Highlights
- In the year 2018, Steve Smith and David Warner were found guilty in the ball-tampering scandal
- For the penalty to be withdrawn, Warner has to plead his case
- Under current rules, players don't have right to have a sanction reviewed once it has been accepted
Star Australian cricketer David Warner can take up the captaincy duties in the upcoming Big Bash League in December after the country's cricket board called for a review of its code of conduct.
Under the current rules, players do not have the right to have a sanction reviewed once it has been accepted.
However, Warner's life ban on the captaincy may be commuted by Cricket Australia after the review, enabling the cricketer to lead Sydney Thunder in the BBL or Australia in the future.
"Cricket Australia's board met today and among the items discussed was a possible amendment to the code of conduct in respect to long-term sanctions," CA said in a statement on Friday.
- Why was Warner slammed with a ban of lifetime captaincy?
In the year 2018, Steve Smith and David Warner were found guilty in the ball-tampering scandal in South Africa. While former skipper Steve Smith was stripped of the captaincy and banned from leading Australia for two years, Warner was slammed with a lifelong leadership ban.
Warner, Smith, and batter Cameron Bancroft were banned from playing domestic or international cricket as punishment for their roles in the infamous ball-tampering scandal. Warner and Smith had been banned for one year, while Bancroft was suspended for nine months.
Also Read: India may tour Pakistan in 2023 after 15-year-long gap, here's all you need to know
For the penalty to be withdrawn, Warner has to plead his case before the CA's code of conduct commissioner.
"The amendment would allow a person to request a penalty that they had accepted be reviewed after an appropriate period of time.
"Currently the code states that once a charge and penalty are accepted, there is no avenue for review. The onus would be on the applicant to prove they had undergone genuine reform relevant to the offense they were sanctioned for," it read.
"Any review would not revisit the original sanction, other than suspension of a penalty in recognition of genuine reform. The board has requested that the CA head of integrity propose an amendment to the code for consideration.
"It was agreed that should an amendment in respect to long-term sanctions be adopted, any review of a penalty would be heard by an independent code of conduct commission."
(Inputs from PTI)
