Global cricket industry executives are evenly divided over whether Cricket Australia should reopen its investigation into the 2018 Sandpapergate scandal following revelations by former Australia opener Usman Khawaja, according to the latest cricexec poll.
Asked “Should Cricket Australia reopen its 2018 Sandpapergate investigation following Usman Khawaja’s revelations?”, exactly 50% of respondents voted Yes, while 50% voted No.
The result reflects the competing considerations facing Australian cricket eight years after Cameron Bancroft was caught attempting to alter the condition of the ball with sandpaper during the third Test against South Africa in Cape Town.
On one side are calls for an independent examination of Khawaja’s allegations, including questions about the scope of Cricket Australia’s original investigation and whether responsibility for the scandal extended beyond the three players sanctioned.
On the other is Cricket Australia’s insistence that its findings remain sound, alongside concerns that revisiting the controversy could prolong reputational damage and distract a national team that has spent years rebuilding its culture.
The debate has intensified following the publication of Khawaja’s autobiography, Sabr, David Warner’s public endorsement of his former teammate’s account and demands for a fresh inquiry from prominent figures, including former Australia Captain Michael Clarke and Peter Collins, who participated in an independent review of Australian cricket’s culture after the scandal.
Cricket Australia Chief Executive Todd Greenberg has rejected calls to reopen the investigation.
The 50–50 result reveals no majority on either side, underscoring the competing arguments over whether another investigation would deliver the accountability being sought or simply reopen a damaging chapter in Australian cricket’s history.
Why Usman Khawaja’s revelations have reignited Sandpapergate
The original Sandpapergate investigation resulted in 12-month suspensions for then-Captain Steve Smith and Vice-Captain David Warner, while Bancroft received a nine-month ban.
Smith was found to have known about the plan without preventing it, while Warner was identified as a central figure in its development.
Khawaja has challenged the concentration of responsibility on those three players, arguing that the wider Australian touring party should have accepted collective accountability.
Speaking to The Sydney Morning Herald, he said:
“It was all of us. Not the batters, not the bowlers, not the staff. All of us.”
Khawaja also described his efforts to persuade teammates to respond collectively after the scandal emerged.
“Even in the change rooms when I was talking to them after the game. I said, ‘Take this as a team’. We did this as a team. We knew what was going on, and we have to take it as a team, and so I was always of that stance. Obviously, it didn’t work that way, and those three guys got crucified. I’ve seen Davey over the last eight years just get nailed bad over and over again, and it’s taken a big man not to say anything and just to stay quiet. And he’s just copped it and he’s copped it and he’s copped it.”
However, Khawaja subsequently clarified that his argument for collective responsibility did not mean every individual had personally participated in the same conduct.
In an Instagram video addressing the controversy, he explained:
“You would have seen when I mentioned it was all of us, that’s implying that whether we like it or not, we are all responsible for what happened together. As a team, we need to take that collectively. That is all. But now that everyone’s talking, am I going to deny that everyone knew? Nah, I won’t deny that, either. But I never speak on behalf of anyone else in my book, contrary to what the headlines in clickbait media would have you think.”
The distinction is significant because Khawaja’s account raises separate questions about individual knowledge, participation and collective responsibility.
His autobiography also alleges that sandpaper was used during the preceding Test in Port Elizabeth, before the Cape Town incident.
He describes discussions about generating reverse swing and alleges that an unidentified member of the coaching staff encouraged Bancroft during the Newlands Test.
Those allegations have not been established by a fresh investigation, and several individuals associated with the touring party have disputed aspects of Khawaja’s account.
Nevertheless, the revelations have brought renewed attention to whether Cricket Australia’s original inquiry established the full circumstances surrounding the scandal.
Khawaja and David Warner question the original Cricket Australia investigation
A central argument for reopening the investigation concerns Khawaja’s claim that he was never interviewed by Cricket Australia’s investigators despite sitting beside Bancroft in the dressing room during the Cape Town Test.
Speaking to _The Sydney Morning Herald_, Khawaja said:
“I was sitting next to Cam Bancroft that whole Test match, and I didn’t get interviewed. I thoroughly feel that I didn’t get interviewed because of that, because they knew that I wanted to take it as a team, because they knew I was ready to tell the truth if I was interviewed. And I was waiting for my phone to ring. It just never rang, and then the penalties were given, and I couldn’t believe it.”
Warner, who received one of the original suspensions, has publicly endorsed Khawaja’s account.
