Blocking Howard's path just not cricket
Although Peter Roebuck originally wanted Sir John Anderson to be nominated as the next ICC deputy president, he writes in the Age that not for a second should Australia and New Zealand succumb to "the reprehensible campaign" to block John
Brydon Coverdale
25-Feb-2013
Although Peter Roebuck originally wanted Sir John Anderson to be nominated as the next ICC deputy president, he writes in the Age that not for a second should Australia and New Zealand succumb to "the reprehensible campaign" to block John Howard's nomination.
Under the customs of the ICC the other directors were duty bound to accept him. Instead they have worked themselves into a fluster of fake indignation. In reality they are scared of Howard. After all, he might call them to account. There are plenty of reasons to object to the former prime minister, none to block his path.
Make no mistake, the case against Howard is as dishonest as it is inconsistent. A board that welcomed Percy Sonn, who declared the 2003 Zimbabwe election free and fair though he knew it was a lie, thereby condemning Zimbabweans to years of torment; a board that accepted Ray Mali, whose co-operation with the apartheid government was exposed by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission; a board that listens to Peter Chingoka and Ozias Bute, apologists for evil in Zimbabwe, is poorly placed to turn its back on Jack the Ripper, let alone a former PM and cricket fanatic.
Brydon Coverdale is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here