Jono said:
Didn't Gilchrist withdraw that complaint due to it being a misunderstanding and never actually happened?
Gilchrist in the end declined to continue pursuing the issue because Rashid Latif denied it, Gilchrist was told it was his word against Latif's, and that the panel couldn't be expected to convict in those circumstances. Gilchrist decided that in the middle of a world cup campaign he didn't need the agro, so let it go. In his book "walking to Victory" he asserts that he remains certain that Rashid did say what he thought he said.
From page 116 of "walking to victory": "Damien Martyn chased it and threw it back to me over the stumps, bring Rashid to the striker's end. Just as I turned to walk back to my keeping position, I was certain I heard him call me a 'white c***'.
I couldn't believe what I'd just heard.... I felt I had no choice but to report it to the umpire. I've never had any reason in my whole career to do anything like that beofre. I've been called a lot of names and been sledged in many different ways, in club, domestic and international cricket, and I've given my fair share back, but I've never had the slightest desire to go to an umpire and make a report before."
and pg 117-8, "I put a written report in to Steve Bernard, who in turn passed it on to the match referee, Clive Lloyd. Ironically it had been Clive who had handled Darren Lehmann a five match suspension just a few weeks previously after his comments in Brisbane.
Clive called a hearing immediately. In attendance were Rashid, his captain Waqar Younis, their manager, plus Steve Bernard, Punter, myself and the umpires - including the third umpire. I briefly recounted my version of the incident, then Rashid was given a chance to reply. He asked their team manager to translate for him as he was concerned his English wasn't good enough...
He denied making the comment; in fact, he accused me of making the inappropriate remarks. He claimed that, after he was given not out, I had said that he'd never be given out by that umpire because they were both the same colour - which absolutely floor me. It was probably more distressing than what he'd said on the field.
I hopped straight back in and described exactly what I'd said after the not out. I looked everyone in the eye and said: "I can promise you I would never had said anything like that... Why would I bring this up if I'd gone and made a racist comment myself? Why would I report his comment? Why hadn't he reported it if I'd gone on like that? Why was my reaction so strong on hearing his comment if I had already put the wheels in motion?..
We watched the video and it was clear that Rashid had said something to me, but you couldn't tell what it was.
Clive Lloyd said, "Look, it comes down to one man's word against another's."...
Pg 119 "To his credit, Clive provided as fair a hearing as he could, but 'through lack of evidence' he couldn't convict. That was fine, I understood that and I had no problem shaking Rashid's hand to put what I thought was closure on the whole issue."
Gilchrist goes on to explain how Rashid later came out in the media threatening to sue Gilchrist for defamation, accusing the Australian's of tampering with the media's recording of events on the field, and staging the whole thing to make Lehmann not look so bad. Rashid then came out saying he had good relations with the Australian team and didn't want to sue anyone. gilchrist points out that despite an warning from the ICC hearing not to discuss the issues further in the press, no action was taken against Rashid for these comments, and as such he's including his view of events in his book.
Rashid wasn't caught as red-handed as Lehmann, but still, its not a savoury event. Gilchrist doesn't seem the type to go to so much drama unless he thought he had a case.
