SYDNEY, Nov 4: Former Australian vice-captain Adam Gilchrist has hit the hornet’s nest by calling Muttiah Muralitharan a chucker and accusing Sri Lankan authorities of splitting the cricket world between ‘white’ and ‘black’ countries in the 1990s.

Gilchrist, in his autobiography True Colours, minced no words in saying Muralitharan chucked the ball and alleged that the International Cricket Council protected him after Sri Lankan authorities interpreted questioning of his bowling action as a ‘racial attack’. “’Does Murali chuck the ball?’ I thought for a few moments, and then said, cautiously: ‘I think he does’,” Gilchrist said referring to a question posed to him. “I say that because, if you read the laws of the game, there’s no doubt in my mind that he and many others throughout cricket history have,” he wrote.

Gilchrist lamented that the ICC changed the rules to accommodate Murali instead of rectifying his fault when he was first caught for the offence in mid ‘90s. “I will take opportunity to clarify what I think about Murali and his action. I don’t back away from what I said... (But) I don’t think he’s personally to blame: he bowled the way he bowled, and it was not up to him to do anymore than he was asked.” Gilchrist also said he was sure not many in international cricket accepted the theory of optical illusion proposed just to bail Murali out.

“There is no doubt in my mind that his arm did straighten more than the rules allowed when he started playing Test cricket in the mid-1990s. I have heard the theories about optical illusion but I don’t buy them. It should have been dealt with back in 1995-96 when Darrell Hair and Ross Emerson no-balled him in Australia,” Gilchrist said.

The former stumper felt the real issue of suspect bowling action was overshadowed when Sri Lankan authorities gave the whole episode colour of racial vilification. “But the real issue - does he straighten his arm? - was rail-roaded by Sri Lankan cricket authorities, an Arjuna Ranatunga, turning it into a debate over race. They were threatening a walkout, and there was talk of a split in the game between ‘white’ and ‘black’ countries, because the questioning of Murali’s action was interpreted as a racial attack.

“This was ridiculous, as is proven when you look at the long list of bowlers, fast and slow, white and non-white, whose actions were scrutinised over the next few years and who were taken away for remedial treatment. There was no threat to split the game over these players — only over the Murali.”

Gilchrist said the issue worsened during Sri Lanka’s 1999 tour Down Under, reaching an “absurd” point when the ICC introduced the 15 degree rule.

He also disapproved of Murali’s ‘doosra’ delivery, saying ICC appeared to have passed it without the required level of examination. “His doosra, the ball which attracted new scrutiny in 2004, seemed to be passed without any rigorous examination.

“Often Australian players, having seen him bowl yet another suspect doosra past the outside edge, would look at each other in changing room and say: ‘Wasn’t that one meant to have been sorted out?’.”—Agencies