Hair ends ICC discrimination case

Darrell Hair has dropped his claim of racial discrimination against the International Cricket Council.

The Australian took action after being dropped from the elite umpires list following the controversial Oval Test between England and Pakistan in 2006.

The match was abandoned amid claims of ball-tampering by the Pakistan side.

Hair, 55, claimed he was singled out for punishment by the ICC because West Indian Billy Doctrove, who was his co-umpire at The Oval, escaped censure.

The ICC will decide next March whether Hair has a future in top-level umpiring.

In the meantime, he will participate in an ICC rehabilitation programme.

ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed said he was glad the matter was finally at an end.

"I'm very pleased that this claim has been unconditionally withdrawn," he told BBC 5live.

A lot will depend on the rehabilitation programme and his attitude towards it ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed on Hair's future

Hair's case at an employment tribunal in London collapsed on Tuesday after more than a week of evidence.

It is understood that no financial pay-off was made to him and his return to top-flight umpiring has not been guaranteed.

"I think in six months we'll have a better idea," said Speed when asked if Hair would be able to officiate at elite level again.

"It's a matter for the board, which is a very diverse group generally with strong and differing groups, so a lot will depend on the rehabilitation programme and his attitude towards it.

"For the next six months he will umpire matches at associate level. I can't speculate as to whether he will return to umpiring full-member matches or not."

ICC president Ray Mali also welcomed Hair's decision to drop his case.

"We are pleased the issue has been resolved," said Mali. "We had no option but to defend these serious allegations."

Hair's solicitor said his client was glad he was now in a position to start thinking about his umpiring career again.

"This is really about getting back to umpiring top cricket matches," said Paul Gilbert.

"Darrell feels relieved and glad it's all over, and he does feel this is in the best interests of all parties.

"What we have now is a future for Darrell that leads to the possibility of his return to top-level umpiring."

The chain of events that ended up with Hair being stripped of his position began when he accused Pakistan of ball-tampering and awarded England five extra runs.

Pakistan, who were in a reasonably strong position, initially played on until the tea interval but their captain Inzamam-ul-Haq refused to take his players out for the resumption of play.

After a delay, Hair removed the bails and awarded the match to England by default.

At a meeting of the 10 Test-playing nations in November, the ICC said they had "lost confidence" in Hair, from New South Wales, and that he would be excluded from the umpires list until his contract expired in March 2008.

No action was taken against co-umpire Doctrove, leading to Hair's accusation that he had been singled out because he was a white umpire.

Inzamam was cleared of ball tampering by the ICC but banned for four matches for bringing the game into disrepute.

Hair 'hell' over forfeited Test

Umpire Darrell Hair claims his life has been "made hell" since the forfeited Oval Test match between England and Pakistan in August 2006.

The Australian has been barred from officiating major international matches following his actions in that game.

He faces an employment tribunal on Monday, claiming racial discrimination and racial harassment.

Hair told: "My life has been turned upside down, but I make no apologies."

Hair's position has been under debate since he and fellow umpire Billy Doctrove penalised Pakistan for ball-tampering in the controversial fourth Test at The Oval in 2006.

They awarded five penalty runs to England and offered them a replacement ball. Play continued until tea, but the Pakistani players refused to come back out on to the field in protest at the decision.

For an umpire to go into hiding for security issues after making a decision on the field is hard to take Darrell Hair

After waiting in the centre of the field for the tourists to resume, the umpires removed the bails and declared England winners by forfeit - the first time such an action had been taken in a Test match.

Pakistan captain Inzamam-ul-Haq was subsequently cleared of ball-tampering, although he was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute after his part in the Pakistan protest.

Hair was criticised for his role and prevented from officiating in further matches involving Test nations.

In a bid to clear his name, the 55-year-old has brought legal proceedings against cricket's world governing body, the International Cricket Council, starting on Monday at the London office of the Tribunals Service.

A statement in February from Hair's solicitors, Finers Stephens Innocent, said: "The reality in this case is that our client would not have been treated in this way if he had not been a white umpire."

Among the witnesses expected to appear on his behalf is Billy Doctrove, his fellow umpire that fateful day 13 months ago, as well as John Jameson, former assistant secretary of MCC - which upholds the laws of the game - and ex-West Indies captain Jimmy Adams.

Hair will be represented by Robert Griffiths QC, an MCC committee member, and will be opposed by Michael Beloff QC, a leading sports law barrister.

Claiming the saga has left him fearing for his own safety, Hair said: "Umpires make mistakes but they make honest decisions and make those for the good of the game.

"I didn't forfeit the Test match. The laws provide for things under certain circumstances and I think it was pretty clear that one team was refusing to play.

We believe racism was never an issue in this matter ICC president Ray Mali

"But if you've got the courage of your convictions you have to make those decisions and I make no apologies.

"But for an umpire to actually go into hiding for various reasons, one of them for security issues, after making a decision on the field is hard to take.

"What's become of the game when you can't make a decision without being able to go out at night? It's been pretty much hell, there's no doubt about that."

In opening exchanges, Hair's legal team emphasised the decision to penalise Pakistan for ball tampering was a joint decision taken by both Hair and West Indian Doctrove, whose career has not been affected.

Hair's team argue that the ICC's decision to suspend him was effectively taken by just three men. One of them was Nasim Ashraf, the head of the Pakistan Cricket Board, who, in their words, acted as prosecutor, judge and jury.

In response, the ICC said it was was not a racially-motivated decision and that Hair was the author of his own downfall.