Mike Selvey writes in the Guardian on the latest twist in the Darrell Hair saga:
Whatever his motive, Hair was unwise and naive to think that his suggested course of action was an easy way out. As far as the ICC is concerned, he is dispensable, and in disclosing his correspondence, they have all but cut off at the knees his career as an international umpire.
Also check out Richard Williams' piece in the same newspaper where he says, "Hair appears to have demolished his claim to moral authority. Whether he was being greedy or stupid, or even just pragmatic, will be of no importance."
The Daily Telegraph's Mihir Bose on how releasing the letter was part of ICC's strategy.
The Pakistani lawyers, headed by Mark Gay and Wasim Khohkar, thought they had come to be told the one-day series was going ahead. Instead, Speed handed them a copy of Hair's letter and told them that the advice they had received from David Pannick, the QC, was that if they had kept the letter secret and it had later emerged that it had existed then this would have jeopardised the hearings against Inzamam-ul-Haq.
Also read Christopher Martin-Jenkins' piece in The Times:
His [Hair] own statement said that he wanted to continue as an umpire. No doubt he will, but he is unlikely to take charge of a game involving Pakistan, which makes it the more ironic that his demand for a payoff should so have prejudiced the ICC case and enhanced Pakistan’s.
In The Independent, David Llewellyn relates a brief but belligerent phone conversation with umpire Hair himself.
Not for the first time, you were left with the overriding impression that in Darrell Hair's world there is no middle ground, no grey area. Black, white, right, wrong, he could almost march to the monosyllabic, monotone rhythms that have directed him in his life.
Cricinfo's Andrew Miller comments on the issue here.
