Panadura’s Pandora’s box

• SLC announce committee to look into appeals, as rift appears in Panadura between club and players
• Three-member appeal committee appointed
• Move follows appeals by Panadura SC and Kalutara PCC 
• Panadura players in departure from club stance call for a fresh inquiry, contest original verdict

By Madushka Balasuriya

Sri Lanka Cricket has announced a three-member committee to “consider the appeals” of the players and coaches of Panadura Sports Club and Kalutara Physical Culture Club following their recent bans, the governing body said yesterday, after both clubs had appealed the verdict. 

SLC Executive Committee members Samantha Dodanwala, Oshara Panditharatne and Channa Weerakkody will make up the committee.

However, in what could be seen as a growing rift between Panadura and its players, a lawyer representing the club’s players - including captain Chamara Silva - maintained that they would continue to push for a fresh inquiry and would not accept the original verdict.

“To appeal, it means we must accept the original verdict. I don’t think anybody should play with words. If we are asked to go in front of a committee, of course we will go there, but we will continue to object and ask for a fresh inquiry,” said PC Kalinga Indatissa speaking to Daily FT.

Earlier this month, following a lengthy investigation into irregular scoring patterns in a first-class match between Panadura and Kalutara in January, an independent committee found the players and coaches of the two clubs guilty of breaching the spirit of the game. However, despite taking seven months to complete, the inquiry was unable to pinpoint who exactly was responsible for manipulating the result of the match. As such SLC said they had no choice but to punish players of both the clubs, as they were the only ones charges had been laid against. 

The captains of Panadura and Kalutura, Silva and Manoj Deshapriya, were banned for two years from all cricketing activities, while their teammates each received one-year bans. The decision was somewhat contentious as Silva had not been on the field of play on the third and final day - citing an upset stomach - which was when the unusual scoring had taken place. SLC explained that while this may have been the case it still did not exonerate him from possible involvement. The committee for their part stated that their investigation encompassed all three days of play and not just the final one, as such they deemed Silva’s absence a non-issue.

Shortly after the verdict was first announced several players argued that they were not given a fair shake at defending themselves in front of the inquiry panel which found them guilty. SLC however maintained that all of the players were summoned on numerous occasions to provide testimony both orally and in writing, with only a few taking the opportunity. The committee too questioned as to why the players had not come forward sooner if they had anything of substance to add, but noted that if any evidence were to crop up in the future implicating club officials they would be looked into.