Robin Peterson's joke at a press conference at the Wanderers on February 8 landed well: "I've got to get back to the Warriors for 50-over cricket with nobody watching." The roomful of reporters laughed heartily.
No-one's laughing now. How Peterson must wish there had been absolutely no eyes on the Warriors' opening game in the first division of the One-Day Cup (ODC) against the Dolphins at Kingsmead eight days later.
Peterson was with Rashid Khan and Trent Boult at that February 8 presser. By then, fireworks had lit the night sky, and medals and the trophy had been handed over. Mumbai Indians Cape Town had won the SA20, beating Sunrisers Eastern Cape by 76 runs in the final.
Cape Town are Peterson's team. They are the only other side who have won the three-year-old tournament: SEC were champions in the first two seasons.
To buck that trend, Peterson had to out-think, out-plan and out-manoeuvre Stephen Fleming, Trevor Penney, Jonathan Trott, Lance Klusener and Adrian Birrell, the head coaches of the other franchises. Peterson also had to reroute a Cape Town outfit who had finished rock bottom in their previous two campaigns.
This happened in front of, mostly, full houses, home and away. That explained Peterson's punchline – nobody, or almost nobody, watches the ODC or any of CSA's domestic competitions.
Peterson is also the Warriors' head coach, which made him responsible for the XI who took the field at Kingsmead on February 16. The visitors' ranks included six players of colour, satisfying that part of what CSA call their minimum transformation "target requirement". But there is another rule: three of those players must be black. Only two were that day.
The Warriors had gone to Durban with two other black players in their squad, fast bowler Siya Plaatjie and medium pacer Alfred Mothoa. When Peterson saw the pitch prepared for the match he decided he needed an extra slow bowler, so he picked off-spinner Jason Raubenheimer to partner the left-arm orthodox Senuran Muthusamy and leg spinner Junaid Dawood. Raubenheimer, Muthusamy and Dawood are brown.
In the 21.2 overs they bowled between them, the spinners took 4/121 for an economy rate of 5.71. They were upstaged by seamer Andile Mokgakane, who claimed four top and middle order wickets for 23 from the 23rd to the 29th overs. Mokgakane is black.
That all but sealed the Warriors' thumping 126-run win. The victory had been set up by their total of 343/2, which was powered by Jordan Hermann's undefeated 148 off 145, Matthew Breetzke's 62 and Beyers Swanepoel's 73. Hermann, Breetzke and Swanepoel are white.
Twenty-one days later, CSA told the Warriors they had been docked all five points they earned in that match and been fined USD27,300; half to be paid by the end of February next year, the rest suspended for five years should they re-offend in that time.
That knocked the Warriors out of the running for the ODC playoffs. The Dolphins – the team Peterson's side beat handsomely – were gifted four points from that match because of the @L0$.
Not only did that give the Durbanites a place in Wednesday's qualifier against the Titans, it also meant the playoff game would be at Kingsmead. Before the Dolphins were given their unearned points, the Titans were to have hosted the qualifier.
The Dolphins won Wednesday's rain-affected game by 33 runs to book a place in Sunday's final against Boland in Paarl. Before Monday, when the standings after the completion of the league stage of the ODC were released and the Warriors' fate was confirmed, the Dolphins hadn't performed well enough to reach the playoffs. They were fourth out of eight teams. Now, they might end up with the trophy.
That the Warriors are guilty as charged is beyond dispute. Teams are allowed to deviate from their transformation requirements without attracting punishment. Indeed, that has happened at least four other times this season. But a bulletproof reason – an injury, illness, absence, an exam to write – must be provided to CSA before the match. The Warriors didn't do so. Besides, "We want to pick another spinner, and we don't have a black one available" would have cut no mustard with the suits.
Should a side be granted permission to play with fewer than the stipulated minimum number of players of colour they are compelled to make up the difference later in the campaign. Irony alert: on March 2, against the Titans in Centurion, the Warriors fielded four black players.
So this would never have been an issue, or something to spend all these words on, had a third black player been picked at Kingsmead on February 16. Or had the reasons for that player's absence satisfied CSA's transformation directives.
And that might not be the end of it. The Warriors were dwindling towards relegation even before CSA intervened. They are now almost assured of being sent down. That will mean a lower salary cap, the likely departure of the side's best players for first division pastures, and maybe even the end of professional cricket in economically depressed Gqeberha.
