Sandpaper gate: Why should we believe Steve Smith?

Steve SmitWhat's the plural of ball-tampering? Sticking the implement you use to tamper with the cricket ball in your jocks. If Cameron Bancroft is a serial offender, does he put sugar in his cereal or in his pocket?

Ok so let's get the limp and tawdry jokes out of the way before we can address the biggest crisis to hit cricket since David Warner had to be restrained from thumping Quinton de Kock. A lot can happen in two weeks and Cricket Australia now have the biggest test of their integrity since Steve Smith's "brain fade" in India last year. The jokes and cheap shots are inevitable as Australia woke up to a day of shame and soul-searching, the rest of the world delighting in occupying the moral high ground that has been ceded forever by the 'leadership group' of the baggy green club. If there's one thing Australian cricket does exceedingly well, it's hypocrisy. If there's one thing they do exceedingly poorly, it's convincing the neutrals to support them. And for the first time in my living memory, they've lost more than their dignity - they've lost the respect and love of the locals too.

If it wasn't so serious, it would be akin to a game of Cluedo except that these guys should be called Clueless. So let's look at each of the characters and suspects in this sorry saga.

The Captain: He's already used up his 'get out of jail' card with the "brain fade" excuse in Bangalore. This incident has now lowered his leadership credentials to an untenable low. If Cricket Australia have their finger on the pulse of the nation, they will have no choice but to sack him as captain. The stress of the job has clearly made him delusional if he thinks that he is still the best man for the job. What does that say about the lack of leadership talent in the rest of the squad if he still thinks there is no one better than him to captain Australia?

Smith's word can no longer be taken at face value. He will need to earn that trust back over many years. Possibly never. Why should we believe him when he says that it was the first and last time it ever happened? When you admit to cheating, you cede the right to being believed. How do we know that the reverse swing collapse in the first innings was not due to nefarious cheating? How do we know whether the brilliant bowling performance in Durban wasn't tainted by similar sharp practice? When you finally 'fess' up to being caught with your hand in the cookie jar, you relinquish the automatic right to being believed. It's a sad fact of life.

It wasn't so long ago when he said "I'm embarrassed to be sitting here". Smithy, if these allegations are true, that you were the architect of this disaster, the nation joins you in feeling embarrassed.

His press conference in Cape Town was a train smash. He expects us to believe that even if they hadn't been caught, he would still have felt "incredibly bad". Seriously? Let's get this straight - this admission of guilt was no Road to Damascus moment where their guilty consciences ate away at them until they simply had to unburden themselves of the guilt. They did not confess. They were caught red-handed (well, yellow-handed actually in this case which is coincidentally the colour associated with cowardice). They had an opportunity to tell the truth when the on-field umpires first approached Bancroft for an explanation and they deliberately chose to lie. They chose to pretend that there was nothing in his pocket except the black cloth. And that's because they were unaware that there was already incriminating footage of Bancroft trying to hide the evidence in his underpants. Let's not kid ourselves here - if there was no damning video evidence, are we seriously expected to believe that they would have owned up? Three hours later, when they realised with sinking hearts that the footage was utterly uncompromising, they fronted the media. This was not a confession. This was a dead-end street with no way out.

Clearly Smith was in no mood to take all the blame himself. His reference to the leadership group was stunning. By virtue of that admission, he has effectively ruled them out of being serious captaincy alternatives for when he inevitably exits the role, even temporarily. I have a theory about this; I reckon Smith feels that he was somehow talked into this decision to cheat by some of his mates and instead of taking all the bullets himself, he has chosen to take down a few of them in the process.

Otherwise, he could have easily copped the brunt of the blame (along with Bancroft) and provided an easy escape route for his co-conspirators. But by dropping them in it, he has drawn a line in the sand. I'm not going down with this ship on my own - I'm taking a few of you with me. How else can we make sense of his extraordinary statement? It is so very un-Australian to dob on your mates, especially if it is revealed that it wasn't the entire group but just Smith and Warner. "I'm not naming names" but it was the leadership group that did it Your Honour. That statement alone will damage him irretrievably within the team. There was nothing noble about his comments. He was clearly not prepared to wear 100% of the blame so by referencing the other culprits, he seemingly wants to ensure that history doesn't just remember him as the sole villain of this tragic soap opera. If it is confirmed that it was not the entire group per se, the betrayal of the innocent will be terminal to his reputation within the team. From a team harmony perspective alone, Smith is finished in this role for now. Warner and Smith will never be trusted again, For a nation that prides itself on notions of mateship in the Anzac tradition, a betrayal of this nature will be seen as unforgivable.

Tomorrow: The coach

Also Read: Australia skipper Steven Smith fined, suspended for ball tampering

Catch up on all the latest sports news and updates here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates