Chamara Silva handed 2-year ban from all cricket-related activities
The two captains, Chamara Silva and Manoj Deshapriya were banned for two years from all cricket-related activities.
Updated - Sep 17, 2017 12:40 pm
Former Sri Lanka international, Chamara Silva has now been served with a 2-year ban. He was found guilty of misconduct during a domestic first-class match, Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) announced Sunday. Silva represented the Lankans in all three formats of international cricket until 2011.
Match-fixing allegations arose after Panadura won with unusual scoring was registered on the third day of the match, but SLC has contradicted the theory. The two clubs were fined half a million rupees ($3,300) each. The match was declared void and the points table has also been adjusted back as well.
SLC decided to cancel the match between Panadura Cricket Club and Kalutara Physical Culture Club, which was set to be played in January this year. The decision was taken in the spirit of the game as the players and officials of both sides were penalized. The two captains, Chamara Silva and Manoj Deshapriya were banned for two years from all cricket-related activities while the other players and managers were barred for one year, SLC disclosed in a statement.
The statement however clarified, “Please note that the two teams have been found guilty of misconduct and not playing to the spirit of the game, and not of match-fixing.”
SLC vice president holds the captains responsible
The two sides scored as many as 587 runs on the final day whereas only 180 were scored over the first two days, prompting an investigation which continued for seven months.
Speaking to ESPNCricInfo, SLC vice-president K Mathivanan said, “[Silva] is the captain-cum-coach [of Panadura] so he’s responsible. For any team the captain is responsible. Whether he made the decision or not, we don’t know that part. But according to the ICC rules – even for slow over-rates – the captain is responsible.”
There has since been speculation that Silva deliberately stayed away from the final day’s play because he knew foul play was afoot. Mathivanan suggested that the board did not buy into that theory.
“How do you know that he didn’t agree [to manipulate the result]? He could have come and given evidence in front of the independent committee [that had made the inquiry into the incident]. He never did,” he stated.