COMMISSIONER: Mr Fitzgerald, I understand we are carrying on with your witnesses, are we?

MR FITZGERALD: No, My Lord.

MS BATOHI: The next witness would be Derek Norman Crookes.

DEREK NORMAN CROOKES: (sworn states)

EXAMINATION BY MR GISHEN: Mr Crookes, you were picked as one of the cricketers for the South African team to tour India in 1996?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I was.

MR GISHEN: Do you recall shortly before the tour ended and I am dealing with particularly the last match of the tour, you were travelling by air to Mumbai, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GISHEN: Do you recall your captain, Mr Cronje, coming to talk to you?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GISHEN: Can you please explain to the Commission exactly what took place?

MR CROOKES: Hansie came up and sat behind me in the plane and he said that the team had been offered some money to throw the last game and - to which he said that he had to ask me and Andrew Hudson and I couldn't believe what I had heard and I asked him whether he was being serious or whether he was joking and he said to me that I must go, I must think about it and we would have a meeting later.

MR GISHEN: Did you in fact have a meeting later?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GISHEN: Can you recall where that meeting was held and who was there?

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember, it was in a team room, or a room, and I don't remember whether all the players were there or not.

MR GISHEN: Do you recall what was said and by whom?

MR CROOKES: Hansie said that we had been offered some money to throw the game again, and that we should go away and think about it that night.

MR GISHEN: Was this a very long discussion?

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember, no.

MR GISHEN: Was any money mentioned at that particular stage?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR GISHEN: What happened after that?

MR CROOKES: Andrew Hudson and myself left the room and went back to our room, and we discussed the matter and thought that it was not the right thing, it was immoral and how it could jeopardise our future.

MR GISHEN: Was there any other meeting held following that discussion?

MR CROOKES: The next morning we had a team meeting.

MR GISHEN: Just before we proceed, can you remember who was at that meeting and where was it held?

MR CROOKES: As much as I can remember, the team meeting was in the team room and to my knowledge it was just the team members.

MR GISHEN: Can you recall if any of The Management side and the coach were present?

MR CROOKES: No.

COMMISSIONER: You cannot recall or they weren't present?

MR CROOKES: No, as far as I remember, they weren't there.

MR GISHEN: Can you say what happened at that meeting?

MR CROOKES: Hansie said that we were either all in or all out, whatever the decision was and if one of us was out, then we would not take the money.

MR GISHEN: Was any amount of money mentioned during that meeting?

MR CROOKES: Yes, Hansie said that there was $250 000 that had been offered to throw the match.

MR GISHEN: What was your reaction?

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember, I thought I was actually the first person to stand up and said that I was not interested, it was immoral, it was a wrong thing to do and how it could jeopardise our future, followed by Andrew and there were some other players, as far as I can remember Daryll and Dave Richardson stood up and also agreed with us.

MR GISHEN: What happened next?

MR CROOKES: It was then decided that we would not take the bribe and that the discussion, this was not to be discussed any further.

MR GISHEN: Who told you that it was not to be discussed any further?

MR CROOKES: Hansie did.

MR GISHEN: I now want to take you to this year where you were again picked for the Protea side, to go to India.

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GISHEN: Prior to you playing, at any stage, was your bowling and the fielding, the setting of your field ever discussed with the captain or The Management?

MR CROOKES: Yes, it was.

MR GISHEN: Can you recall any discussion that you may have had in regard to your bowling in particular?

MR CROOKES: Yes, after the first game we played, Hansie said that we should discuss what we should do in the future games to be played, fielding positions and change of pace and so after the game, we had had that discussion on the hotel roof.

COMMISSIONER: Between the two of you, I am sorry Mr Gishen, you and Hansie?

MR CROOKES: No sorry, it was Hansie Cronje, myself and Graham Ford and Corrie van Zyl.

COMMISSIONER: For the record, if you could just tell me, Graham Ford, Corrie van Zyl - what positions did they hold?

MR CROOKES: They were coach and assistant-coach.

MR GISHEN: Did any discussion take place about you opening the bowling?

MR CROOKES: Yes, it was mentioned. I, we were talking about the pace of my bowling and that I said that it was quite hard to adjust from opening the bowling to bowling later on and to change the pace, to which Graham Ford and Hansie Cronje said that I wouldn't be considered to open the bowling.

MR GISHEN: Mr Crookes, I now want to take you to the last match of that tour. You in fact did open the bowling, did you not?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I did.

MR GISHEN: Can you explain to the Commission how that came about?

MR CROOKES: The day before the game, Graham Ford came up to me and said that I would, there is a possibility of me opening the bowling and that was only told in the afternoon of our practice, there was only just a few of us. Then we had a team meeting and Hansie said that I would open the bowling the next day.

MR GISHEN: Did you in fact open the bowling?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I did.

MR GISHEN: Can you advise the Commission how many overs did you bowl in that opening spell?

MR CROOKES: I bowled six overs in the opening spell.

MR GISHEN: Who did you bowl against?

MR CROOKES: I bowled to Tendulkar, Ganguly and then Ganguly got out, then I bowled to Tendulkar and Dravid.

COMMISSIONER: I've got very great respect for you as a bowler Mr Crookes, but I don't think that was one of your better showings?

MR CROOKES: Definitely, definitely not.

COMMISSIONER: What were your statistics?

MR CROOKES: In the six overs, I think it was about 53 in six overs.

MR GISHEN: Your first three overs, how did that go?

MR CROOKES: In opening bowling conditions, it went fairly well, not too bad for a spinner.

MR GISHEN: In cricket parlance you were taken to the cleaners in certainly the next two overs, were you not?

MR CROOKES: Definitely.

MR GISHEN: Were you at all surprised that your captain asked you to bowl the sixth over?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I was. I had been hit previously.

MR GISHEN: Some time later in that game, you were called upon to bowl again, were you not?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I was.

MR GISHEN: Was that for the remaining four overs?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GISHEN: And how well did you fare, if anything at all?

MR CROOKES: Much better.

MR GISHEN: Did you get a wicket?

MR CROOKES: I got Tendulkar out.

COMMISSIONER: How much further down the line with the progress of the game, was your second spell?

MR CROOKES: I cannot exactly remember, it might have been 25, 30 overs into the game, I am not too sure.

COMMISSIONER: Was the wicket more conducive to your particular type of bowling for the second time around?

MR CROOKES: The ball was softer which makes it more conducive.

MR GISHEN: Mr Crookes, have you ever received or taken any money other than in the normal course of your profession?

MR CROOKES: No, I haven't.