In an Instagram video, Warner said:
“It’s been eight years since I’ve spoken on this topic. And Uzzy, I throw my full support behind you. I thank you for what you’ve done.”
He added:
“It’s 100 per cent accurate what you’ve said. Now everyone knows the truth. It’s out there.”
Warner also questioned the scope and speed of Cricket Australia’s investigation.
“Now this whole interview process was rushed… Uzzy was not interviewed. How is that a thorough investigation? It baffles me.”
He framed the issue around the conduct of the investigation rather than a demand for further individual punishment.
“We’re not here to point fingers, and we’re not opening old wounds. It’s about accountability, transparency, ensuring that the truth is properly examined.”
Warner continued:
“And perhaps it’s time people stop scrutinising the person asking for accountability, and start asking those responsible for the investigation to provide it.”
The original integrity investigation was completed over two days between the third and fourth Tests in South Africa.
A separate review of Australian cricket’s culture subsequently continued for several months, concluding in October 2018.
The distinction between those processes has become important as the debate shifts from the original disciplinary sanctions to whether all potentially relevant evidence was examined.
Former Cricket Australia reviewer Peter Collins demands an independent inquiry
Peter Collins, who worked alongside former Australia Test opener Rick McCosker on an independent review of the national team’s culture following Sandpapergate, has called for another investigation.
Speaking to Nine, Collins said:
“We need to have a further investigation.”
He identified Khawaja’s account and the notes the former opener says he made during the 2018 tour as evidence requiring examination.
“Khawaja needs to be interviewed, and his contemporaneous notes need to be reviewed.”
Collins has argued that Cricket Australia cannot resolve the dispute simply by maintaining its original position.
“Cricket Australia cannot just hope it all goes away. Failing to investigate won’t resolve the issue.”
His concerns also extend to the reputations of players whose conduct continues to be questioned despite their denials.
“The tragedy for me is Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood, Nathan Lyon and Smith are all great players, and this very different version of events provided by Khawaja and backed by Warner shouldn’t be allowed by Cricket Australia to hang over their heads.”
Collins believes any further inquiry should be conducted independently rather than through another internal Cricket Australia process.
“It can’t be an internal Cricket Australia investigation … It’s got to be independent people who come in and say, ‘Just tell us what happened and let’s get to the truth of the matter’. Then we can all move on.”
He has suggested examining the creation and revision history of Khawaja’s notes, together with drafts provided to his publisher, to assess the evidence supporting the former opener’s recollections.
Collins’ intervention gives the argument for reopening the investigation a distinct governance dimension.
Rather than simply calling for the original sanctions to be reconsidered, his proposal would subject the competing accounts to independent scrutiny and provide those whose reputations are affected with an opportunity to respond.
Simon Longstaff, who led the separate cultural review conducted by The Ethics Centre in 2018, has also raised questions about the completeness of the information available at the time.
Writing in the _Australian Financial Review_, Longstaff explained that his review was not authorised to investigate the ball-tampering incident itself because Cricket Australia had already completed that process.
He wrote:
“I am bound by ongoing duties of confidentiality not to name the people with whom I subsequently spoke. All I can say is that if what Khawaja alleges turns out to be true, then I was also lied to. In the face of explicit denials that there was anything more to be said on the matter, we were left with “whispers” … and nothing more.”
His comments reinforce the distinction between examining Australian cricket’s wider culture and investigating the specific events that led to the Sandpapergate sanctions.
Cricket Australia CEO Todd Greenberg rejects calls to reopen Sandpapergate
Despite the renewed scrutiny, Cricket Australia has maintained confidence in its original integrity process.
Speaking to SEN, Chief Executive Todd Greenberg said:
“We don’t see any compelling reason to open the investigation or revisit this again.”
He added:
“We have said we’re comfortable with the outcome of the investigation based on the information we’ve received. That includes what we’ve seen from Usman. Our position hasn’t changed on that.”
Greenberg has also highlighted inconsistencies between Khawaja’s allegations and the accounts of other individuals associated with the scandal.
“When you cut to the core of the challenge that we face here, Usman’s version of events is inconsistent with what others have had to say.”
Cricket Australia has issued a formal statement defending its handling of information presented since 2018.
“There has been a great deal of speculation in the eight years since the 2018 Cape Town Test, including extensive media coverage throughout last month’s series in South Africa. During this time there has been the ongoing opportunity to present any relevant information, and this remains the case. All relevant information presented to CA to date has been properly considered and we remain comfortable with the findings of our integrity process.”
