Exposure best reaction to misconduct

DAVID HALLETT/The Press

FACING THE MUSIC: Jesse Ryder fronts the media after damaging his hand at a Christchurch bar in February 2008.

Relevant offers

Opinion

Time to get pumped up McKenzie shows Reds the way Thumbs up for new rule, lopsided draw still rankles Fifa rule change boosts All Whites T20's red-nose jollity poses serious questions Outgunned Kiwis will take fight to Ponting's men Why Tiger will be lucky to make the cut Time for a New Zealand franchise to win trophy Augusta haven perfect for Tiger Super 14 TeamTalk

OPINION: New Zealand Cricket could learn a lot from their rugby brethren when it comes to transparency over player misdemeanours.

Rugby used to turn a blind eye to off-field indiscretions and retreated into a laager – often after a lager – at the merest hint of public or media criticism.

But the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) must have taken a Tough Love course. They are now quick to call to account players whose anti-social actions bring the sport into disrepute.

Hearings are held, evidence is heard and transgressors are banned, fined and issued with final warnings. Players are named and shamed yet given support – if they really desire it.

Press statements are issued instantaneously, detailing the charge and the penalties and stressing the NZRU does not condone the behaviour.

Contrast that open approach to the opaque stance adopted by New Zealand Cricket (NZC).

We learned only this week – two months after the event – that beleaguered batsman Jesse Ryder was fined for abusing Black Caps manager Dave Currie in the changing rooms in South Africa at the Champions Trophy tournament in September.

Apparently, Currie had the temerity to approach the injured Ryder soon after the player smashed a chair near the boundary rope after his dismissal against Sri Lanka.

Seasoned cricket observers would argue Currie should have given Ryder, who had bravely battled on with a groin strain, more time and space to get over his disappointment.

But Currie had every right to talk to Ryder, both about treatment for his injury and about his boorish chairy behaviour.

Currie, clearly a forgiving chap, certainly didn't deserve the volley of abuse he copped.

But we all speak out of line sometimes and have a need to apologise.

Having brokered a peace deal, why then did NZC suppress details of Ryder's fine? Did they really think that word wouldn't leak out?

Then, we discovered the NZC censors had hushed up an earlier incident in August when Neil Broom and Aaron Redmond were fined after a late-night drinking session on a New Zealand A tour in India.

The pair, who had flouted a curfew, began giving away cash at a public ATM in Chennai, inadvertently sparking a riot.

Now, any professional sportsperson selfless enough to give away his own money should generally be applauded.

But there was obviously more to this incident than altruistic concern for India's impoverished street people. Or were they simply auditioning for a Slumdog Millionaire sequel?

As sporting "scandals" go, it barely rates on the Richter scale of young men behaving badly. But NZC should have simply released a statement saying they had censured the pair at the time of the transgression.

It beggared belief to read this week NZC chief executive Justin Vaughan claiming it was appropriate to keep the incidents in-house because they were "private and between the employer and employee".

Sorry, Justin. Once a player is paid, he becomes public property. Any action in a public place, while representing New Zealand, is open to public scrutiny.

NZC could lower the drawbridge if Ryder had clobbered a chair in the sanctity of the dressing room. But he took out his frustrations in the public arena.

It was also dismaying to read of Vaughan's reaction this week to neighbours' complaints of loud, drunken, late-night parties at Ryder's Lower Hutt home.

"If it was a serious criminal matter there may be some implications but I don't really want to comment on it," Vaughan said. "Jesse's had enough airplay of late."

One could excuse Vaughan for feeling exasperated. But I'm sure the public would have preferred to hear him say something like this: "We're aware of the problem and we've spoken sternly to Jesse about it and reminded him of his duty to be a good citizen and an ambassador for New Zealand cricket."

Like it or not, pro-players are perceived as role models.

Ryder's alcohol issues have been well documented. If recent reports are to believed, 700,000 New Zealanders are "problem" drinkers.

So it doesn't behove some of us dwelling in glasshouses to start biffing stones.

NZC deserves credit for offering Ryder counselling and support. But a final line has to be drawn somewhere.

For a textbook example of how to handle a thorny issue, they need only turn to the NZRU's case of All Blacks halfback Jimmy Cowan, whose alcohol-induced behaviour landed him in court twice last year.

Cowan was told he was on his last strike – offend again and he would lose his test jersey and his NZRU contract.

The Southlander responded by facing up to his problem and cleaning up his act. His reward: the Highlanders' captaincy and a stranglehold on the All Blacks' No9 jersey.

The NZRU seems to have learned (the hard way, perhaps) that there comes a time when a player has to face the full consequences of his actions and that might include a public outing.