MR GISHEN: Have you ever bet on any cricket match?

MR CROOKES: No, I haven't.

MR GISHEN: Thank you Mr Commissioner, that is all.

COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Gishen. Mr Gauntlett?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR GAUNTLETT: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Mr Crookes, just to get some clarity at the outset about the approach you bring to your evidence, do you have a high regard for Mr Cronje as a South African cricket captain?

MR CROOKES: As far as I am concerned, I think he is probably one of the best captains South Africa has ever produced.

MR GAUNTLETT: And in relation to what you have said, do you have any sense to be frank to the Commission of a personal hostility you have towards him for any reason, or do you feel still for him a high regard?

MR CROOKES: I still feel a high regard for him.

MR GAUNTLETT: Are you aware of any reason why any such sort of personal hostility could be ascribed to you?

MR CROOKES: No, not really, no.

MR GAUNTLETT: You have never had serious spats with him about anything?

MR CROOKES: No, I haven't had any serious spats about - no.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, Mr Crookes, I wonder if you could help just clarify a few things for us very briefly. The first thing relates to that plane flight you described very briefly to Mumbai. Could you just fix it for us, when was it? Was it the day before the last game in Mumbai or the evening, or just as you can, best fix the time-frame?

MR CROOKES: I don't know the exact time, as far as I can recall it was the day before the game.

MR GAUNTLETT: And you described how Mr Cronje came and sat was it behind you, was that right?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: And can you remember who was sitting next to you when this happened?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR GAUNTLETT: And can you remember where Mr Cronje was sitting in that flight, in other words whether you happen to remember that he was sitting a few rows behind you, in front, or whatever?

MR CROOKES: All I remember is that he ended up putting his head between the two seats and spoke to me, that is why I knew that he was behind me.

MR GAUNTLETT: Why did you think that he adopted this strange orthopaedic posture?

MR CROOKES: To have a chat, because that is what we normally do if we chatted to someone, not normally, but sometimes we do that.

MR GAUNTLETT: Could you just describe to us how do you mean between the seats?

MR CROOKES: Well, there is normally a gap between the two chairs, and he put his head between the two.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, could you just go through again, what in fact he said to you in that conversation as you can best recall it? Obviously we are talking back a period in time, and obviously we are not expecting the exact words which were used, but just play it through slowly again what he said to you?

MR CROOKES: He said that he had been approached to, that the team had been approached to lose the last game and he said that he had to speak to myself and Andrew Hudson, and that is when I said "are you serious or are you joking".

MR GAUNTLETT: And that response that he gave, as I understood it, was not to answer directly, but to say that you must think about it. What did you infer from that?

MR CROOKES: Sorry, I don't quite ...

MR GAUNTLETT: Yes, I - correct me if I am wrong, but I thought you to indicate that Mr Cronje's response to your very direct question was "well, think about it, or talk about it later", something to that effect.

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember, that is basically what happened, he just said "well, think about it and we'll have a meeting later".

MR GAUNTLETT: What I am asking you is, you know the man and we know that at times he does have an instinct to joke, was it your view from the way he was talking to you that this was a practical joke?

MR CROOKES: He often speaks in the same tone, whether he is joking or being serious.

MR GAUNTLETT: Which is why I am asking you what view did you form when he said to you in response to your question "you must think about it, talk about it later", how did you sum up his approach?

MR CROOKES: I was totally amazed at what he had said to me.

MR GAUNTLETT: Well, when you say you were totally amazed, were you amazed because you thought it an outrageous joke or did you think that he was saying something quite serious to you, what amazed you?

MR CROOKES: I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now ...

COMMISSIONER: Sorry Mr Gauntlett, you and Mr Gauntlett seem to be sparring a little, Mr Crookes. It seems to me from your reaction and also from the subsequent events, that this was a seriously intended approach, it wasn't just a joke?

MR CROOKES: Yes, after he told me "think about it", that night, it was serious.

MR GAUNTLETT: Thank you Mr Commissioner, yes, that is what I wanted to just try and clarify with you, Mr Crookes. You then chatted about it with Hudson, did you?

MR CROOKES: Yes, we left the meeting and went back to our room and we had a discussion about it.

MR GAUNTLETT: Yes. May I ask you this, before the team meeting you described, did you talk about it with Hudson or with anybody else, because he had mentioned Hudson's name to you before the team meeting?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR GAUNTLETT: So the first thing which happened ...

COMMISSIONER: Sorry Mr Gauntlett, I am interrupting you again, Hudson was your room-mate?

MR CROOKES: Yes, he was my room-mate.

MR GAUNTLETT: What happened, the flight landed, collect your luggage and went to the hotel, when did the team meeting take place in relation to that?

MR CROOKES: It was some time that evening, after landing.

MR GAUNTLETT: So, to follow up what the Commissioner was asking you, did you not think you should talk about it with Hudson, wasn't there an opportunity to talk about it with Hudson, or what happened, I am just curious about that?

MR CROOKES: I actually cannot quite remember whether I spoke to Andrew about it or not, but I just remember speaking to Andrew about it in more detail, after the meeting.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, at the meeting, you have told us that you cannot recall exactly who was there, but I understand you to be clear that there was no management there in the form of Mr Woolmer or anybody else that you can recall?

MR CROOKES: That is right.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, what was, could you just help us, what was conveyed, just take it more slowly, what was conveyed by Mr Cronje at that meeting? How did it unroll itself?

MR CROOKES: Can you clarify as to which meeting you are talking about?

MR GAUNTLETT: The first meeting.

MR CROOKES: As much as I can remember, we had, we were in a room and he said that we had been approached and we had been offered some money to throw the last game and that we should go away and think about it that night, because as far as I can remember, there weren't any, I don't think the whole team was there.

MR GAUNTLETT: From what you understood, was it an indication that this had come from the betting syndicate or some other source?

MR CROOKES: I would have presumed so.

MR GAUNTLETT: What would lead you to think that, is it just the knowledge that betting syndicates hover in the proximity or why would you think a betting syndicate?

MR CROOKES: Well, I have heard rumours that there was betting going on in cricket around, especially on the sub-continent. I presumed then probably from a punter or a bookie or whatever.

MR GAUNTLETT: And again, I take it from the whole way you have described it and as you answered the Commissioner a moment ago, that this seemed to you serious, this wasn't some sort of humour on the part of Cronje?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: What - were any details disclosed at that meeting in relation to how much and what you were supposed to do?

MR CROOKES: Not as far as I can remember, it is just that we had been offered some money.