The governing body’s position distinguishes between remaining open to relevant information and launching an entirely new investigation.
That distinction is relevant to the 50% of poll respondents who oppose reopening the inquiry, although the poll did not establish their individual reasons for voting No.
Cricket Australia’s leadership is effectively arguing that the information available does not justify revisiting a completed process whose findings it continues to support.
Australia’s bowlers and former coaches dispute aspects of Khawaja’s account
One of the principal difficulties surrounding a potential new investigation is the disagreement between individuals who were part of Australia’s 2018 touring party.
In 2021, Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon issued a joint statement denying prior knowledge that a foreign substance had been taken onto the field to alter the ball.
Their statement followed comments by Bancroft suggesting that awareness among the bowlers was self-evident.
The four bowlers said:
“We feel compelled to put the key facts on the record again. We did not know a foreign substance was taken on to the field to alter the condition of the ball until we saw the images on the big screen at Newlands. And to those who, despite the absence of evidence, insist that ‘we must have known’ about the use of a foreign substance simply because we are bowlers, we say this: The umpires during that Test match, Nigel Llong and Richard Illingworth, both very respected and experienced umpires, inspected the ball after the images surfaced on the TV coverage and did not change it because there was no sign of damage. We respectfully request an end to the rumour-mongering and innuendo. It has gone on too long and it is time to move on.”
Starc has maintained that position following Khawaja’s latest revelations.
Speaking to reporters in Sydney, he said:
“I won’t speak on behalf of the bowlers but from where I stand my opinion hasn’t changed, my recollection hasn’t changed from what we said in 2021.”
He added:
“We weren’t aware of anything taken on the field to be tampered with. We saw it on the big screen in Cape Town.”
Former Australia Head Coach Darren Lehmann has also disputed suggestions that everyone in the touring party knew about the use of sandpaper.
Speaking on ABC Sport’s _Summer Grandstand_, Lehmann said:
“I don’t think everyone would have known \[about the use of sandpaper\].”
Lehmann has denied knowing about the alleged sandpaper discussions in Port Elizabeth and the conversation involving an unidentified coach described in Khawaja’s autobiography, later reported to have been David Saker.
Former Australia Batting Coach Graeme Hick has similarly rejected the suggestion that the entire support staff knew about the activity.
Speaking to _The Sydney Morning Herald_, Hick said:
“Khawaja puts it simply: ‘It was all of us. Not the batters, not the bowlers, not the staff. All of us’. To me, what Khawaja is implying here is absolutely false.”
These denials remain important to any consideration of whether the investigation should be reopened.
Khawaja’s argument about collective accountability does not itself establish that particular players or coaches knew about Bancroft taking sandpaper onto the field.
Equally, the existence of conflicting accounts is among the reasons those calling for another inquiry believe further scrutiny is necessary.
Pat Cummins rejects Khawaja’s Sandpapergate allegations as ‘utter nonsense’
Australia Test Captain Pat Cummins delivered his strongest public response to Khawaja’s allegations at a press conference in Sydney on November 13, explicitly denying any involvement in planning the use of sandpaper during the 2018 South Africa tour.
According to Reuters, Cummins rejected both the suggestion that he knew sandpaper was being taken onto the field and the more serious allegation that he had helped devise the scheme.
“When he says we all knew, if by that he means that we knew sandpaper was going out in the field, he’s 100% wrong. I’ve said that consistently for the last eight years,” Cummins told reporters.
“I did not know that was happening, but I think Usman actually says things that are actually far more serious than that.
“He says that I and others were architects of a scheme to ball tamper with sandpaper. That’s complete and utter nonsense.”
Cummins also challenged Khawaja’s account of his own conduct during the scandal, expressing surprise at the former opener’s admission that he had warned Bancroft to be careful while using sandpaper.
“I was genuinely shocked this week when I found out that Usman admitted that he told Cam to be careful when using sandpaper, that’s not the Usman that I know,” Cummins said.
“It’s not the Usman that has been part of a team, has helped rebuild the Australian cricket culture over the last eight years.”
Although Cummins acknowledged Khawaja’s right to tell his story, he said the allegations had serious implications for the reputations of those involved.
“Usman’s a friend, but friends aren’t casual with each other’s lives and reputations.
“In his book, Ussie has been casual with my life and the lives of many others, and I think Australian cricket.”
Cummins also disputed Khawaja’s recollection that two players had opposed his proposal for the touring party to accept collective responsibility for the scandal.
“I don’t remember any conversation around collective responsibility,” he said.
