember, Symonds has probably always wanted to play cricket since he was a kid, spent countless hours training for it during his youth, to the detriment of all other career options. Then he makes it, proves himself and throws himself whole-heartedly into this career. THEN and only then, do CA say "By the way, you can't enjoy a drink like a normal person. If you don't like it, find another job." Like what? OK, it was a part of his contract, but was it a part of the informal contract promised to a young kid who decided to devote his life to the game? Sorry CA, it's too late to say this AFTER the guy has given you the best years of his life. Just like it was too late to call a team meeting in Darwin on a rest day AFTER he'd already gone out fishing. I love watching him play, but I hope he does retire to the IPL, and then he can finally give us the REAL story.

  • CiMP on June 6, 2009, 3:19 GMT

    Personally I am disappointed that one of the key players for Deccan Chargers, the winners of IPL II, is not going to play in the World Cup. When the best players do not play, whatever reason, the WC loses some of its sheen... Victoria(n) morals are Bitter sometimes due to their inherent hypocrisy, 'Roy' would realize! There are two sides to this issue, if not more! One, there is the legal thing of a personal contract. Symonds violated it. He is paying for the breach. CA, to be fair, has been consistent in its enforecements of its rules - they banned Shane Warne from the WC in 2003 for using banned substance.

    On the flip side, the purpose of inserting a special clause in Symonds' contract restraining him from drinking in public must have been to prevent opportunities for public incidents. That there was no incident should have been a mitigative factor. CA could have been more compassionate, gently reprimanding Symmo rather than ejecting him out of the squad.

  • Alexk400 on June 6, 2009, 1:38 GMT

    I seriously believe clarke and symmonds do not see eye to eye. Clarke want to enforce that he is the captain and symmonds do not want any of that. so basically clarke is undermined symmonds with white supremacists aussies.

  • Chris_Howard on June 6, 2009, 0:19 GMT

    Andrew Symonds was born in the wrong era. If he played in the '80s, he'd be a revered boozing hero today like Boonie and Beefy.

    Australia seem to have taken the fun out of playing cricket b- both on the field and off. Most other countries don't enjoy playing against them, and Symonds was one of the worst offenders, so I won't miss him. But the delightful irony is he has become a victim of what he helped create, a monster obsessed with winning. A monster that arrogantly and ruthlessly battered its opponents, but one that also strictly controlled its players.

    It's time to lighten up, Australia and play your cricket with a better spirit and allow your players some space.

  • WindiesCity on June 5, 2009, 23:54 GMT

    Too bad, but it seems this has been brewing for quite some time, no pun intended. That contract was written because CA knew he couldn't live up to it and they'd have a concrete means to fire him. Was he duped? Hard to say. Maybe he has an alcohol problem, maybe not. What is clear, is they have wanted him to move on for a while and this was a convenient and inexpensive means to do so.

  • MrCosgorve on June 5, 2009, 23:43 GMT

    As much as Symonds has been in trouble in the past, I am not all that convinced that this was necessary. From what I read, he was out with his team mates at a bar watching some rugby. Now surely, this in therefore as much his team mates fault as it is his. How is he supposed to "bond" with his team mates if when they all go out he has to stay home? The reports do not mention any problems that occurred while he was out there. so I dont see it. I wonder if his team makes even care that they helped lay an axe on his head.

  • LoveTheWall on June 5, 2009, 23:28 GMT

    I think Symonds should simply walk away and join ICL. The league needs some star power.

  • valvolux on June 5, 2009, 23:11 GMT

    Sure hes a victim of fairly harsh conditions....but he deserves to go because he broke basic rules. I love the guy, and when I play in the backyard I need a new right hander......but what an idiot. He only has himself to blame...the touney hadnt even started.........if a young fella were to make a mistake let him go fore sure....but Symmo aint no spring chicken...and hes had more than enough goes at this...he should be forever punished...its not cause hes a typical aussie...of course we all make a mess of ourselves when we want to...but we all wouldnt stuff up a chance 10 times at a baggy green. Suffer Symmo....you deserve it you selfish idiiot.

  • anura123 on June 5, 2009, 22:58 GMT

    How come this kind of binding contract was not imposed on Shane Warne, when he had committed far worse things than bar brawls.