MR GAUNTLETT: Alright, and then off you go with Mr Hudson, you go to your room and you talk about the matter, were you shocked by what you had heard?

MR CROOKES: Very much so.

MR GAUNTLETT: Could you just explain to us, why, Mr Crookes, maybe this had something to do with the way you understand a national cricket team represent its country or your own set of personal beliefs, what, just very simply would you spell out to us what might be for you the obvious, what shocked you?

MR CROOKES: That we had been offered some money to throw a match, that was the most, that was what shocked me.

MR GAUNTLETT: Were you shocked by the fact that the offer had been conveyed to you by the captain of the national cricket team?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: I gather from what you have told the Commission that Mr Hudson, was of the same mind. From what you have said, it didn't seem like it took one of you to persuade the other?

MR CROOKES: No, we just had a lengthy discussion what we believed, we basically do believe quite along the same lines, and that is what we believed.

MR GAUNTLETT: Could you just summarise for us briefly, what you felt that you believed and why the two of you thought this was so wrong?

MR CROOKES: Well, simply just that it was immoral and how it could jeopardise our future if we had to take the money and what it could do to our careers.

MR GAUNTLETT: Yes, then followed the meeting the next morning, is that right, the second meeting?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: And again only players were present?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: And at this meeting it seems from your evidence that details were put on the table by Cronje, some details, is that right?

MR CROOKES: He just said that $250 000 and we were either all in or all out and if one of us wasn't in, then we were all out.

COMMISSIONER: May I just ask Mr Crookes, the ones that apparently were in, did they try and exercise any sort of influence on people like yourself and Andrew Hudson who were quite positively out?

MR CROOKES: What happened is, Hansie opened up to the floor, so I don't know who was in and who was out, but myself and Andrew Hudson stood up along, as far as I can remember, Daryll and Dave Richardson and it could have, I don't know how many more other players spoke.

MR GAUNTLETT: This second meeting, was this on the morning...

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember, yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now at that meeting, what did you understand from Mr Cronje's own attitude towards the offer of $250 000 as it was put up? What was the indication, did he indicate to you that it was something that he was opposed to, but he thought that others might want to think about it, did you understand that he seems to be himself fairly in favour of the idea? What kind of understanding did you get from the idea that he spoke?

MR CROOKES: As far as I am concerned, he was serious about it and because it was a serious matter.

MR GAUNTLETT: When you say serious about it, you understood that clearly he himself was in favour of it?

MR CROOKES: No, serious matter that is why he was serious about it, because of what the consequences could involve later on in life.

MR GAUNTLETT: Well, put otherwise, did he say "look, we have had this offer, it is a serious matter, I must just say to you at the outset, as captain, that this is madness or it is immoral or it is something of that kind", did he express any kind of opposition in guidance at the outset?

MR CROOKES: I don't quite remember exactly what he might have said.

MR GAUNTLETT: Well, Mr Crookes, you must have a recollection overall as to whether Mr Cronje indicated opposition to what he was conveying to you, or he didn't, surely?

MR CROOKES: Can you please say that again?

MR GAUNTLETT: Yes, surely. You must have a recollection as to whether Mr Cronje was indicating that he thought that all this was mad and bad or whether he was putting it up as something that should seriously be thought about?

MR CROOKES: He basically left it up to the team to decide what should happen.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, what did he say to you about the matter being not only serious as you have indicated, but also secret, what did he say to you in that regard?

MR CROOKES: He said that we should not discuss it any further.

MR GAUNTLETT: When you say any further, I don't know that you mean that, any further means that you cannot even talk about it with each other, do you mean that you shouldn't discuss it with anybody else or that you should take an instant decision, what was he saying?

MR CROOKES: Not to discuss it outside of the team.

MR GAUNTLETT: Did you understand that that was for the rather obvious reason that as you and Hudson had already decided it was essentially not right, not honest or was there any other reason why it shouldn't be discussed?

MR CROOKES: To my, in my opinion, it was not to be discussed due to the fact that we had just come back into international cricket and how it could jeopardise South African cricket.

MR GAUNTLETT: Because it was fundamentally dishonest, if it got out that a South African team rigged the way, played its games, it would jeopardise South Africa's position because it would be a hallmark of dishonesty, not so?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, at that meeting you have told the Commission how you and Mr Hudson were forthright enough to stand up and squarely state how you felt?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: Can you recall who spoke first?

MR CROOKES: I thought I did, but it could have been Andrew.

MR GAUNTLETT: And again, if you could just try and tell us, we know that you cannot remember your exact words, but what did you say?

MR CROOKES: I said that as much to my knowledge that it was immoral and that I did not want to jeopardise my future and career and it was dishonest.

MR GAUNTLETT: And, did any others in speaking, explore the offer further saying "well, where does this come from and how would it be paid" and that sort of detail?

MR CROOKES: I really don't remember.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, you were present yesterday Mr Crookes, I think, when Mr Symcox gave evidence, not so?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I was.

MR GAUNTLETT: You remember he told the Commission that Mr Cronje had called him to his hotel room during a match in the Mandela Trophy against Pakistan and I think we established the date of that as being January 19195?

MR CROOKES: It might have been.

MR GAUNTLETT: Were you, was this the first that you had heard of that incident or had you heard talk in the team bus or did you have personal knowledge of that incident?

MR CROOKES: The only incident that I ever knew, was the 1996 one.

MR GAUNTLETT: Had you ever heard any talk about the January 1995 incident to which Mr Symcox testified?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, Mr Crookes, at a meeting which took place between the team, Dr Bacher and other officials of the Cricket Board at Kingsmead shortly after Mr Cronje's admission, which has precipitated this Inquiry, Jonty Rhodes told Dr Bacher that had it not been for essentially Andrew Hudson, I take it, it would include you, the offer in 1996 could have been accepted. Would you agree with Jonty, with Mr Rhodes on that, that it could well have been accepted, but for the stance you chaps took?

MR CROOKES: Sorry, can you repeat that, I just missed ...

MR GAUNTLETT: Yes, just let me put it to you that at a meeting, do you remember there was a meeting - oh, no sorry, you weren't at the meeting, it was Dr Bacher and some other officials of the UCB at Kingsmead just after Mr Cronje's admission, which precipitated this Inquiry, Jonty Rhodes told Bacher that had it not been for Hudson, and I assume also your stance, the offer in 1996 could well have been accepted. Do you think as you think back to that meeting in that room, that that is a fair statement?

