Supportive letters put Sparc on dodgy ground

OPINION: Sparc's involvement in the long-running "matchfixing" bowls dispute makes an unsatisfactory situation even murkier, writes Joseph Romanos this week.

Four New Zealand bowlers, Gary Lawson, Jamie Hill, Shannon McIllroy and Shayne Sincock, have been found to have deliberately lost a match against Thailand during the Asia-Pacific Games in Malaysia last August. The term "matchfixing" has been used, though no-one has suggested there was betting on the outcome or that money changed hands, which it implies. There was evidence only that they tried to lose one end against Thailand, yet they have been found guilty of trying to lose the entire match.

Feelings have run high about the decision, reached by an "independent" panel, and everyone is waiting to see the penalty imposed. Astoundingly, some bowls officials are said to be seeking a life ban. Bowls New Zealand chief Kerry Clark has been accused of running a personal vendetta against Lawson in particular.

Now Sparc has waded into the fray. In letters released by Clark, Sparc's high performance boss Martin Toomey says chief executive Peter Miskimmin "would want you to know that Sparc stands firmly behind you personally and Bowls New Zealand. "Keep your chin up and remember you are a better person than those taking the cheap shots."

If the accused bowlers decide to take the matter further, one recourse would be the New Zealand Sports Disputes Tribunal, set up by Sparc in 2003 and still closely linked to Sparc. Would the bowlers now feel they would get a fair hearing from that quarter?

It is questionable how "independent" the three-strong judicial panel was that heard the case. Two are closely linked to bowls, one to high-level bowls administration.

Why did not Bowls New Zealand deal immediately with the complaints that arose after the match in Malaysia? An official reprimand would have been sufficient. To spend $40,000 (and counting) on legal action has been a nonsense. What the bowlers did was neither extraordinary nor particularly bad.

In bowls tournaments all around the world players throw matches (not just single ends) to give themselves a better chance of winning the event. They might eliminate certain opposition, or earn a better draw in post-section play. Bowlers know this, which is why leading New Zealand bowlers, including the much-lauded Rowan Brassey, have defended the accused four.

Among other letters Clark released this week were supportive notes from Barry Maister and Mike Stanley, secretary-general and chairman of the New Zealand Olympic Committee.

How will Maister and Stanley feel if Valerie Vili has one only throw in shot put qualifying at the Commonwealth Games in Delhi this year, and qualifies second?

Will they say she should have made every endeavour to win the qualifying event, or will they stress her focus is on winning the final (as it was with the bowlers in Malaysia)? Maister and Stanley have entered dangerous territory.

Usain Bolt and Michael Phelps don't try to win all their heats. Yet no-one accuses them of not trying, or matchfixing.

Many New Zealand cricket followers praised Stephen Fleming's decision during the 2001 one-day tournament in Australia to eliminate Australia from the competition by staging a go-slow against South Africa. It was within the rules, so it was okay.

So it was with the bowlers in Malaysia. If bowls officials don't like what happened, they should change the rules so it can't.

» Veteran Wellington-based journalist Joseph Romanos is one of New Zealand's longest-serving sports scribes.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First