The Titans were robbed of home advantage for the ODC qualifier. The Dolphins could win a title they should no longer be competing for. The Warriors, who were denied the place in the knockouts they had earned, could go bust. Little wonder the Eastern Capers are talking earnestly to their lawyers. It's one thing to be penalised for breaking the rules, quite another to be put out of business because of a solitary breach.
Cricbuzz asked CSA these questions: when were the Warriors first informed that action could be taken against them? Why did it take all of 21 days to reach a decision? Why did CSA not tell the media, immediately the problem was perceived, that an investigation was underway? Why was the Warriors' punishment not limited to a fine? What are the names of the people who reached this decision?
Here is CSA's response, verbatim and in full, corporate capitalisation and all: "The Administrative Conditions are designed to guide processes and safeguard any policies impacting professional cricket. Hence, we share them with all the CEOs and Head Coaches at the beginning of every season (if there are material changes, they will be highlighted to members accordingly to ensure familiarity).
"The provisions in the Administrative Conditions require the President, CEO, and Head Coach to appear in front of the Board to explain themselves. The logistics around the process were a contributing factor.
"Communication with the media could not be done until they appeared to explain themselves.
"The CSA Board has the authority to sanction any team that fails to meet the targets, by deducting points and/or imposing a monetary fine.
"Process that exempted teams before: A Technical Committee is tasked with supporting members with any pertinent matters relating to the running of professional cricket and reporting to the Cricket Committee, which will be made up of the Executive Domestic Cricket and Manager Cricket Operations Domestic, supported by an independent person who heads up disciplinary matters. Sometimes, material facts will arise which impact a team's ability to fulfil the on-field targets, and we follow the process outlined below.
"Review their request to deviate from the selection as prescribed for on-field targets.
"If the request to deviate is due to squad injuries, the CSA Medical Officer gets involved to assess and advise management on the injury situation the team experienced.
"Once we have received a response from the Chief Medical Officer, we then engage with the opposition team to get their buy-in as they will be impacted. When you look at the email trail for the 4 cases CSA was requested to consider, you will notice that both CEOs of the team to play each other are part of the communication trail.
"Once consensus is reached, CSA will communicate the outcomes to both teams and inform the match officials appointed for the fixture.
"The email trail below indicates that 4 teams made official requests approved following the process outlined above.
"When Members submit their Team sheets to the Transformation Manager, it will reflect approved changes with CSA Management."
Are we clear? Not really. For instance, the answer to our last question – who are the people who made the decision – is likely to involve CSA's diversity, equality and inclusion committee. Cricbuzz has seen an invitation to an online meeting of the committee on February 27 at which Peterson was to explain why he did what he did. Of the 13 invitees, besides Peterson, whose presence was not optional, one was white, one brown and the rest black.
That might prompt questions about the diversity, equality and inclusion of the committee itself. Could Peterson anticipate a fair hearing under those conditions? He couldn't have denied doing the wrong thing. But he could reasonably have hoped the Warriors would be fined and given a suspended sentence and sent on their way. This was, after all, the first and only offence of its kind by any team in more than five years.
Seemingly it was decided to set a harsh example when there was no reason for an example to be set. This is not a scourge that needs to be stopped. Yet that is the only way this decision can be interpreted.
Peterson is brown. Would CSA have treated the Warriors differently had he been black? In a society that continues to suffer from the effects of centuries of systemic racism and ongoing white supremacy in so many ways, that is an awkward, uncomfortable, almost unaskable question. But it is no less valid and relevant for that.
Had Peterson been black, would it have been highlighted that he had beaten five highly regarded and experienced – and white – coaches to become the first person of colour to guide a team to the SA20 title?
Like his black compatriots, albeit to a lesser degree, Peterson – who was born in August 1979 – grew up at the sharp end of apartheid. He emerged from that to become an international cricketer. And now this: a champion coach.
The press didn't write that, and we need to ask ourselves if that was because it didn't seem pertinent. Or because Peterson is not black.
We, the press, dropped the ball by not noticing, on February 16, that something was amiss with the Warriors' XI. Had we done that, and made the relevant enquiries, and written up the answers then and there, and stayed on the story, CSA would surely not have taken 21 days to make up their minds. And, perhaps, they would have reached a better decision.
Because they would have known that, although nobody was watching the ODC, somebody was keeping an eye on them.