MR CROOKES: I think everyone was entitled to their own opinion and as what followed after myself and Andrew Hudson, there were other players, as far as I can remember, they had their viewpoint and also denied and did not want to take the bribe.

MR GAUNTLETT: So the result was that after you and Mr Hudson spoke, there were as you recall other players who as it were, lined themselves up against the immorality and the personal consequences of taking the offer?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR GAUNTLETT: Do you recall a reference in the meeting when Mr Cronje was talking about the $250 000, the second meeting or for that matter, the first meeting about the team possibly being able to buy a house at Fancourt with the proceeds?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR GAUNTLETT: Mr Crookes, Mr - sorry Mr Commissioner, Mr Crookes, Mr Banjo, Mr Mohammed Cassim, are you able to help the Commission with the role played by Mr Cassim. You remember, you know ...

MR CROOKES: No, I have no idea.

MR GAUNTLETT: Oh. You have never been a recipient of biltong or I think what might appropriately in this matter be called "sweets from heaven"?

MR CROOKES: No, I haven't.

MR GAUNTLETT: Did you and Hudson have similar sort of visitors to your own room, bearing gifts of that kind?

MR CROOKES: We might have had players who might have come into the room with gifts that they might have received and offered to join us in the room to share, maybe, I don't know.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, could we then turn to that last aspect which is the question of the opening of the bowling in the fifth one day international at Nagpur on the 19th of March this year? The Commission is still endeavouring as you would know, you would have read, to obtain as I understand it, transcripts, all the transcripts of alleged tapes to which the Indian authorities have referred and there has been media reportage that one of the transcripts allegedly states that Mr Cronje is supposed to have told a man called Sanjay that you were going to open the bowling that day. Do you know, or did Mr Cronje, could we just get it clear, make any financial proposal to you of any kind in relation to opening the bowling?

MR CROOKES: No, not at all.

MR GAUNTLETT: You have been reported in the Electronic Telegraph as saying that you were surprised at your selection to open the bowling. I wonder if you could clarify that for us very shortly. Did you say that?

MR CROOKES: I might have said surprised or amazed or whatever the case might be, but yes, it is right.

MR GAUNTLETT: And you are also reported as saying that earlier in the tour Mr Cronje had told you that you wouldn't be opening at all, is that right, was there such an indication to you by Mr Cronje?

MR CROOKES: Yes, Graham Ford and Cronje told me.

MR GAUNTLETT: Now, you have told us now the circumstances in which you were told that you would be opening the bowling. What was the particular reason or reasoning which was given at the time, because you would have been very surprised at this stage, wouldn't you?

MR CROOKES: I was surprised at practice to have been told by Graham Ford but when Hansie then told me at the team meeting, I wasn't surprised because obviously I had heard it before, and I had opened the bowling for Gauteng on numerous occasions.

MR GAUNTLETT: Do I understand from that that in retrospect although you have publicly commented on, expressed your feelings of surprise, are you saying to the Commission that you don't see anything overall sinister about that now?

MR CROOKES: No.

COMMISSIONER: What surprises me is that you should have been told that before some little while before the game, surely it would have depended on the weather and the condition of the wicket before we put an off-spinner on to open the bowling?

MR CROOKES: Well, in the team meeting, we had already lost the series and Hansie said "we've got nothing to lose, so let's try something different".

COMMISSIONER: Did you regard that as a compliment, Mr Crookes?

MR CROOKES: Well, it didn't matter, I wanted to bowl anyway.

MR GAUNTLETT: In relation to Mr Henry Williams, do you know about Mr Williams being pressed to open the bowling with you, do you know anything about that?

MR CROOKES: I am not hundred percent sure on that, not at all.

MR GAUNTLETT: One last little aspect, yesterday afternoon Mr Symcox referred and it is in the transcript if you have it, Mr Commissioner, of yesterday's evidence, which came to us very shortly, a little while ago - it is on page 88, Mr Commissioner, line 20 - page 88, line 20. Just to try and clarify this question of the meetings to discuss the offer that you talked about, which was conveyed, the $250 000, the way I think you will remember, Mr Symcox seems to recollect it is that he seems to recollect one meeting as a team meeting and then senior players staying on, he would have heard, and there being a further phone conversation resulting in an additional $100 000 being offered. Do you remember that evidence?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I do.

MR GAUNTLETT: What he told the Commission is that it was suddenly a big difference and then if was left, and Mr Symcox says finished a beer and walked out and that was the other meeting. Do you know anything about that at all?

MR CROOKES: I have no idea about that.

MR GAUNTLETT: Because that was clearly a night time meeting following the other meeting, Mr Symcox seems to finished a beer afterwards?

MR CROOKES: I have no idea.

MR GAUNTLETT: Thank you Mr Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Fitzgerald?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR FITZGERALD: Thank you Mr Commissioner. Mr Crookes, just one question, Mr Gibbs' evidence will be that he recalls only attending one meeting, the team meeting in 1996, when the offer was discussed. It seems to be consistent with your evidence, would you agree?

MR CROOKES: No, there were two meetings.

MR FITZGERALD: Yes, but his evidence will be that he only went to one meeting, he doesn't recall any other meeting that he personally attended?

MR CROOKES: That is what he remembers.

MR FITZGERALD: Yes, and I see from your statement you have said that what could well be your first meeting, you don't remember whether the whole team was there or not?

MR CROOKES: That is right.

MR FITZGERALD: All right. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Dickerson?

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, I understood the position with regard to this witness, who is also being interviewed by Ms Batohi, would be as with Mr Symcox and we would cross-examine last.

MR GAUNTLETT: Mr Commissioner, may I just enquire in this regard, we understood that there would be an initial indication given by you at a meeting, and I rather thought were agreed by us, that the sequence would be one which we are very happy to fall in with, but the proper position for Ms Batohi is to be able to ask questions after everybody else. We are really not sure how it has come about that some sort of differentiated position in the questioning has subtly evolved over the last day.

COMMISSIONER: That was what was arranged, I think, Mr Dickerson.

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, the reason why this was raised yesterday both in relation to Mr Symcox and today in relation to Mr Crookes, is that both of these witnesses have been consulted by Ms Batohi. We don't know whether there is additional information which she wishes to elicit on which we may wish to cross-examine and if so, we would then have to deal with it later. It seemed to us without anything sinister being intended, that it was convenient for Ms Batohi to address the matter first.

If there is anything which we raise, we have no difficulty with her re-examining, but it may be that there are other aspects which she knows about and wishes to raise.

