By Sandaru Munasinghe
Sri Lankan spinner Praveen Jayawickrama has been banned for one year, with six months suspended, after admitting to breaching the ICC Anti-Corruption Code. Although Jayawickrama did not engage in any corrupt activities, his failure to report an approach by a friend attempting to fix matches during the Lanka Premier League and his subsequent deletion of incriminating messages resulted in the ban.
Jayawickrama’s case is one that serves as a stark reminder of the obligations cricketers face under anti-corruption rules. The young cricketer, who had a promising future ahead of him after his international debut in 2021, was approached by an old friend, known as Mr. X.
This individual, heavily involved in cricket betting, saw Jayawickrama as a way to reach Player A, a fellow Sri Lankan player. Mr. X offered Jayawickrama a sum of 50 lakh Sri Lankan Rupees to convince Player A to fix matches. Despite the lucrative offer, Jayawickrama refused to participate in the scheme.
While Jayawickrama rejected the corrupt proposal and did not involve himself in any match-fixing, he made a critical error. Rather than reporting the approach to the Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) as required by the ICC Anti-Corruption Code, he chose to remain silent. Worse, after being contacted by Mr. X a second time and urged to delete the messages, Jayawickrama complied, removing the messages from his phone
According to the ICC’s report, Jayawickrama’s involvement began when Mr. X reached out, attempting to recruit him to speak to Player A. Mr. X was offering large sums of money to set up fixes during the 2021 Lanka Premier League, and Jayawickrama was expected to act as the intermediary. Jayawickrama, loyal to the integrity of the sport, refused to speak to Player A on behalf of Mr. X and suggested that his friend approach Player A directly.
However, it was here that Jayawickrama’s trouble began. Though he turned down the approach, he did share Player A’s phone number with Mr. X. Even more concerning, he failed to report the approach to the ACU immediately, as he had been taught in anti-corruption workshops. This oversight became the focal point of the ICC’s case against him. Later, after authorities began investigating Mr. X, Jayawickrama was instructed by his friend to delete the messages between them, and he complied without hesitation.
In his defense, Jayawickrama cited his lack of experience and understanding. At the time, he had only recently made his debut in domestic cricket and had attended only one anti-corruption training, conducted in English. His limited comprehension of the language contributed to his failure to fully grasp the significance of reporting the incident.
The ICC considered several mitigating factors when determining the length of Jayawickrama’s ban. These included his youth and inexperience, the fact that he had no prior disciplinary issues, and the recognition that he had not participated in any match-fixing activities. His full cooperation with the investigation and prompt admission to deleting the messages also played a role in reducing his sentence.
Despite these factors, the ICC stressed the importance of players adhering to anti-corruption rules. The failure to report such approaches and the act of deleting evidence was seen as a serious breach, even in cases where the player does not ultimately engage in corruption.
This decision underlines the ICC’s firm stance on anti-corruption efforts. The sport’s governing body emphasized that players must act with transparency and integrity, reporting all corrupt approaches without delay. Jayawickrama’s case demonstrates that even inaction or passive involvement in such situations can result in significant sanctions.
While Jayawickrama’s cricketing future remains uncertain, his case serves as a valuable lesson for cricketers worldwide.
Upholding the integrity of the sport is paramount, and every player, no matter how young or inexperienced, must take responsibility for safeguarding the game. (Newswire)