Following recent reports of an alleged brawl taking place at a private gathering at the establishment The Doctor’s House, Matara, in which a Sri Lanka cricketer – Danushka Gunathilaka – was involved, Sri Lanka Cricket authorised a fact-finding inquiry into the matter.
The commission that carried out the inquiry, comprising Attorneyat-Law Panduka Keerthinanda, Sri Lanka Cricket Human Resources (HR) Senior Manager Maj. Tanesh Dias, and Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports Assistant Director Sheela de Seram, submitted its report to the management committee yesterday (21).
[caption id="attachment_131342" align="alignleft" width="448"]
The panel report reminds that Gunathilaka had been given severe punishment for misconduct and misbehavior on earlier occasions too[/caption]
The commission, citing that 18 newspaper articles and social media reports mention Gunathilaka’s involvement in the altercation, had decided to summon Gunathilaka, noting that he is currently laying for the Sri Lanka national squad and is currently under contract with Sri Lanka Cricket.
It stated: “As per the players contract, at any given time he has to oblige to the relevant code of behaviour and conduct, and all rules and regulations. He also has to refrain from any misbehaviour or misconduct, which is detrimental to the best interest of the game of cricket in Sri Lanka; and also the said player has to comply with the rules and regulations as per Section 27 of the Sri Lanka CricketConstitution.”
Gunathilaka’s defence
Although Gunathilaka’s statement to the commission was not published in full, Gunathilaka published his own statement to the press.
He had stated: “The disciplinary inquiry was conducted on 20 April 2021 at 1.45 p.m. at the Sri Lanka Cricket Headquarters, regarding an incident that happened at The Doctor’s House on 10 April 2021 at around 7 p.m.
“Eighteen paper articles and social media articles altogether were shown to me at this moment. Also, a copy of my contract was shown to me, and I have no objection in conducting this fact-finding inquiry. This inquiry was recorded with my permission.
“However, I would like to state that I have nothing to do with this said incident, nor have I got involved in any misconduct. I went through the media reports and totally disagree with the reports, which are made against me.
“I went to The Doctor’s House at 95/83 Beach Road, Madiya, Matara, with my girlfriend, namely Aaron Ferdi, and her friends. We had dinner and two to three glasses of wine, and left at around 10 p.m., to my girlfriend’s villa in Ahangama.
“I know the person who was involved in the said incident, and I do not want to mention his name. He has got nothing to do with Sri Lanka Cricket. Paper article no. 16 was shown to me, and it was a picture of me and my girlfriend, which I took as I went to The Doctor’s House, and had uploaded in my Instagram story – but that picture has been taken and subsequently used against me.
“Therefore, I would like to say that all these print and electronic media institutions have done this to tarnish my name.”
Circumstantial evidence?
The commission noted that after recording Gunathilaka’s statement, it contacted the manager of The Doctor’s House establishment for further information with regard to the above incident.
The manager had confirmed that an altercation had taken place, and that Gunathilaka had been present at the hotel at the time, but claimed that Gunathilaka had not been involved. He further noted that the brawl had taken place for around 15-20 minutes, until the establishment’s security had brought the matter under control.
When asked if the establishment was in possession of a liquor licence, the manager had responded in the negative, noting that they only serve food and soft drinks, and added that Gunathilaka’s party had purchased hard liquor from elsewhere for consumption at The Doctor’s House premises. Copies of the bills were submitted to the commission as evidence in this regard.
The commission had further asked the manager for CCTV footage from the date of 10 April, to which he had responded that the footage was no longer available, as it only lasts three to four days.
Under strong suspicion
Although the commission seems to have been unable to discern without doubt that the alleged incident took place with Gunathilaka’s involvement, several of its bservations lean towards the conclusion that this was the case.
The commission does, however, repeatedly note that much of the evidence is open to question, while questioning his strongly suspicious conduct.
It stated: “After going through all the media reports and documentation, and also Danushka’s statement given before the committee, it is clearly evident that there has been some sort of involvement at The Doctor’s House, Matara on 10 April 2021, where Danushka was also present at his brawl. However, we are unable to find clear evidence against Danushka Gunathilaka, as to whether he was directly involved in this incident, but his conduct was open to suspicion.”