COMMISSIONER: Ms Batohi, if you have no problem with questioning Mr Crookes now, subject to your being able to reply if necessary, after Mr Dickerson has cross-examined. Do you have a problem with that?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BATOHI: I have no problem with that Chair, Mr Commissioner, it is entirely up to you. Mr Crookes, I am just going to deal with the incident that you referred to on the aeroplane on your way to Mumbai, that was in 1996, before the last test. Was it a one day? You said that Hansie came up to you and said to you that well the team had been offered money to throw that game the following day and that - I am just looking at your statement -

"He said that he had spoken to the other team members and had only to speak to Andrew Hudson",

do you remember that clearly?

MR CROOKES: As much to my knowledge, yes.

MS BATOHI: So I accept that you wouldn't have had any personal knowledge of what he had done as far as speaking to the other players are concerned, but from what he had told you, it would appear that he had actually discussed this issue probably individually with the other members of the team and it was just you and Hudson left that he needed to speak to?

MR CROOKES: That is right.

MS BATOHI: And well, just taking that one step further, he would obviously got in this process, some indication of the feelings of the team members regarding whether the offer should be accepted or not?

MR CROOKES: I have no idea what he might have thought.

MS BATOHI: No, I accept you have no idea, but it would appear from what he told me, that the intention of speaking to the other players, individually it would appear was to gather what the sort of attitude of the players would be before it was discussed in a team meeting?

MR CROOKES: It could have been.

MS BATOHI: I am not going to question you in any detail about what happened at the meetings because Mr Gauntlett has done that, but just on one or two things, Mr Symcox yesterday mentioned that after the meeting and after that offer had been rejected by the team, there was another meeting of four players that he mentioned, you recall that?

MR CROOKES: I recall that in the statement, yes.

MS BATOHI: And he said that Hansie Cronje made a further phone call and the offer was upped by about $100 000, do you remember that?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MS BATOHI: Did you at any stage subsequent to that hear about the fact that this had in fact happened?

MR CROOKES: No, the first was yesterday.

MS BATOHI: Just on one aspect, you were questioned by Mr Gauntlett about what Mr Cronje's attitude was during this meeting, whether he seemed to have any strong feelings against this offer or not and your answer to that was that he had left it to the team, do you remember that?

MR CROOKES: Yes, that is right.

MS BATOHI: But the impression I get is that Mr Cronje basically left it to the team. One would have expected that if he had strong feelings against it, that he wouldn't have left it to the team or he may well have left it to the team, but first expressed the feeling, his feeling that he was against this, and you cannot remember anything like that?

MR CROOKES: No.

COMMISSIONER: Or I think even more fundamentally, if he was strongly against it, he wouldn't have even raised it with the team, surely Mr Crookes?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MS BATOHI: Just on that meeting, before any decision was taken to reject this offer outright, well, at any stage, at some stage during that meeting, do you recall Mr Cronje saying something to the effect that if the offer was accepted, that nobody should know about it, including your wives?

MR CROOKES: That is right.

MS BATOHI: What was your reaction to that?

MR CROOKES: That is one of the reasons why I stood up, because I just got married and I wasn't prepared to hide anything from my wife.

COMMISSIONER: Because you just got married?

MS BATOHI: Are you now - you don't have to answer that. A comment that you ascribe to Hansie Cronje, you said that at some stage whilst this offer was being discussed, he said, oh no, hang on, that wasn't with regard to the offer, this related to the questioning by, I think Mr Gauntlett or one of Counsel, in respect of the one day international played at Nagpur on the 19th of March 2000, when you opened the bowling together with Williams, you remember that? You said at some stage Hansie Cronje said that you have nothing to lose and therefore you should try something different, do you remember that?

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember, in the team meeting that was one of the reasons, why not try something different than has been done before, because you know in the past we had lost the game or the series and then we tried something different, so I wasn't that surprised with that, for opening the bowling.

MS BATOHI: But it would appear to me that Mr Cronje wasn't too concerned about in fact losing that match by trying something different?

MR CROOKES: I think he was thinking ahead and taking the possible chance of winning the match in that position, because it had been done before, Patrick Symcox did it a while ago.

COMMISSIONER: That may have been the original intention, but I would have thought that after you bowled a few overs, it might have changed?

MR CROOKES: Sometimes when the batsmen are smashing a spinner, it is still a good chance of getting a wicket because they are playing shots.

MS BATOHI: That is also the match where Henry Williams opened the bowling with you and bowled 1.5 overs and then retired injured?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MS BATOHI: Do you recall that Mr Williams was carrying an injury at that time?

MR CROOKES: I know that he had injured himself in the first match.

MS BATOHI: As far as you knew, what was his condition to play on the 19th of March at Nagpur?

MR CROOKES: It was his decision, I didn't know about whether he was still injured or not, I thought maybe if he was playing, therefore he has recovered and he would have said to the physio and the captain that he was fit enough to play.

MS BATOHI: You see this particular match has become an issue because from the transcripts that we have, it appears that there was a conversation between Mr Cronje and probably Mr Chawla, which has been released ...

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, if I could at this stage raise an objection. If and when tapes or transcripts are received by the Commission in evidence, it is one thing to put to witnesses who are not party to any of the alleged discussions, what was said in it, but as we sit here now, there are no tapes, no transcripts, questions of admissibility, of provenance, of legality and of constitutionality had not been addressed in any manner or form. This witness has nothing to do with those tapes. To put to the witness questions or statements leading to questions on the basis of what is supposedly contained in what may never be admitted before the Commission, is with respect inappropriate.

COMMISSIONER: If it was put, if the question was put without reference to the tapes?

MR DICKERSON: Then Mr Commissioner, there could be no objection.

COMMISSIONER: I think Mr Batohi, you could just as well put it in that way without direct reference to the tapes. I am not ruling at this stage on Mr Dickerson's objection, because I don't with to rule before, unless it becomes necessary and I wouldn't do so before I had heard yourself and the other Counsel, but for purposes of that question to Mr Crookes, perhaps you could just put it without reference to the tapes and see, solicit his answer.

MS BATOHI: Well, I will try Mr Commissioner. There has been extensive media coverage about the alleged tapes and about transcripts that have been printed in the media, have you read those?

MR CROOKES: I haven't read all of them, no.

MS BATOHI: There is one that mentions a conversation in which ...

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, with great respect, we are back to square one.

COMMISSIONER: Ms Batohi, could you not put the question to Mr Crookes, if he is aware of a conversation between Mr Cronje and Mr Sanjay or whoever, would that inhibit your question, because if that is so I will hear Mr Dickerson and I will hear the rest of the legal representatives as to the status of these tapes for purposes of cross-examination.

