Ken Borland

Not for the first time this season, the Sharks passed their test in terms of determination and effort, but failed when it came to execution and taking chances, their 24-21 defeat at the hands of Ulster allowing the Bulls to overtake them on the final United Rugby Championship log and snatch a home quarterfinal.

And, with the Sharks finishing fifth and the Bulls’ fourth, it means the KwaZulu-Natalians will have to travel to Pretoria to take on the Currie Cup champions at Loftus Versfeld on the weekend of June 4 to try and keep their URC hopes alive.

Given what was at stake in Belfast, it was a poor display by the Sharks. Soft defensive moments cost them in the first half as Ulster rattled up a 17-0 lead, and then, although they dominated most of the second half, the Sharks were not accurate enough to turn that into tries. Until the last five minutes, when they scored twice to lend respectability to the scoreline.

“The guys played with a lot of energy, they played their hearts out and I’m very proud of the guys for the courage they showed,” coach Sean Everitt said. “The way they fought back justifies that.

“But our first half was not great, our defence was not sharp enough and we gave Ulster two tries they really did not have to work for.

“The second half was a different story and we had opportunities. We played some really good rugby to get into good positions. But unfortunately we lost the breakdown battle, Ulster put a lot of pressure on us there and they defended really well.

“But we played some of the best ball-in-hand rugby we’ve produced this season, we had good territory and field position, and credit to the bench for the huge impact they made,” Everitt said.

It was always going to be a tough test playing one of the Irish powerhouses away, and the Sharks now need to find a way to win at Loftus Versfeld, where they have not enjoyed a good time in recent knockout matches.

“Coming to the Kingspan Stadium was tough, it’s not an easy ground to play at. Ulster are a big and physical side.

“Big lessons were learned, but we are still very disappointed, it was a game that got away from us. We could have … ,“ Everitt mused without finishing his sentence.

Paul Adams’ refusal to testify in Mark Boucher’s disciplinary hearing is an unfortunate development that will not only considerably weaken Cricket South Africa’s case, but also reflects badly on the former spin bowler and makes it harder for the current Proteas coach to clear his name in an unambiguous fashion.

Having showed an admirable level of courage in testifying at the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings about an offensive team song the Proteas used in fines meetings in the late 1990s, Adams now seems to have lost his nerve when it comes to presenting and justifying the same evidence, but this time with Boucher’s representatives being able to cross-examine and test his claims.

It shows again that for SJN Ombudsman Advocate Dumisa Ntsebeza to err so badly in allowing inflammatory allegations to be publicly aired without being properly subjected to legal processes has only created more headaches for Cricket South Africa.

Adams was also disingenuous in his weekend statement announcing his decision when he claimed he never meant to single out Boucher in his SJN testimony. While Boucher’s name was admittedly brought into the conversation by one of Ntsebeza’s legal assistants, Adams went on to say that Boucher “should come and say sorry, if that’s enough, but we can’t brush this under the carpet”.

Adams also went on to target Boucher’s appointment as Titans coach in 2016.

No amount of “sorry”s can fully cleanse the stain of being unjustifiably called a racist and Adams’ refusal to further discuss his allegations has denied Boucher the chance of properly exonerating himself if he is innocent of the offences his former team-mate accuses him of doing.

With Enoch Nkwe also not expected to testify, CSA’s entire case could quickly disintegrate. But the public may not be as quick to forget the allegations that were made against Boucher but which have never actually been disproven.

That could only have happened if Adams had availed himself to answer such probing questions as what other songs were sung, what songs did he participate in and who actually wrote the offensive lyrics?

Having provided the matches to those who are looking to burn down Boucher’s career, Adams has now slipped out of being held accountable for what he said.

With the disciplinary hearing just a week away, Cricket South Africa’s legal team may have to mull a completely different strategy to try and get rid of Proteas head coach Mark Boucher following Paul Adams’ decision to not testify against his erstwhile team-mate and the likelihood that former national team assistant coach Enoch Nkwe is also not going to participate.

Adams issued a statement at the weekend in which he said he was not willing to be cross-examined over the allegations of racism he made at the Social Justice and Nation-Building hearings, which have been a central pillar of CSA’s case against Boucher.

