So, once again, limited overs cricket is destined to break South African hearts, writes Dan Nicholl.
Watson: 'I won't tour'
Article By:
Jan de Koning
Sat, 25 Oct 2008 17:20
Luke Watson has blamed the media in announcing his decision to "withdraw" his right to selection in the Springbok team for the year-end tour to the United Kingdom.
In a statement issued to the Independent group of newspapers, Watson said the decision came after "serious consideration and prayer".
Breaking his silence after a fortnight of raging controversy, the Cape Town loose forward said his presence in the touring team would have seen the continuation of a "propagandistic campaign" by the media to vilify him.
His "withdrawal" follows the announcement earlier this week that the controversial loose forward, Watson, will have to answer some serious questions over his recent bizarre attack on his Springbok teammates, South African rugby, administrators and even the late Danie Craven.
It was confirmed on Thursday that the Western Province and Springbok flank, Watson, will be called to a South African Rugby Union disciplinary
hearing in terms of the provisions of the SARU Code of Conduct.
This follows the iafrica.com report on his melodramatic outburst, in which he claimed that he felt so nauseated by wearing the Springbok jersey that he wanted to vomit on it.
Another claim he made was that "the problem with SA rugby is that it is controlled by Dutchmen", whilst Watson also suggested that SA rugby is "rotten to the core" and that "the men who sit on my left and right of me in the change room despise me for who I am".
In announcing his non-availability for selection, the man who said he once wanted to vomit on the Springbok jersey tried to reclaim the moral high ground and attempted to save coach Peter de Villiers from the nightmare decision of whether to include him for the forthcoming tour to Wales, Scotland and England.
Watson's statement in full: "After serious consideration and prayer, I have decided to withdraw my availability for the national rugby side for
the end of year overseas
rugby tour.
"I wish to state that I have been extremely disappointed by the propagandistic campaign leveled against me. I am of the firm belief that those who instigated this orchestrated media campaign to vilify me were detracting from the real issue at hand, that being transformation in rugby.
"It is very clear to me that a hidden hand is at work crafting spurious allegations and half truths as to what I was purported to have said.
"The very same group of instigators has conducted a trial by media, without affording me an opportunity for stating my case at the appropriate time and in the proper forum, given this trial by media to do so at this stage serves no purpose.
"Indeed, some rugby office bearers have even declared my so called guilt prior to the disciplinary hearing. I accordingly reserve my rights in this regard.
"I am withdrawing due to the ongoing controversy that has been deliberately created as a
result of my stance on matters of transformation. This controversy should have focused on matters of transformation in rugby but unfortunately, the media has personalized a debate that should be the domain of all committed citizens.
"Should I have been selected for the National Rugby team; my mere presence would have sustained this destructive pattern.
"The team should be allowed the opportunity to compete internationally in an environment free of controversy and unnecessary distraction. In addition, my forthcoming disciplinary hearing will reinforce this negative trend.
"I wish to assure the rugby supporting public that I remain committed and dedicated to South African rugby and to this wonderful democracy of ours, however, I will never sacrifice the ideals and beliefs regarding transformation in rugby that the majority of South Africans hold dear to their hearts.
"I would like to take this opportunity in wishing the Management, the Coach, the
Captain, Support Staff and the National Team all the best for the forthcoming overseas tour." — Luke Watson
Is he pre-empting the inevitable axe by claiming the moral high ground? Debate the matter here.