MS BATOHI: Mr Commissioner, it is very difficult as you know, because all we have at this stage is what has been reported in the press, and what we've got off the internet, and we don't have authentic transcripts. That is all that we have at this stage.

It is very difficult to get the witness to comment on anything that may be on those transcripts without directly referring to what we have.

COMMISSIONER: Can't you put the question without reference to the tapes or to the transcripts, ask Mr Crookes if he has any knowledge of a conversation between Mr Cronje and Mr Chawla or whatever his name is and dependent upon his answer, it may be necessary to take it further and if it is necessary to take it further, by reference to the tapes or the transcripts or what appeared in the newspapers, on that, then we will, I will have to rule on the question of the admissibility of the question, because there are obviously going to be a lot of other questions relating to that subject.

MS BATOHI: Mr Commissioner, there are going to be a lot of other questions relating to this and it is very difficult at this stage, because frankly I don't want to elicit from this witness whether he is aware of a conversation, it is an opinion that I want him to express in the light of that conversation and what subsequently transpired.

COMMISSIONER: Could you not put the question hypothetically if you merely want to elicit an opinion?

MS BATOHI: Alright, let me try that.

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, with respect, we do think it is, with great respect, it is necessary for you to make a ruling in this regard, because I have already done exactly what Ms Batohi is trying to do. It is inhibiting. Thirdly this is a Commission not a court of law. Fourthly, Mr Commissioner to reduce it to circumstances where Ms Batohi or we are obliged to put something which becomes impossible to follow like some sort of contention of fact which floats in the air, instead of saying there is a report in the newspaper which reports you as I put to this witness or as I put to him squarely, there is an alleged transcript, we haven't got it yet, in which Mr Sanjay is supposed to have done this and the other, with respect Mr Commissioner, at the end of the Commission, if the tapes aren't received and secondly if the Commission decides that it is to be circumscribed and cannot have any regard to material which Commissions normally do to whatever weight they may have, which may even be hearsay, then let it be ruled then, but our concern, Mr Commissioner is that the facts must come out and even if the facts are at this stage of a contingent kind, the suppression which otherwise would take place through eliminating one change for one witness who would soon be going to Sri Lanka is very prejudicial to all of us.

COMMISSIONER: Do you have a view, Mr Fitzgerald?

MR FITZGERALD: Yes, indeed we do. We support the attitude proposed by my learned friend, Mr Gauntlett. We see no reason why there should be no reference to the tapes.

COMMISSIONER: What is your view Mr Gishen?

MR GISHEN: Mr Commissioner, I have no objection to it, the sooner we get to the bottom of this, the better.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Dickerson, I certainly hear you, my prima facie view and it is a strongly held one, accords with what your colleagues have submitted to me. This is a Commission, it can be put on a contingency basis and if the evidential support is subsequently not forthcoming, that would obviously reinforce a submission at the stage of argument, that the evidence should be ignored. I don't think it would be appropriate for me to disallow reference to it.

MR DICKERSON: Mr Commissioner, if that is the ruling, we must abide.

COMMISSIONER: Carry on then Ms Batohi.

MS BATOHI: Thank you Mr Commissioner. There has been, we have transcripts of a conversation between Mr Cronje and Mr Chawla in which he states and it would appear that this conversation took place, and we are going to try to establish this and prove it, on the 18th of March 2000 which should be the day before the match at Nagpur, which was on the 19th, and during that conversation Mr Cronje is heard to say that you will be opening the bowling with Mr Williams. Do you remember reading something like that in the press?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MS BATOHI: With hindsight now, having read that and having been told at the outset of those one day internationals that you would not be considered for opening the bowling and you yourself said that you were surprised at the time, now having read these transcripts as well, do you perhaps think that maybe there was something not quite right about you and Mr Williams opening the bowling or perhaps that there was some other reason that Mr Cronje had for asking the two of you to open the bowling and not that it was something different that you should perhaps try?

MR CROOKES: No, I don't find it very unusual because I have done it before.

MS BATOHI: Even with the benefit of hindsight and having knowledge of what is in those transcripts?

MR CROOKES: I still find it, well it makes you think.

MS BATOHI: Well, that is exactly, it makes you think? There is one other match that I want to deal with and that is the final one day international at Sharjah which followed immediately after the tour to India. The final was played on the 31st of March 2000 between South Africa and Pakistan, do you remember that?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MS BATOHI: In this match, just looking at your figures, it appears that you bowled five overs for 20 runs, and from what I have read in the media etc, you thought that this was one of your better spells, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: As far as five overs is concerned, yes.

MS BATOHI: I just want you to comment on this, is it correct that you only bowled five overs, you didn't bowl any further in that match?

MR CROOKES: No.

MS BATOHI: And looking at the statistics that I have, it appears that South Africa used seven bowlers during that match?

MR CROOKES: Well, there are a lot of all-rounders in the team.

MS BATOHI: I accept that. But Mr Cronje himself came on as a seventh bowler? You didn't complete your spell, he came on as a seventh bowler and bowled three overs for 22 runs? Bearing in mind the fact that you had bowled particularly well earlier on in that game, do you find it strange then that you were not called back on to bowl and Mr Cronje brought himself on and then in my view, it is not an expert view, I must say, was particularly expensive at three overs for 22 runs? Can you comment on that?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I thought I would come back and bowl, but the captain makes the decision and it is up to him.

COMMISSIONER: Was it in your mind, would you say it was a logical thing to have done, to have brought you back?

MR CROOKES: Not entirely because what happened is that I had finished just before the 35th over and it was time for another new ball, and we would have got a harder ball, so therefore he thought he should bring himself on, because to hit a spinner with a soft ball, is very difficult and to hit a spinner with a hard ball, makes it a little easier and vice versa with the fast bowler or a medium pacer.

COMMISSIONER: ... taken, can you recall?

MR CROOKES: On the 35th over, yes, it was basically compulsory.

COMMISSIONER: It is compulsory and there was still another 15 overs then to be bowled?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MS BATOHI: Would you please bear with me, Mr Commissioner? Just one more thing I would like to canvass with you. When was the Hong Kong 6's tournament played when you won the man of the series?

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember it was the same year, 1996.

MS BATOHI: I have no further questions, Mr Commissioner.

COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Dickerson?

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DICKERSON: Mr Crookes, firstly you were asked by Mr Gauntlett about a statement apparently made by Jonty Rhodes at Kingsmead to the effect that but for things which you and Andrew Hudson had said in 1996, the offer may have been accepted. At the time of this offer and the discussions around the offer, was Jonty Rhodes with the team?