  • FlashAsh on June 5, 2009, 22:45 GMT

    Roy, you could always come back to Gloucestershire CCC!! Will always remember the great seasons you had with us and the furore it caused even then, before you decided upon staking your claim with CA!

    Good luck in future exploits, if its away from Cricket then its a great shame to lose such an exciting player, who has been able to make the opposition shudder simply by walking to the crease!!

    What CA have done goes beyond the simple breaking of one clause in a contract, which could be argued is an unfair one as no other CA contracts insist upon same draconian measures concerning alcohol!!

    Anyway, Take legal advice and pick up the phone to your County contacts, who will be more than willing to have you, now most of their Aussie stars are absent now for next three months!! should be easy pickings!!

  • Venn on June 5, 2009, 21:20 GMT

    What's up with CA and Symmo? They just don't seem to get along very well. CA can't expect their cricketers to be fighters on the field and pussy cats off the field. You just cannot curb the fighting spirit as soon as they leave the field....Symonds is a competitor and some of these people might have annoyed him and he might have reacted.....CA should be more reasonable....they r trying to discipline their players and eventually making them monks (Like their pup who is really a puppet of CA)...Symonds got along well with Deccan chargers during his recent stint. Looks like some aussie players are deliberately targeting him instead of supporting him. I have my serious reservations on ponting and clarke. Symonds is a fighting sportsperson and we need people like him in any sport. They cannot impose a special clause in his contract saying he cannot drink in public while all his teammates or enjoying a drink. Thats insane. I'm sure Roy will be happy to say goodbye to CA and enjoy IPL & P20.

  • KBCA on June 5, 2009, 20:52 GMT

    Faeq03207 Symonds is a decent player (not great) who has only himself to blame. he has already been given too many chances, this will be more his lose than cricket australia's or cricket's in general. some people never grow up.

  • corradodavis on June 5, 2009, 18:24 GMT

    not all english fans hate symo!! i for one am gutted he won't be playing as he's the most entertaining all-round player in the game, and i think CA could well have just cost themselves a trophy. Come and play for Warwickshire Symo, you'll always be welcome (and you were born just down the road!)

  • Trini_Desai on June 5, 2009, 17:02 GMT

    Symonds have some Caribbean blood, bring 'em to the West Indies so he can teach Gayle and company how drink, bat, bowl and win

  • Arachnodouche on June 5, 2009, 16:26 GMT

    Wow, the Australia dressing room must be one boring joint! What's with this martial attitude towards someone having a good time? I know there are enormous amounts of money involved these days, but fancy people like Beefy, Lilee, Boon, etc. taking this nonsense lying down. They didn't even give him a fair chance to prove himself on the field.

  • Boodah on June 5, 2009, 15:57 GMT

    Guys If you sign a contract its a legally binding agreement. If he felt he couldn't live up to it, then he should not have signed the contract. Nobody is held at gun-point to sign a contract. If the clause said 'no public drinking' then drinking in public is a breach of his contract... for which you are fired!

    For me, this is immature by Symonds. It is a blatant disrespect for his employer, CA, who obviously pays exceptionally well. If I earned what he earned, I'd give up anything you wanted me to!! To represent your country at the highest level of cricket is an HONOUR, a PRIVILEGE!

    As for the ban, he brought his team mates, his country, and cricket into disrepute. As an internationally renowned sportsman, you have an obligation to be a good example for youngsters. If you can't handle being a role model, go open a bar. What a waste - he can play cricket!

    Sorry Mr. Symonds - you've let yourself down

  • Faeq03207 on June 5, 2009, 15:46 GMT

    I m sorry for Symonds. A great player treated bad. Hope Australia loose as i am sure they will.