The commission noted that while Gunathilaka had admitted to consuming wine at the said establishment, he did not say whether he brought the liquor from elsewhere; however, the hotel’s manager had confirmed that the premises do not serve liquor, directly contradicting Gunathilaka’s statement.
It also noted how Gunathilaka had disclosed that he had known the person involved in the brawl, but refused to divulge the individual’s name or any further details to the inquiry panel and stated that this “shows that he tried to hide evidence by not giving the full truth before the panel”.
Further, the bills submitted to the commission of inquiry had proven that Gunathilaka had visited The Doctor’s House establishment on 10 and 11 April 2021, whereas he did not mention this to the commission; in his statement, he only admitted to visiting the hotel on 10 April, which made it appear as though he was trying to hide certain facts.
While the committee had tried to obtain CCTV footage of the incident, which had allegedly taken place on 10 April, they had been informed by the manager of the said establishment that footage is normally only available for three to four days, and thus could not be produced.
The committee’s report noted: “This is not a believable statement under normal circumstances, because any hotel should have the recordings for two weeks or more. Therefore, it is also questionable as to how this got deleted. There is reasonable doubt that this could have been done purposely to hide evidence.”
Verdict
The commission stated the following in its recommendations:
“After carefully evaluating the documentation, evidence, and all other information, we are of the view that Danushka Gunathilaka does not have sufficient materials against him to be charged under misconduct or misbehaviour which happened on 10 April 2021 at the said hotel, but we strongly believe that his conduct is open to suspicion, and that he was involved in an activity that was nsuitable for a national player.
“Therefore his conduct is unprofessional. He is tarnishing the image of a brand ambassador as a national cricketer of the current team of Sri Lanka Cricket. According to the reports available before the panel, it is also noted that in the past, he has had to incur several punishments for misconduct and misbehaviour.
“Every player should have proper discipline and proper training to achieve higher standards of honest, morality, fair play, and sportsmanship.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that he should be severely warned and sent for counselling.”
Thus, Danushka Gunathilaka will likely have to undergo counselling, as recommended by the commission; but whether mere counselling is enough to weed out this factor – which is but one among many – at the root of Sri Lanka Cricket’s downhill descent is a matter only time will tell.
The panel report reminds that Gunathilaka had been given severe punishment for misconduct and misbehavior on earlier occasions too[/caption]
The commission, citing that 18 newspaper articles and social media reports mention Gunathilaka’s involvement in the altercation, had decided to summon Gunathilaka, noting that he is currently laying for the Sri Lanka national squad and is currently under contract with Sri Lanka Cricket.
It stated: “As per the players contract, at any given time he has to oblige to the relevant code of behaviour and conduct, and all rules and regulations. He also has to refrain from any misbehaviour or misconduct, which is detrimental to the best interest of the game of cricket in Sri Lanka; and also the said player has to comply with the rules and regulations as per Section 27 of the Sri Lanka CricketConstitution.”
Gunathilaka’s defence
Although Gunathilaka’s statement to the commission was not published in full, Gunathilaka published his own statement to the press.
He had stated: “The disciplinary inquiry was conducted on 20 April 2021 at 1.45 p.m. at the Sri Lanka Cricket Headquarters, regarding an incident that happened at The Doctor’s House on 10 April 2021 at around 7 p.m.
“Eighteen paper articles and social media articles altogether were shown to me at this moment. Also, a copy of my contract was shown to me, and I have no objection in conducting this fact-finding inquiry. This inquiry was recorded with my permission.
“However, I would like to state that I have nothing to do with this said incident, nor have I got involved in any misconduct. I went through the media reports and totally disagree with the reports, which are made against me.
“I went to The Doctor’s House at 95/83 Beach Road, Madiya, Matara, with my girlfriend, namely Aaron Ferdi, and her friends. We had dinner and two to three glasses of wine, and left at around 10 p.m., to my girlfriend’s villa in Ahangama.