MR CROOKES: No, he wasn't.

MR DICKERSON: Where was he?

MR CROOKES: He had gone back home.

MR DICKERSON: So he wasn't present at any meetings or discussions surrounding that offer?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR DICKERSON: I have listened carefully to what you have said about the meeting or meetings in 1996, is it correct to say that what happened was that an offer was conveyed to the team by Hansie Cronje who neither spoke in favour nor against the offer?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: But who said that it was for the team to decide and that any decision had to be, or a decision in favour had to be unanimous?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And in the event some may have been tempted, some were not, but the offer was rejected?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Now to go back to the circumstances which prevailed at that time, that is the last one day international of the 1996 tour, that had been a particularly arduous and difficult tour, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And at the time that the last one day international was played, there was considerable unhappiness within the squad, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Partly because the one day international had initially been understood to be a benefit match not an official international and the team was unhappy that it had now been made an official international fixture?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: You had also and I say "you", meaning the squad, had also suffered from a number of crippling injuries to important players?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Who kept wicket during that last one day international?

MR CROOKES: I will be guessing, it might be Gary Kirsten.

MR DICKERSON: Yes, because Dave Richardson was ill?

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember, he might have been one of the players.

MR DICKERSON: Jonty Rhodes and Allan Donald had already left, had they not?

MR CROOKES: I don't remember Allan leaving, I remember Jonty leaving.

MR DICKERSON: March of this year and the fifth one day international in India, as far as you opening the bowling was concerned, you had played in the first one day international and you had bowled somewhere in the middle of the Indian innings, and your figures were 5/37, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: You played in the second one day international, you bowled again somewhere in the middle of the innings and your figures were 10/44?

MR CROOKES: I bowled all over the place.

MR DICKERSON: Well you didn't open, let me put it that way?

MR CROOKES: I bowled the third or fourth, fifth over. I bowled one over initially.

MR DICKERSON: Your figures there were 10/44?

MR CROOKES: That is right.

MR DICKERSON: You didn't play in the third and fourth one- day internationals?

MR CROOKES: That is right.

MR DICKERSON: You routinely opened the bowling for your provincial side, Gauteng?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And you had done so prior to the Indian tour earlier this year?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: One of the difficulties which the South African side had been confronted with during the one day series against the Indians, was the rapid run rate in the early overs, particularly as a result of Ganguly's performance, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And that was one of the major obstacles that you were confronted with and one of the reasons for the fairly unsuccessful performance in the first four games?

MR CROOKES: Yes, that is right.

MR DICKERSON: And it was of importance for purposes of the last game, to find something to try and deal with or neutralise Ganguly?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Shortly before the fifth international, one day international, were you introduced to Kieran Moré, the former Indian wicketkeeper?

MR CROOKES: I remember meeting him at a practise.

MR DICKERSON: And he was introduced to you by Hansie Cronje, is that not correct?

MR CROOKES: He might have, because I met him before.

MR DICKERSON: Yes. And Kieran Moré remarked that he was surprised that the South Africans hadn't found Ganguly out, that everybody in India knew that he was a left hand batsman whose weakness was that he couldn't sweep and that the way to deal with him, was to bowl full onto his legstump with an off-spinner. Did you hear that?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR DICKERSON: Was that explanation given to you when the question of you opening the bowling, was discussed?

MR CROOKES: It was said that we would try and nullify the situation because you know, he might battle against spin.

MR DICKERSON: And up to that point, he was probably if not the only, certainly one of the two major danger-men in the Indian batting line-up?

MR CROOKES: That is right.

MR DICKERSON: The first person to tell you that you would be opening the bowling was the coach, Graham Ford, when you were asked the day before the fifth game to bowl with the new ball in the net?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: So you knew at the very latest, the day before the game that you were going to be opening the bowling and you knew that from the coach himself?

MR CROOKES: He said that I would be considered and Hansie then finalised it that evening too.

MR DICKERSON: Is it not correct that earlier in the tour, it had also been said to you that the squad was looking for a replacement for Pat Symcox and they were looking for somebody to take over the role that he had previously played, both as a pinch-hitter and as a bowler, an early bowler, but that you would be bowled in the middle to try and help you gain confidence?

MR CROOKES: We have had many discussions, I don't quite remember that exact incident or whether it was said.

MR DICKERSON: Do you recollect that being said to you?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR DICKERSON: Do you dispute that it was said to you?

MR CROOKES: It might have been said to me.

MR DICKERSON: As far as the last game then was concerned, after you had been told in the nets by Graham Ford that you were in the offing to open the bowling, the night before the game as with all games, there was a meeting of the selectors, are you aware of that?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And the selectors at that stage were Graham Ford, the assistant-coach Corrie van Zyl, Hansie Cronje and Shaun Pollock?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And that meeting is attended in addition by Craig Smith the physiotherapist?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: He is the person who reports on the status of players' injuries and whether they are fit and if so, to what extent they can or cannot be bowled?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And in order for your opening the bowling to have been decided, it would have been necessary for that to be addressed at the selectors' meeting?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Do you accept that it was discussed and agreed at that meeting?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And after the selectors' meeting, also the evening before the game, a team meeting is held, where the whole team, together with the selectors meets to discuss the match the following day?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: You were present at that meeting?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Also present at that meeting was Mr Goolam Rajah, the team manager?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And at that meeting the question of you opening the bowling and the reason why you would be opening the bowling, was discussed?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Now, just to put some other aspect into perspective including the fact that Mr Williams opened the bowling with you, at that stage, you were also nearing the end of the Indian tour and you had had some injuries. Pollock, Kallis and Bojé had suffered injuries and were being rested on the advice of the physio, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: To my knowledge, as much as I can remember, yes.

MR DICKERSON: So Pollock, Hayward, Kallis and Bojé, I am sorry I don't know if I mentioned all four names to you, were effectively being rested and were out of the running for that last game?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Lance Klusener, one of the other more frontline bowlers, had only bowled two overs throughout the tournament because he had been injured, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: He was only just back from injury and he was being nursed to keep him in good condition physically for the Sharjah Cup?

MR CROOKES: In my opinion, yes.

MR DICKERSON: And by the time the fifth game, one day international was played against India, the series had been lost and the more important target on the horizon was not the last one day international, but the Sharjah Cup which was coming up?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Apart from you and Williams, the only other real frontline bowler who was available was Elworthy?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: And as far as Williams was concerned, he had previously had an injury but the decision to select him is taken by the panel, was taken by the selectors and it was taken on the basis of advice received from the physiotherapist?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: The player himself is also a person who has a substantial say in whether he is fit or not?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: I am about to go onto a different topic, Mr Commissioner, I seem to recall that the agreed times were to eleven o'clock and not quarter past, unless I was much mistaken.