  • Strayan_in_USA on June 5, 2009, 15:21 GMT

    Poor old Roy. He is a true victim of the times. There are very few casual Aussie cricket fans who can't indentify with the bloke. I know I can picture him in my backyard in stubbies and thongs boasting about all the piss ups he has had on tours. Unfortunately his ways are no longer the ways of professional sporting teams. Let's face facts. Past icons like Rod Marsh and David Boon would not last on the team today. Just like Roy they were legends for their on and off the field play and with the hyperactive media today they just wouldn't cut it. I am saddened that Symo will not be a part of the T/20 World Cup. I still believe that he was the one real match winner Australia had left with the bat and in the field in this form of the game. I think the team is worse both on and off the field now This brings me to my next point. Why not coerce Haydos out of retirement for the World Cup. Doesn't his recent IPL form suggest that he may have something to offer in the shortest form of the game

  • MAK123 on June 5, 2009, 14:51 GMT

    So now, perhaps, we will never see the person on the Cricket field, as far as Australian cricket team is concerned. The game has lost one of the best sportsmen and probably the best celebrity ever, thanks to Cricket Australia's and especially Sutherland's typical arrogance. For me, the only scene from the recently concluded final of the IPL for a long long time will be when Pandey of the Royal Challengers was walking to the crease and Symo was walking parrallel to him like a shaddow - so awe-inspring, so overwhelming. Such was the presence of the man on the cricket field.

    My point is: no one in the current world cricket set up is an angel. I think Symo was targetted for some personal grudge that Sutherland holds for reasons best known to the Australian Cricket team. Is it something more than just alcohol that caused singling out an indvidual like Symonds?? CA high-ups, you owe an explanation for the premature ouster of Gilly, Hayden, Symonds and so many more.

  • theallstarplayer on June 5, 2009, 14:44 GMT

    i can agree with prats_p because it is none CA'S business to stop symmo drinking it's just pure jealousy

  • TwitterJitter on June 5, 2009, 14:19 GMT

    The problem with nation vs nation cricket is if a person like Symonds has problems with CA, he has no where else to go. With a club system, if he does not like a club, he is always free to choose another club. He does not have to give up cricket.

  • cheripowers on June 5, 2009, 14:18 GMT

    I do wish the CA would take the time to educate themselves about alcoholism. If Andrew Symonds is an alcoholic, then he needs to not drink at all in order for his life to improve. Drinking behind closed doors with his team mates will be just as bad for him and his disease as drinking outside. And if he doesn't really have a problem, but they are just targeting him for some reason, then shame on them. Many people live long and happy lives without drinking - cricket players can too. But this double standard just shows CA to be ignorant about a very common disease and not very bright in handling someone with potentially a life threatening problem.

  • theallstarplayer on June 5, 2009, 14:01 GMT

    it is a shame that symonds has been forced to do this. he was already for the fishing incident and the fight in the bar but cricket australia had not done anything at that time but only now dropping from the t20 squad. who knows what the australian players could have done to get him axed. cricket australia should keep symonds in the squad because he was brought back in the squad and already finding form in the t20 ipl and CA were just waiting for symonds to do something. and tell that hooker guy who is an englishman to go back where he came from because you kind of people hate symonds

  • squidhead on June 5, 2009, 13:32 GMT

    Crpcarrot - yep been thinking that for a while now. Square peg, round hole and all that. Australian cricket is a brand now and it's image must be maintained.

    I'd just invite his detractors to think back over his history and try and remember just what, exactly, he has done that was so wrong. Cardiff 2005, yes, fair enough. But that fishing trip, wasn't it on his day off? And it's rough to get the blame when some random patron takes a swing at you. That interview, yes he swore but if you listen, he wasn't really insulting McCullum was he? Ah, but he's got a track record, they say, and even though this incident is minor, there's a pattern...

    There's so much the public hasn't been told, and never will be. Anyway, thanks Roy, looks like they finally got you. It won't be the same without you - more's the pity.

  • dissapointed on June 5, 2009, 13:28 GMT

    When representing your country, you need to act in an acceptable fashion for the younger fans but you also need to represent the culture. This guy loves cricket, rugby, fishing, the outdoors and having a beer... you couldn't get more Australian than this but obviously image conscious people such as Michael Clark is what CA is looking for. If you look behind the facade of BS that CA and the media has put up, the only serious breach was the binge he had four years ago back in England. Please don't forget, he was targeted in India by the crowds and the BCCI made excuses, CA did nothing. A few months later, he was let down again by CA over the Sydney controversy but the BCCI wrongly or rightly backed there man. If anyone needs to look in the mirror, it's CA to think about how passive and restricted they want the people representing Australia to be. A team of Michael Clarks will equal empty stands.