“I know the person who was involved in the said incident, and I do not want to mention his name. He has got nothing to do with Sri Lanka Cricket. Paper article no. 16 was shown to me, and it was a picture of me and my girlfriend, which I took as I went to The Doctor’s House, and had uploaded in my Instagram story – but that picture has been taken and subsequently used against me.
“Therefore, I would like to say that all these print and electronic media institutions have done this to tarnish my name.”
Circumstantial evidence?
The commission noted that after recording Gunathilaka’s statement, it contacted the manager of The Doctor’s House establishment for further information with regard to the above incident.
The manager had confirmed that an altercation had taken place, and that Gunathilaka had been present at the hotel at the time, but claimed that Gunathilaka had not been involved. He further noted that the brawl had taken place for around 15-20 minutes, until the establishment’s security had brought the matter under control.
When asked if the establishment was in possession of a liquor licence, the manager had responded in the negative, noting that they only serve food and soft drinks, and added that Gunathilaka’s party had purchased hard liquor from elsewhere for consumption at The Doctor’s House premises. Copies of the bills were submitted to the commission as evidence in this regard.
The commission had further asked the manager for CCTV footage from the date of 10 April, to which he had responded that the footage was no longer available, as it only lasts three to four days.
Under strong suspicion
Although the commission seems to have been unable to discern without doubt that the alleged incident took place with Gunathilaka’s involvement, several of its bservations lean towards the conclusion that this was the case.
The commission does, however, repeatedly note that much of the evidence is open to question, while questioning his strongly suspicious conduct.
It stated: “After going through all the media reports and documentation, and also Danushka’s statement given before the committee, it is clearly evident that there has been some sort of involvement at The Doctor’s House, Matara on 10 April 2021, where Danushka was also present at his brawl. However, we are unable to find clear evidence against Danushka Gunathilaka, as to whether he was directly involved in this incident, but his conduct was open to suspicion.”
The commission noted that while Gunathilaka had admitted to consuming wine at the said establishment, he did not say whether he brought the liquor from elsewhere; however, the hotel’s manager had confirmed that the premises do not serve liquor, directly contradicting Gunathilaka’s statement.
It also noted how Gunathilaka had disclosed that he had known the person involved in the brawl, but refused to divulge the individual’s name or any further details to the inquiry panel and stated that this “shows that he tried to hide evidence by not giving the full truth before the panel”.
Further, the bills submitted to the commission of inquiry had proven that Gunathilaka had visited The Doctor’s House establishment on 10 and 11 April 2021, whereas he did not mention this to the commission; in his statement, he only admitted to visiting the hotel on 10 April, which made it appear as though he was trying to hide certain facts.
While the committee had tried to obtain CCTV footage of the incident, which had allegedly taken place on 10 April, they had been informed by the manager of the said establishment that footage is normally only available for three to four days, and thus could not be produced.
The committee’s report noted: “This is not a believable statement under normal circumstances, because any hotel should have the recordings for two weeks or more. Therefore, it is also questionable as to how this got deleted. There is reasonable doubt that this could have been done purposely to hide evidence.”
Verdict
The commission stated the following in its recommendations:
“After carefully evaluating the documentation, evidence, and all other information, we are of the view that Danushka Gunathilaka does not have sufficient materials against him to be charged under misconduct or misbehaviour which happened on 10 April 2021 at the said hotel, but we strongly believe that his conduct is open to suspicion, and that he was involved in an activity that was nsuitable for a national player.
“Therefore his conduct is unprofessional. He is tarnishing the image of a brand ambassador as a national cricketer of the current team of Sri Lanka Cricket. According to the reports available before the panel, it is also noted that in the past, he has had to incur several punishments for misconduct and misbehaviour.
“Every player should have proper discipline and proper training to achieve higher standards of honest, morality, fair play, and sportsmanship.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that he should be severely warned and sent for counselling.”
Thus, Danushka Gunathilaka will likely have to undergo counselling, as recommended by the commission; but whether mere counselling is enough to weed out this factor – which is but one among many – at the root of Sri Lanka Cricket’s downhill descent is a matter only time will tell.