ICC bans Devon Thomas for five years under Anti-Corruption Code

West Indian cricketer Devon Thomas, aged 34, has been handed a significant five-year ban from all cricket activities, as announced by the International Cricket Council (ICC) on Thursday. Thomas’s ban stems from his admission of breaching seven counts of the anti-corruption codes of various cricketing bodies, including Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC), the Emirates Cricket Board (ECB), and the Caribbean Premier League (CPL).

Details of Anti-Corruption Breaches

Thomas’s breaches of anti-corruption regulations span across multiple leagues, indicating a systematic violation of cricketing integrity. The specific nature of these breaches has not been disclosed, but they are serious enough to warrant a substantial ban.

See Also: Mark Waugh misses Jake Fraser-McGurk in T20 WC; Here’s why

Devon Thomas’s Cricket Career

With an international debut in 2009, Thomas has represented the West Indies in various formats, including Tests, ODIs, and T20Is. However, his career trajectory has been marred by the recent revelation of his involvement in anti-corruption violations.

Statement from ICC General Manager – Integrity Unit

Alex Marshall, the ICC General Manager overseeing integrity matters, emphasized the significance of Thomas’s ban in maintaining the integrity of cricket. Marshall’s statement underscores the ICC’s firm stance against corruption in the sport and serves as a warning to players and potential corruptors alike.

Alex Marshall, the ICC General Manager – Integrity Unit, said: “Having played both international and professional domestic/franchise cricket, Devon attended numerous anti-corruption education sessions. He therefore knew what his obligations were under the Anti-Corruption Codes but failed to meet these obligations across three different franchise leagues.

“This ban is apt and should send a strong message to players and corrupters that attempts to corrupt our sport will be dealt with firmly.”

Suspension and Backdating of the Ban

The ICC has opted to suspend the last 18 months of Thomas’s ban, a decision likely influenced by his cooperation during the investigation process. Despite this leniency, the ban sends a clear message that breaches of anti-corruption protocols will not be tolerated.

Thomas was guilty of breaching the following codes: 

Article 2.1.1 of the SLC Code – contriving or being party to an agreement to fix or attempt to fix, contrive or influence improperly the result, progress, conduct or other aspects of matches in the Lanka Premier League 2021.

Article 2.4.4 of the SLC Code – failing to disclose to the Designated Anti-Corruption Official, without unnecessary delay, full details of an approach or invitations received to engage in Corrupt Conduct in the Lanka Premier League 2021.

Article 2.4.6 of the SLC Code – failing or refusing, without compelling justification, to cooperate with the Designated Anti-Corruption Official’s investigation by failing to provide accurately and completely any information and/or documentation requested by the Designated Anti-Corruption Official.

Article 2.4.7 of the SLC Code – obstructing or delaying the Designated Anti-Corruption Official’s investigation into Corrupt Conduct, including (without limitation) concealing, tampering with or destroying any documentation or other information that may be relevant to that investigation and/or that may be evidence of or may lead to the discovery of evidence of Corrupt Conduct.

Article 2.4.4 of the ECB Code – failing to disclose to the Designated Anti-Corruption Official, without unnecessary delay, full details of an approach or invitations received to engage in Corrupt Conduct at the Abu Dhabi T10 2021.

Article 2.4.4 of the CPL Code – failing to disclose to the Designated Anti-Corruption Official, without unnecessary delay, full details of an approach or invitations received to engage in Corrupt Conduct in relation to the CPL 2021.

Article 2.4.2 of the CPL Code – failing to disclose to the Designated Anti-Corruption Official (without unnecessary delay) the receipt of any gift, payment, hospitality or benefit (a) that he knew or should have known was made in order to procure a breach of the CPL Code, or (b) could have brought the player or the game of cricket into disrepute.