  • Prats6 on June 5, 2009, 13:13 GMT

    I am speechless and agree with "crpcarrot" (2nd comment) , CA have been waiting for him to slip up so that he his publicly ridiculed and sent home, its the same way Saurav was shown the door in India.. It is plain unfair. Others can drink when they want and Symmo cant ?? What double standards are we talking here ? This is just too bad. I wish Australia get beaten in both games and go home and beg for Symmo to be back. The man has been playing well always and whatever he does off the field is none of CA's business. What would have they said next , "Dont smile in public !" . Its ridiculous !

  • KapilKurlekar on June 5, 2009, 13:10 GMT

    Why is it that Cricket Australia are clamping down on players when their main sponsor is a liquor company? Its really sad to see Andrew Symonds in this situation. He is such a great player. I really think he was frustrated with CA, when he was treated really badly during Monkeygate. CA should have shown a lot of solidarity there instead of bowing to India's financial clout. If anybody is responsible for Symmo's situation its CA. Really sad to see him go and hope against hope that he comes back....somehow!!!

  • reachkhanna on June 5, 2009, 12:55 GMT

    This time around Symo is not at fault...I really feel for the player. We all fans will miss him badly a in the world cup. He shud now settle down in hyderabad and live happily.

  • Howzzat07 on June 5, 2009, 12:34 GMT

    It is time for Symonds to bring his career to an end. How many chances does this guy need? His teammates are there to play cricket not babysit him and pull him out of bars at the first sign of trouble. It is sad because Symonds is a great cricketer, but some of these pro athletes just don't know how to balance their sport and their private lives. He's among the lucky few who get to play a game for a living and he's abused that privilege. Time to go.

  • Paris_in_the_snow on June 5, 2009, 12:19 GMT

    SYMONDS WOULD BE WELCOLMED IN THE WEST INDIES!!

    Ideal fit - no joke. He is a lot less disciplined than Nash but much more talented.

    I have heard off some WI greats 'having a few' before some of their best innings - performance is what matters.

    If he stays in Austalia, he has to play by Auzzie rules. I can only dream of what he would do for WI cricket and the level of interest in the game there.

  • TheHooker on June 5, 2009, 12:16 GMT

    As a non-Aussie, I naturally dislike Symonds, as any Englishman will. For all the right and wrong reasons. But in any other walk of life he would have been shown the door years ago. He can drink as much as he likes - regardless of changing attitudes it's not going to destroy his ability to play the game. It's more the fact he has been given a million and one chances purely because he adds something to the Aussie game that stinks of hypocrisy. A minor player who refused to show even an ounce of contriction would never have played for Oz again. But at a time when cricket down under is in transition, he is given every chance to redeem himself because Australia needed him too much. Well at last Cricket Australia has seen sense and ridden themselves of a lad who does not care. Good riddance and if he is ever given a chance again, it says nothing good about your approach to sport. Disappear back where you came from Symonds.

  • vegasbaby on June 5, 2009, 12:14 GMT

    funny how he is banned from drinking, but not banned from advertising VB

  • Cricdish on June 5, 2009, 12:09 GMT

    What makes us believe Deccan Chargers will be happy to accept someone with a poor disciplinary record? Would Adam Gilchrist be ok with that? Surely even IPL team owners and management should impose some standards around discipline and behaviour.

  • fatalberton on June 5, 2009, 11:32 GMT

    Is it just me that finds it ironic that Ponting's statement to the media about the reason for Symond's banishment was delived while he was wearing a VB cap?

  • Doggy74 on June 5, 2009, 10:58 GMT

    About time Cricket Australia made a commitment to it's stakeholders i.e. fans and emerging players and state categorically there has been a break with past traditions. It must state it is no longer acceptable for it's contracted players to engage in public drinking. When that has been done, young players are under no illusions that their off-field behaviour will bear as much scrutiny as their on-field talent. Cricket Australia can then abandon current sponsors, and together with their contracted players, enter a new era free of hypocrisy. What a ridiculous state of affairs, what a great 'leadership' group. Journalist could also stop frustrating readers by reporting with honesty what they know. This whole Andrew Symonds affair smells of a media smokescreen much like Michael Slater's meltdown in 2001, where again fans were left without seeing one of their favorite players due to a hushed up 'incident'.

