LIVE: Aussies inflict early dual attack

Cricket Australia chief executive Nick Hockley has denied David Warner would have been subjected to a “public lynching” during an open review of his leadership ban, which the Australian opener claimed in an explosive statement.

On the eve of the second Test against the West Indies, Warner sensationally withdrew his application to have his Cricket Australia leadership ban overturned for his role in the infamous 2018 Cape Town ball-tampering scandal.

In announcing his decision to pull back on his appeal, Warner took to Instagram with a lengthy explanation.

Warner’s statement has since trigged large-scale criticism of Cricket Australia and the organisation’s decision to outsource an independent panel to decide the appeal.

Speaking with SEN Test Cricket, Hockley said he was “disappointed” that Warner had withdrawn his application but insisted that the appeal – had it gone ahead – would not have revisited the events of Cape Town.

Hockley also rejected Warner’s claims that the process would have become a “public lynching”.

“This was never and this was not re-looking at the events or the decision, this was about looking at the sanction and whether the behaviour since and the remediation and remorse was such that the ban could be modified,” he said.

Hockley claimed that Cricket Australia had asked for the process to occur behind closed doors, but that the independent panel had ultimately recommended select media be invited in.

However, he defended the “best practice” decision to hand control of the process to an independent body.

“I think what’s really important is procedural fairness, and there are some standards from Sports Integrity Australia about a level of independence,” he said.

Asked about James Erskine’s bombshell comments, which alleged Cricket Australia officials encouraged players to tamper with the ball before the third Test at Newlands, Hockley said the comments were “unhelpful”, and would only drive what Warner seemingly wanted to avoid.

“I think those comments are really unhelpful and unfounded comments…” he said.

“I think to open up, if anything has been opened up, then I think that’s totally counter to the objectives of the process and I think is precisely what David was hoping would not happen when he applied for it to be done in private.”