Dainty and USACA still under the spotlight

An informal poll of US cricketers following the ICC's decision not to block funding for the USA Cricket Association (USACA) elicited a variety of opinions--some happy, others hopeful, still others angry, and most of them puzzled.

The most jubilant were supporters of USACA who had insisted all along that Gladstone Dainty, the president of USACA, would carry the day in any showdown with the ICC. They had been spreading the word that when push came to shove, ICC would back down because it could not afford to lose access to the US cricket market and that, in the final analysis, it would find some excuse to continue its relationship with USACA. To them, Dainty had been right in refusing to recognize the ICC's jurisdiction over US cricket in any way, and now he had the proof to back up his assertions.

Major League Cricket (MLC), which had challenged USACA's rights to represent US cricket with the ICC, took the situation stoically. It had anticipated this reaction on the part of ICC, and had decided to rest its case after providing ICC with proof that USACA had never complied with ICC's stated requirements. There was not much more it could do, an official said, and perhaps some good could come of it if USACA could really improve on its dismal performance over the past few years. As for MLC, it would continue on its development plan, meeting its own goals and milestones, and hoped that certain USACA supporters would not renew their efforts to sabotage MLC's programs as it had done in the past.

Some US cricketers were angry with the ICC, and condemned what it called a "betrayal" of US cricket. According to them, the ICC's letter signed by Matthew Kennedy, its Global Development Officer, had simply ignored all the complaints regarding USACA that had been lodged over the past decade, relying on a legal technicality to justify its actions.

Had ICC even recognized the veracity of some of the complaints against USACA, this would give some hope to US cricketers to continue their efforts at reform. As it was, they were beginning to recognize that they were isolated and alone, and the road to reform would be a longer and more difficult one.

Others were not so sure. They pointed out that ICC's stipulations were still in effect, and had in fact been reiterated. The USACA's first-quarter funds had not been blocked, but the USACA still had to recognize the ICC's stipulations, act on them, and prove it was making substantial progress on these points by the time the next quarter's funding was due, which would be June 30.

There was a lively debate between those who thought those stipulations would never be enforced by the ICC, and those who felt that ICC was serious about them. In the end, it was agreed that waiting till June 30 seemed the only realistic option.

A feeling shared by almost all US cricketers was that way too much time had been spent on this whole issue and that the USACA had spent over a year sorting out its internal disputes while doing nothing of substance for cricket. If the USACA could really get its act together by June 30, the "second chance" it had been given by the ICC would allow it to restore some of the credibility it has lost with US cricketers, and that would be somewhat of a good thing.