  • crpcarrot on June 5, 2009, 10:57 GMT

    doesnt anyone get the feeling like CA has been waiting for him to slip up so they can get rid of him??

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • crpcarrot on June 5, 2009, 10:57 GMT

    doesnt anyone get the feeling like CA has been waiting for him to slip up so they can get rid of him??

  • Doggy74 on June 5, 2009, 10:58 GMT

    About time Cricket Australia made a commitment to it's stakeholders i.e. fans and emerging players and state categorically there has been a break with past traditions. It must state it is no longer acceptable for it's contracted players to engage in public drinking. When that has been done, young players are under no illusions that their off-field behaviour will bear as much scrutiny as their on-field talent. Cricket Australia can then abandon current sponsors, and together with their contracted players, enter a new era free of hypocrisy. What a ridiculous state of affairs, what a great 'leadership' group. Journalist could also stop frustrating readers by reporting with honesty what they know. This whole Andrew Symonds affair smells of a media smokescreen much like Michael Slater's meltdown in 2001, where again fans were left without seeing one of their favorite players due to a hushed up 'incident'.

  • fatalberton on June 5, 2009, 11:32 GMT

    Is it just me that finds it ironic that Ponting's statement to the media about the reason for Symond's banishment was delived while he was wearing a VB cap?

  • Cricdish on June 5, 2009, 12:09 GMT

    What makes us believe Deccan Chargers will be happy to accept someone with a poor disciplinary record? Would Adam Gilchrist be ok with that? Surely even IPL team owners and management should impose some standards around discipline and behaviour.

  • vegasbaby on June 5, 2009, 12:14 GMT

    funny how he is banned from drinking, but not banned from advertising VB

  • TheHooker on June 5, 2009, 12:16 GMT

    As a non-Aussie, I naturally dislike Symonds, as any Englishman will. For all the right and wrong reasons. But in any other walk of life he would have been shown the door years ago. He can drink as much as he likes - regardless of changing attitudes it's not going to destroy his ability to play the game. It's more the fact he has been given a million and one chances purely because he adds something to the Aussie game that stinks of hypocrisy. A minor player who refused to show even an ounce of contriction would never have played for Oz again. But at a time when cricket down under is in transition, he is given every chance to redeem himself because Australia needed him too much. Well at last Cricket Australia has seen sense and ridden themselves of a lad who does not care. Good riddance and if he is ever given a chance again, it says nothing good about your approach to sport. Disappear back where you came from Symonds.

  • Paris_in_the_snow on June 5, 2009, 12:19 GMT

    SYMONDS WOULD BE WELCOLMED IN THE WEST INDIES!!

    Ideal fit - no joke. He is a lot less disciplined than Nash but much more talented.

    I have heard off some WI greats 'having a few' before some of their best innings - performance is what matters.

    If he stays in Austalia, he has to play by Auzzie rules. I can only dream of what he would do for WI cricket and the level of interest in the game there.

  • Howzzat07 on June 5, 2009, 12:34 GMT

    It is time for Symonds to bring his career to an end. How many chances does this guy need? His teammates are there to play cricket not babysit him and pull him out of bars at the first sign of trouble. It is sad because Symonds is a great cricketer, but some of these pro athletes just don't know how to balance their sport and their private lives. He's among the lucky few who get to play a game for a living and he's abused that privilege. Time to go.

  • reachkhanna on June 5, 2009, 12:55 GMT

    This time around Symo is not at fault...I really feel for the player. We all fans will miss him badly a in the world cup. He shud now settle down in hyderabad and live happily.

  • KapilKurlekar on June 5, 2009, 13:10 GMT

    Why is it that Cricket Australia are clamping down on players when their main sponsor is a liquor company? Its really sad to see Andrew Symonds in this situation. He is such a great player. I really think he was frustrated with CA, when he was treated really badly during Monkeygate. CA should have shown a lot of solidarity there instead of bowing to India's financial clout. If anybody is responsible for Symmo's situation its CA. Really sad to see him go and hope against hope that he comes back....somehow!!!