CSA have also charged Boucher over his treatment of Nkwe, who resigned from his post in August last year, using the reasons he gave to the board as ammunition. But informed sources say Nkwe is not willing to present evidence, believing the disciplinary hearing is a matter between CSA and the head coach.

Boucher is facing charges of gross misconduct, with CSA seeking his dismissal, and, in terms of labour law, he has the right to have any witnesses against him cross-examined. If neither Adams nor Nkwe are there, his lawyers are bound to insist their statements cannot be included in the hearing.

Even though his accusers’ case would now seem to have gone to pot in a dirty pickle-jar bong, Boucher’s legal team say nothing has changed from their point of view.

“Mark Boucher said up front that all he was interested in was clearing his name, which has been tarnished,” Mohammed Chavoos told The Citizen on Monday.

“He welcomed the opportunity to do that at the hearing and that still remains the case. Our position has never changed.

“It’s up to CSA to deal with their witnesses, they were the ones who embarked on this process. All we want to do is exonerate Mark.

“It’s why labour law is there, the principle of letting the other side be heard, that’s what’s important. Mark has welcomed the chance to clear his name of these allegations,” Chavoos said.

In his statement at the weekend, Adams said he never intended to single out Boucher in the SJN hearings, where he revealed the existence of the “Brown Shit” fines meeting song, but the former Proteas spinner did say the wicketkeeper/batsman “should come and say sorry, if that’s enough” and also targeted Boucher’s appointment as Titans coach in 2016.

“We want to put South African cricket first and take the Proteas back to number one. In my view, Mark Boucher is the best coach for South Africa, that’s where he belongs,” Chavoos added.

Boucher’s disciplinary hearing on charges of racism is scheduled for May 16-20, with senior counsel Terry Motau presiding.

The SJN report has already been partially discredited by former director of cricket Graeme Smith winning his arbitration hearing, with costs, against CSA.

The independent arbitration panel that cleared Graeme Smith of racism allegations found that Thami Tsolekile was not selected to replace Mark Boucher in 2012 for cricketing reasons, saying the wicketkeeper/batsman himself accepted that AB de Villiers being chosen ahead of him was better for the team.

Tsolekile testified at the arbitration in support of Cricket South Africa’s claim that Smith had used his influence as captain to persuade the selectors not to include Tsolekile based on his race, after Boucher suffered the eye injury that ended his career.

But while finding that Smith, the Proteas longest-serving and most successful Test captain, did have an influence on selection, the arbitrators, advocates Ngwako Maenetje SC and Michael Bishop, ruled that he did not actively seek to exclude Tsolekile because of his race. Instead they found “it is more likely that Smith just wanted his team to win”.

Andrew Hudson, the convenor of selectors at the time and current CSA Board member, and Linda Zondi, who was also a selector before succeeding Hudson as the convenor, gave evidence that De Villiers had been selected for the tour to England in 2012 as the reserve wicketkeeper and both the selectors and coach Gary Kirsten agreed that De Villiers replacing Boucher behind the stumps would allow them to play an extra specialist batsman in JP Duminy, himself Black.

Smith was consulted about the decision and agreed with the strategy.

In Paragraph 90 of their findings, the arbitrators state: “Tsolekile … agreed with the proposition that this was ‘a strategy that will make complete sense and was something which played very strongly in favour of the Proteas cricket team’. He accepted that there were ‘very good cricketing reasons to prefer AB de Villiers to yourself for the position in the Test starting XI’.”

CSA then tried to change their argument and alleged Smith was guilty of discrimination by omission because he had an obligation to speak out on behalf of Tsolekile because the wicketkeeper/batsman was previously disadvantaged.

But the arbitrators found this change of tack was prejudicial to Smith, describing it as “a trap sprung on him” and they also criticised CSA for making submissions that were inconsistent with the facts.

The arbitrators did have sympathy for Tsolekile, describing his non-selection as “unfair” and his subsequent involvement in a matchfixing scandal as only “exacerbating the tragedy” of his story of adversity.