MS BATOHI: I think I recall eleven as well.

MR DICKERSON: Perhaps this may be an appropriate time.

COMMISSIONER: ... 15 minutes only.

COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr Dickerson, please.

DEREK NORMAN CROOKES: (s.u.o.)

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR DICKERSON: (cont)

Thank you Mr Commissioner. Mr Crookes, before we leave the fifth one day international when you opened the bowling, in your first over and correct me if I am wrong, it may even have been your first ball, you bowled to Tendulkar and there was a very good chance, Hershelle Gibbs was very unlucky not to catch him?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: If that had panned out, that would have been a very great success?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

COMMISSIONER: May I just ask you, did you follow your instructions and bowl your off-spinners on the legstump?

MR CROOKES: I had no instructions.

COMMISSIONER: Pardon?

MR CROOKES: I had no instructions of that sort.

COMMISSIONER: Even if you did, I think it might have counted for your analysis.

MR DICKERSON: And then lastly, after your initial opening spell and you had bowled I think five of your overs, Hansie Cronje indicated that he wanted to take you off and you held up your finger to indicate that you wanted another over. Do you recall that?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR DICKERSON: Do you dispute that?

MR CROOKES: I don't remember.

MR DICKERSON: To go back to 1996, I don't know that it is of any great import but I will put it to you nonetheless and that is that there was only one team and by team I mean proper team meeting, where there was a discussion of this offer to throw a game and I suggest to you that you are mistaken in thinking that there were two?

MR CROOKES: As far as I can remember there were two meetings, but the first meeting was, to my knowledge, wasn't a full team.

MR DICKERSON: Well, it was a long time ago, it was in 1996, do you accept that you could be mistaken on that score?

MR CROOKES: No, there were two meetings.

MR DICKERSON: Now, what was Bob Woolmer's reaction when he subsequently heard about what had happened?

MR CROOKES: I have no idea.

MR DICKERSON: Were you not aware that he was irate?

MR CROOKES: I have no idea that he knew of anything.

MR DICKERSON: And did you not mention it to Mr Woolmer?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR DICKERSON: Did you mention it to Mr Rajah, the Team Manager?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR DICKERSON: Did you mention it to any member of management or of the United Cricket Board?

MR CROOKES: No.

MR DICKERSON: You indicated in your evidence earlier that when you were approached on the aeroplane, you were amazed, couldn't believe what you had heard, after the plane landed you went to the hotel with Andrew Hudson who was your room-mate, is that correct?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Did you discuss it with Andrew Hudson?

MR CROOKES: The only time I remember discussing with Andrew Hudson was after that first meeting.

MR DICKERSON: If you were as shocked and amazed as you suggest, do you have an explanation why you didn't discuss it with your room-mate?

MR CROOKES: No, because there was going to be a meeting to follow that night.

MR DICKERSON: And after that meeting, when you say you were again shocked and surprised, why did you not take it up with a member of The Management?

MR CROOKES: We were told to think about it that night.

MR DICKERSON: After the offer had been rejected, it became a bit of a joke amongst the team, is that not correct?

MR CROOKES: It may have been, yes.

MR DICKERSON: Well, you were a member of the team, was it or wasn't it regarded as a joke?

MR CROOKES: It was, it ended up being a joke.

MR DICKERSON: In fact, I don't know if you are aware of this, but Mr Goolam Rajah, the Manager, has indicated that he came across players, I think in the change room, laughing and joking about the offer after it had been rejected. They told him about it, were you one of those players?

MR CROOKES: Not to my knowledge.

MR DICKERSON: It wasn't regarded as a great secret thereafter, was it?

MR CROOKES: Not after 1996.

MR DICKERSON: And I suggest to you as well that you were mistaken when you say that you were told to keep it secret and not even to tell your wives?

MR CROOKES: Can you start that again?

MR DICKERSON: I suggest to you that you are mistaken when you say that at the time you were told not, or to keep the discussion secret and not even to mention it to your wives?

MR CROOKES: No, I was told, we were told not to discuss it even with our wives.

MR DICKERSON: Well, if ...

MR CROOKES: If we had to take the bribe.

MR DICKERSON: If the offer had been accepted, it would have been kept a secret, is that what you are suggesting?

MR CROOKES: Well, the offer wasn't taken.

MR DICKERSON: Yes. So therefore any injunction about keeping it secret, didn't apply?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: So the reality is that after the offer had been rejected, it was regarded as a joke and no attempt was made by team members to keep it a secret?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

MR DICKERSON: Do you recall after that game which was lost, somebody jokingly remarking in the change room or enquiring in the change room whether it was now too late to take the money?

MR CROOKES: I think in a joking manner it might have been said, I don't really remember.

MR DICKERSON: May I ask a moment's indulgence, Mr Commissioner. I have no further questions.

COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Dickerson. Ms Batohi?

FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS BATOHI: Just one question please Mr Commissioner. It has just been put to you by Mr Dickerson that the reality of the situation is that after the offer had been rejected, it was regarded as a joke and there was no attempt made to conceal this. But the reality of the situation also is that there was a serious offer made at the time, which Mr Cronje put to the team, which was seriously considered and seriously rejected at the end of the day as Mr Gauntlett put to one of the other witnesses, is that the reality?

MR CROOKES: Could you try and just explain yourself there?

MS BATOHI: There was a serious offer, at the time when it was made, there was no joke about it, that is the reality?

MR CROOKES: Yes, that is right.

MS BATOHI: I have no further questions.

COMMISSIONER: Mr Crookes, did you tell your wife about this joke as it subsequently became, apparently?

MR CROOKES: Yes, I did.

COMMISSIONER: When you got home?

MR CROOKES: Yes.

COMMISSIONER: Yes? Was it freely discussed by the players with other people that you know of?

MR CROOKES: Not that I remember as late as maybe a year later, I remember Fanie de Villiers talking about it, that is when I first heard about it again.

COMMISSIONER: Did you tell anyone other than your wife?

MR CROOKES: Later on I told my parents.

COMMISSIONER: And other than your wife and your parents?

MR CROOKES: I don't know, I cannot remember who I told, if I told anybody.

COMMISSIONER: Thank you very much for your evidence and your being here, it has been most helpful. Thank you.

MR CROOKES: Thank you.