More questions than answers

The interview given by Gladstone Dainty to Cricinfo yesterday has raised as many questions as it answered. Issues such as arbitration, the suspension of officials and the relationship with the ICC were all touched on by Danity, but none were really explained fully.

The main thing that stood out was that Dainty's executive are not prepared to agree to independent arbitration as proposed, but only if it is "under New York State law." Those four words make all the difference. Whereas throughout the world, national cricket boards are run by the rules of their own constitution, Dainty is suggesting that in the USA it should be run by the law of the land.

The feeling is that this will be unacceptable to the ICC and also to the rival factions. It all but kills arbitration dead in the water. Although Dainty did not want to be drawn into discussing his relationship with the ICC - understandably - it is fairly clear that their hierarchy have little or no time for him. That cannot help his position.

Dainty was as elusive on internal issues. He said that there had been no extraordinary meeting of the USACA as the requisite 35% of member clubs had not requested it - that is disputed by opponents - and that any member of the public could examine the USACA's books - again, opponents claim that the detail behind the general accounts has not been forthcoming.

The most contentious internal row has been over the disqualification of candidates in the recent executive elections and the suspension of the secretary. Dainty's explanation seems flawed as it is the exact reasons behind the decision which are being challenged, and even the auditor for the elections raised issues with those disqualifications. This needs to be discussed in an open forum and both sides have to put forward their own arguments. Opponents claim that criminal checks and $15 payments were made, Dainty says they were not. That one should be easy to prove one way or the other.

As for the suspension of Bobby Refaie as secretary, it comes back to the issue of whether the USACA is run by its own constitution or by state law. Under the former, which the ICC recognize, Refaie is still secretary, under the latter he is not.

One is left with the feeling that Dainty has found a new ally in the US legal system. That is bourn out by the fact that all recent correspondence appears to have come through his attorney - the most recent letter to the ICC from the USACA was actually on his attorney's headed notepaper and was signed not by Dainty or the board but a lawyer. Even the answers in his interview hinted that they were not off the cuff but had been chewed over by lawyers before being carefully answered.

The shift of tactics in resorting to the US courts- and to give Dainty's executive credit, it is a clever move - had ensured that this will run and run. It also increases the risk that the ICC is likely to dragged deeper into an affair it has tried so hard to keep out of.