Hair says ICC encouraged his $500,000 offer to resign

The Darrell Hair resignation affair took another dramatic twist last night, with the Australian umpire claiming that his $500,000 (£270,000) offer to resign in the wake of the ball- tampering controversy at the Oval Test between England and Pakistan, was made with the encouragement of the International Cricket Council.

In a statement issued through his lawyers, Hair said: "I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on 25 August 2006. During an extended conversation on 21 August 2006 with Mr [Doug] Cowie, the umpires' manager for ICC, I was invited to make a written offer.

"The opening words of my first e-mail to Mr Cowie confirm this: 'Just [to] firm up what we discussed earlier this evening.' I note that Mr Cowie replied on the same date: 'Your offer may have merit and is acknowledged and under discussions with ICC management'."

The ICC countered with a statement of its own, which said: "Following a statement issued today by Darrell Hair, the ICC reconfirmed that Mr Hair did discuss the future of his umpiring career with ICC umpires' and referees' manager, Doug Cowie, before sending an e-mail to Mr Cowie on Tuesday 22 August, but at no stage was there any discussion of a pay-off, nor secrecy, nor deadlines, nor misleading the public regarding reasons for retirement."

An ICC spokesperson confirmed: "There were many informal discussions between Mr Hair and Mr Cowie between the end of the Oval Test and Mr Hair's first e-mail on Tuesday, including a discussion on the potential impact on Mr Hair's umpiring career.

"Mr Cowie's role was to support and counsel Mr Hair, as his manager, at a difficult time.We have no desire to be in conflict with Mr Hair. He is one of the world's best umpires and we have no doubt that he was under a great deal of stress when he sent the e-mails that he later revoked."

Hair had earlier spoken to an Australian newspaper, The Brisbane Sunday Mail, in which he had first suggested that his conditional offer to resign had been made with the knowledge of the ICC, with the demand for the $500,000 in compensation for perceived loss of earnings the first of a number of conditions.

Hair sent the offer by e-mail to Cowie and told the Sunday Mail: "It wasn't a spur-of-the-moment thing. I had a dialogue with them. That was understood."

When Hair's offer was made public by the ICC, the Australian issued a statement which implied he had been under pressure because of the stress of the publicity over the ball-tampering row. "This correspondence was composed after a very difficult time and was revoked by myself two days later after a period of serious consideration," claimed Hair. But in the Australian newspaper Hair appeared to contradict that impression when he said: "I didn't do it off the cuff. Doug Cowie even said in his e-mail reply to my offer that the proposal had merit."

This latest development is almost certain to wipe out any sympathy Hair might have found at the ICC. Indeed, despite saying on Saturday that he wanted Hair to continue officiating at the highest level, Malcolm Speed, the chief executive of the ICC, expressed doubts about that yesterday morning - before the flurry of statements - in an interview on BBC Radio Five Live. "There have been other issues in his umpiring career where people have said, 'This is the end for Darrell Hair' - after he called Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing in 1996, and he then wrote a book, and people said, 'This is the end for Darrell Hair'," Speed recalled.

"Darrell survived that and has become a better umpire. He is one of the world's best umpires, so I hope we can find a way for him to continue, but I'm not sure that that will happen.

"Why? Because there's a lot of speculation from people like Nasser Hussain and others where they say that they believe that Darrell's career is finished, that he's compromised.

"That's not my wish," he added. "I hope we can find a way for him to continue. I would like Darrell Hair to continue umpiring in cricket matches at the top level."

Hair and his partner, Amanda, had gone into hiding yesterday, leaving their five-bedroom home in Lincoln because they feared for their safety. One report suggested they had sought and been offered security advice in the wake of the Oval affair, in which Hair accused Pakistan of tampering with the ball, resulting in a protest by the tourists which led to England being awarded the match.

If Hair does stand again, the Pakistan Cricket Board chairman, Shaharyar Khan insisted yesterday that the Australian should never officiate in a match involving his team again. He also felt that the resignation offer reinforced Pakistan claims that the umpires, Hair and Billy Doctrove, had mishandled the situation. "The rules do allow for a protest or a delay at what was an absolutely preposterous allegation," Shaharyar said.

But Speed said: "It was said he could never umpire Sri Lanka again after 1996 but he has. Water needs to flow under the bridge. I don't know what his future is, but I hope we can find a way for him to continue."

Cricket Australia, the sport's governing body Down Under, has proposed scrapping neutral umpires for the Ashes series against England this winter in favour of using the best available. "At the moment the best umpires officiating are Australians," said Peter Young, the CA's head of communications.