“So then, I’ve got no idea who those two people would be because I don’t remember ever being asked or having a conversation about it.”
Despite the seriousness of the allegations, Cummins said he would not pursue legal action against his former teammate.
“I did get advised this week that some of the things that’ve been said are probably defamatory, but I won’t be doing that,” he said.
“You’ve got to move on. It’s been eight years. We’re moving on. So you got to draw a line at some point.”
Cummins’ intervention adds a direct and detailed rebuttal to Khawaja’s account from one of the players whose knowledge and conduct have come under renewed scrutiny. It also reinforces the competing positions at the centre of the debate: Khawaja and Warner have questioned the completeness of the original investigation, while Cummins maintains that the allegations concerning his involvement are false.
Michael Clarke demands answers as Australian cricket figures disagree
Former Australia Captain Michael Clarke has been among the most outspoken advocates of reopening the investigation.
Before Cummins’ November 13 press conference, Clarke had criticised the Australia Test Captain for not publicly addressing the renewed allegations. Cummins has since responded with a detailed denial of Khawaja’s claims, as outlined above.
Speaking to 2DayFM, Clarke said:
“\[Australia fans\] can’t trust what’s real. They don’t know the truth until this gets reopened and the truth comes out. I would just like to see whatever the truth is for it all to come out, allow people to move on.”
Clarke had also questioned the absence of a response from Cummins, who was part of the 2018 touring party.
“I can’t believe we haven’t heard from Cummins yet. Steve Smith lost his job. If this doesn’t happen, Tim Paine never captains Australia. And neither does Cummins.”
Former England Captain Nasser Hussain has criticised the original investigation, particularly the failure to interview Khawaja.
Speaking on the Sky Sports Cricket Podcast, Hussain said:
“Then to lie about it after and for Cricket Australia not to speak to every player, not to speak to Khawaja who was sitting next to Bancroft. It just feels like a right mess.”
Former England Captain Michael Atherton has also questioned the original disciplinary response.
“They handed down unbelievably heavy sanctions – I thought hard-to-justify sanctions – and left three players to take the rap. But it left questions unanswered, left the door open for it to come back to haunt them, which it is doing now.”
Former England cricketer and match referee Chris Broad has raised questions about Lehmann’s accountability as Head Coach.
Speaking on Track Radio, Broad said:
“Darren Lehmann surely knew all about it.”
He continued:
“And if he did not, he should not have been the coach at the time. I think he has got away lightly OK, he left his job a few months later, but he did not get any sanctions.”
Warner subsequently responded to Broad’s comments on X:
“I could not agree more, and that’s hard for me to say!”
Lehmann has consistently denied prior knowledge of the sandpaper operation, and Cricket Australia’s investigation did not establish wrongdoing by him.
The differing interventions demonstrate how the controversy has expanded beyond the three sanctioned players to questions about the responsibilities of team management and the governing body itself.
Why some prominent figures believe Australian cricket should move on
The case against reopening the investigation is not limited to Cricket Australia’s official position.
Several prominent figures have questioned whether further examination of the scandal would benefit the current Australian team or bring the matter to a definitive conclusion.
Former Australia Captain Mark Taylor has warned about the potential disruption caused by repeatedly revisiting the controversy.
Speaking on Nine’s _Wide World of Sports_, Taylor said:
“I’m disappointed we’re going to keep asking it again and again; it’s going to be a nightmare for Pat Cummins and the team leading into the summer of cricket.”
Former Australia women’s Captain Alyssa Healy has also expressed support for Greenberg’s decision.
Speaking at a Kayo Sports and Fox Cricket launch event, Healy said:
“I watched it eight years ago too. I think the game of cricket as a whole has moved on. Todd Greenberg’s statement about not looking into it any further is a great sign of where we’re headed, and that’s moving forward and looking ahead to this summer.”
Cummins has previously emphasised the changes Australian cricket has undergone since the scandal.
Speaking ahead of Australia’s South Africa series, he said:
“Tell your story. It’s fine. It’s obviously a long time ago and all the investigations, everything was done back then and we answered every question a million times. It was dealt with then and all I can say is that as a group, we have moved on and we are very happy with the last eight to nine years how we have been as a group and evolved and obviously my focus is on captaining the cricket team.”
The Australian Cricketers’ Association (ACA) has also urged greater consideration of the personal consequences for those involved.
In a statement published on Instagram, ACA Chief Executive Officer Paul Marsh said:
“Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft paid an enormous price for what happened. One that was greater than and, as the ACA said at the time, disproportionate to any precedent in the game.”
