The news of two Stanford Superstars players testing positive for drugs could’ve been handled better, writes Fazeer Mohammed

Fazeer Mohammed19-Sep-2008
In the absence of any clarification from anybody with any authority to give it, it is assumed that Xavier Marshall’s “major breach” is associated with one of the “adverse analytical findings” © Getty Images
Forget the cocoa tea, green tea or coffee this morning. Could we get some clarity instead, please? When there is so much silence, you know that there must be something going on that the authorities would prefer we knew nothing about.Whether it’s the wheelers and dealers of Wall Street deciding which size cardboard box they will need to take their personals with them, PNM politicians strategising after being exposed as a rabble of boldfaced liars last Friday, or the Stanford 20/20 people wondering how they can minimise the impact of a damaging revelation, this is indeed the environment in which spinners come into their own.Now is not the time for pace like fire and yorkers speared directly into leg stump. No sir, you have to take that shiny, incriminating new ball and rub it vigorously on the turf. To hell with the rules, of course, before tossing it to the trusty tweaker, who will toss up a bewildering assortment of googlies, doosras and gazunders (I learnt that one from an Australian journalist. It’s their equivalent of a “rat”, you know, that “goes under” your bat) to divert attention from the burning issue.And the burning issue related to the Stanford Superstars squad, apart from any speculation you may wish to venture into, is one of simple arithmetic. According to a report carried in the Barbados-based , on Wednesday, two members of the Stanford Superstars squad originally selected to face England on November 1 in the US$20 million winner-take-all clash in Antigua failed drug tests.Here’s what Dr Adrian Lorde, chairman of the Caribbean Regional Anti-Doping Organisation (RADO), was quoted as saying:”Caribbean RADO was contracted to do the drug tests for the Stanford Superstars, as we were for the Stanford 20/20. We did drug tests and there were two adverse analytical findings, which is the equivalent to two positive tests. I can’t say who they (the players) are. I received the results myself. They had a number of the sample. That number was passed onto the Stanford management and then they would identify who that cricketer is. I didn’t have the actual name.”Shivnarine Chanderpaul, voted eight days ago as the ICC’s Player of the Year, will join the squad following his commitments with Durham in the English county season. Okay, so all seems well, while the news that Dwayne Bravo has been replaced by Darren Sammy is not surprising, even though the lingering ankle injury which requires surgery is not explained.Isn’t it better, more professional and more mature to just simply say it as it is and deal with the expected fallout than run and hide while all sorts of speculation is swirling around?Is it possible, however, that the mundane matter of confirming Bravo’s injury setback would then necessitate a reason why Xavier Marshall is out and Travis Dowlin is in? Maybe, but in any event, we were given the information dry so and left to stand and wonder.On the same day, though, that the was bussing the mark on the positive tests, the was quoting “reliable sources” in revealing that Marshall’s omission was related to a “major breach” of the Stanford disciplinary code.While it is eminently possible for political and financial spinners to take two and two and make five, cricketing spinners are not blessed with such gifts. Inevitably, and especially in the absence of any clarification from anybody with any authority to give it, it is assumed that Marshall’s “major breach” is associated with one of the “adverse analytical findings”.But that’s one. Dr Lorde said there were two. So, who’s the other?This is certainly the sort of distraction that the Stanford people would want to do without. Yet surely they are to be commended for insisting upon the very highest standards in every respect of their 20/20 programme, never mind who is eliminated for violating the disciplinary code.Whether it is the business of the Stanford organisation, the West Indies Cricket Board or the administrations of the home territories of the two players concerned, this is not about naming and shaming anyone, but being honest and up-front over a matter that will leak out at some time anyway.Isn’t it better, more professional and more mature to just simply say it as it is and deal with the expected fallout than run and hide while all sorts of speculation is swirling around? If they feel they are protecting the players, then they really don’t know this mauvais langue place called the Caribbean. Nobody’s perfect, but the way to properly manage errors, shortcomings or poor judgement is not to pretend that nothing has happened.Compare this situation with the sending home of Australian allrounder Andrew Symonds from the one-day series against Bangladesh in Darwin a couple weeks ago. Within 24 hours of the penalty being imposed on the player for going fishing instead of attending a mandatory team meeting, there was a formal statement from Cricket Australia which followed two days later by comments from the captain Michael Clarke.In other words, there was no leeway for wild speculation. We really need to grow up around here.