CA stands firm on Warner review process

Defiant Cricket Australia chief executive Nick Hockley insists he can keep players onside while refusing to apologise for handing over the botched review of David Warner's leadership ban.

Hockley has come under fire following Warner's decision to withdraw his application to have his ban lifted, with questions asked about how CA lost control of the process.

Among the concerns is that CA supported Warner's plea to have the hearing held in private, only for an independent panel knock back the request.

The situation reached boiling point on Friday when former Test opener Simon Katich claimed Hockley's job should come under the microscope, pushing forward players' union boss Todd Greenberg as a potential replacement.

Speaking before Katich's call, Greenberg said players were also frustrated over the situation and that the review on Warner's ban had lingered into the Test summer.

But Hockley was adamant his relationship with players could survive amid the furore of the last-remaining sanction of the Cape Town ball-tampering scandal.

"I think I have developed a really strong relationship with David over my entire time in the role, and a strong relationship with other players," he said.

"Ultimately that is for them to describe how they feel about that. But we sought to communicate very regularly, be open, transparent, be fair. 

"I am disappointed David has chosen to withdraw. This is not the outcome we wanted."

Mark Waugh is another former player critical of CA, saying the situation was similar to the handling of both the Tim Paine and Justin Langer sagas.

But asked about Katich's comments around his own role as CA boss, Hockley defended the way in which his organisation had handled the Warner affair.

"People can have their own opinions. The alternative to putting in place a proper process is to just make reactive decisions," Hockley said.

"That is not appropriate around matters of integrity. 

"I make no apology for the fact we have engaged with the best people we have got in governance and we run a proper, fair, independent process."

Hockley was also adamant that Warner would not have been subject to a public lynching as the opener suggested if he went ahead with the hearing.

And he claimed it was right for CA not to set strict parameters around how the hearing would be held when rewriting the code, with the panel wanting transparency given the amount of public interest.

"Because independence and transparency is in line with best practice," he said.