The association acknowledged that individuals may have different recollections of the events while emphasising the importance of protecting players and their families from further hostility.
“Eight years on, it is understandable that those involved may have different recollections and perspectives of what took place. Players and staff at the heart of the issue are entitled to share their experiences, just as others are entitled to put such a challenging period in their life behind them.”
Marsh added:
“There are no winners in this issue, and nothing can undo what happened. But we must recognise that there are humans in the centre of this and we will be calling for the ongoing vitriol directed at those involved to come to an end. The price paid, both professionally and personally, has already been too great.”
The ACA’s position introduces an important consideration beyond the procedural arguments surrounding the investigation.
Whatever decision Cricket Australia makes, the reputational and personal consequences for players and former staff remain substantial.
Sandpapergate debate raises wider questions about cricket governance and accountability
The renewed controversy has also brought attention to the broader environment in which ball tampering occurred.
Former Australia spinner Stuart MacGill has admitted using sandpaper to alter cricket balls during his own playing career, describing techniques he employed long before the 2018 scandal.
Speaking on the FanaticsTV YouTube show, MacGill said:
“I’d cut a small piece of sandpaper and tape it to my thumb.”
His admission provides historical context for the discussion about ball manipulation but does not establish what Australia’s players or coaches knew during the 2018 South Africa tour.
The governance debate is more directly concerned with how sporting organisations respond when new allegations challenge the conclusions of an earlier investigation.
For those supporting another inquiry, the question is whether Cricket Australia can maintain confidence in the original findings without independently testing the additional accounts and evidence identified by Khawaja.
For those opposing reopening, the issue is whether another investigation would produce sufficiently reliable new findings to justify the disruption, expense and further public scrutiny.
There is also an important distinction between an investigation intended to establish additional individual wrongdoing and one designed to assess whether the original process was sufficiently comprehensive.
Collins’ proposal for an independent examination of Khawaja’s notes and the conflicting accounts illustrates the latter approach.
Cricket Australia, however, maintains that relevant information has already been properly considered and that its original findings remain sound.
Neither position removes the need to distinguish allegations from established facts or to respect the denials of individuals whose conduct has been questioned.
cricexec poll: 50% back reopening Sandpapergate investigation, 50% oppose
The cricexec poll reveals a precise division among surveyed global cricket industry executives over whether Cricket Australia should revisit its investigation into the 2018 Sandpapergate scandal.
With 50% voting Yes and 50% voting No, neither position commands a majority, illustrating the absence of a clear industry consensus on how the governing body should respond to Khawaja’s revelations.
Importantly, the poll did not ask respondents whether Khawaja’s allegations were true, whether additional individuals should be sanctioned or whether the original investigation deliberately overlooked evidence.
It asked whether the investigation should be reopened following his revelations.
That distinction is fundamental to interpreting the result.
Khawaja has questioned the original investigation and argued that the three sanctioned players should not have carried responsibility alone. Warner has endorsed his account, while Collins, Clarke and other prominent figures have called for further scrutiny.
Cricket Australia continues to defend its original findings. Starc and his fellow bowlers have denied prior knowledge of sandpaper being taken onto the field, while former coaches have disputed suggestions of widespread awareness.
Meanwhile, Taylor, Healy and the ACA have highlighted the consequences of prolonging a controversy that has already had a profound impact on Australian cricket.
The debate also comes against the backdrop of the national team’s subsequent cultural transformation, which Khawaja himself has acknowledged.
Speaking to _The Sydney Morning Herald_, he said:
“The best things come out of the worst times. I genuinely believe, for the Australian cricket team, the best thing that came out of Sandpaper is we found humility again. JL \[Justin Langer\] came in as coach and he was honestly probably the best coach we could’ve had at that time. He put humility back in the Australian cricket team. It was just lovely to see. It was beautiful. I really enjoyed it. I really enjoyed seeing where the Australian team went from that point onwards and obviously Cummins, who ended up becoming captain, was a part of that process and journey.”
Eight years after Sandpapergate, Cricket Australia faces competing demands: to demonstrate confidence in an investigation it considers complete, while addressing renewed questions about whether that process established the full circumstances of the scandal.
The cricexec poll’s 50–50 result captures that unresolved tension. Half of the executives surveyed support reopening the investigation, while the other half oppose it—leaving Cricket Australia facing a debate in which accountability, procedural fairness, player welfare and confidence in its original findings remain closely intertwined.
