What Sandpapergate and the Sydney Swans Teach Us About Integrity Investigations
The importance of getting the scope, process, and outcomes of investigations right — and some valuable lessons from the late Bruce Collins KC.
Two of Australia's most prominent sporting organisations have recently found themselves in the headlines over matters involving integrity, player conduct, and organisational culture:
Cricket Australia is responding to renewed public debate surrounding the 2018 Sandpapergate controversy involving conduct by members of the men’s Test team in a match in South Africa, following recent claims by retired Australian Test cricketer Usman Khawaja; and
The Sydney Swans Australian Football League club have commenced a comprehensive review of their football program and broader organisational culture following several off-field incidents involving players.
While the circumstances are quite different, both provide an opportunity to consider the purpose, scope and effectiveness of investigations and reviews in sport.
These are important issues for all sporting organisations, whether professional clubs, national sporting organisations (NSOs), state sporting organisations (SSOs) or community sporting clubs. And, as a seminal National Sports Tribunal (NST) determination by the late Bruce Collins KC demonstrates, conducting integrity investigations — and then properly applying their findings — requires careful consideration of evidence, applicable policies, procedural fairness, and legal obligations.
Sandpapergate: Eight years later
Few sporting integrity controversies have attracted more public attention in Australia than the ball-tampering scandal involving Australia's men's Test cricket team during its 2018 tour of South Africa. The controversy resulted in significant sanctions imposed by Cricket Australia against Steve Smith, David Warner, and Cameron Bancroft, following an investigation into the events at Cape Town.
Almost eight (8) years later, former Australian Test opener Usman Khawaja has made a series of claims challenging the previously accepted account of events. In comments published on 7 November 2026, ahead of the release of his autobiography, Khawaja claimed that knowledge of discussions concerning ball tampering was more widespread among the Australian team than previously acknowledged. He also alleged that sandpaper had been used during the preceding Test in Port Elizabeth, and also stated that he was not interviewed during Cricket Australia's original investigation.
Khawaja has subsequently explained that his intention was not to apportion additional blame to individual teammates, but to acknowledge what he considers to have been a collective failure. He has expressed concern that the three (3) sanctioned players bore responsibility for conduct and decisions involving others.
Cricket Australia has responded by maintaining its confidence in the original investigation, stating that all relevant information presented to it has been properly considered.
Other members of the touring party have previously denied knowledge of sandpaper or other foreign substances being taken onto the field. These now competing accounts have understandably attracted considerable public attention to what is a matter that some can’t seem to be able to move on from. However, amongst the renewed focus, some important distinctions do need to be made.
Knowing about discussions concerning ball tampering is not necessarily the same as participating in a particular incident, agreeing to the use of sandpaper, or committing a breach of applicable rules. Similarly, Khawaja's assertion that he was not interviewed does not necessarily establish that the original investigation was inadequate.
Investigators must make decisions about which witnesses to interview, which evidence to obtain, and how far their inquiries should extend. Those decisions depend on the allegations, terms of reference, evidence available, time pressures and constraints, and purpose of the investigation. Without access to Cricket Australia's original investigation report, the underlying evidence, its terms of reference, and the advice and recommendations provided, it is neither possible nor appropriate to draw conclusions about the adequacy of that investigation.
Cultural Review
Of course, following the integrity investigation, Cricket Australia also commissioned an independent cultural review by ‘The Ethics Centre’. The subsequent 147-page report, titled ‘A Matter of Balance’ gave a somewhat poor insight into Cricket Australia’s internal environment and governance. Some of the core findings included:
Win-at-All-Costs Mentality: CA developed an unbalanced culture that heavily prioritized winning above all else, which eroded core ethical standards and values.
Arrogant and Controlling Culture: The review labeled Cricket Australia as "arrogant and controlling," noting that leadership shared responsibility with players for failing to maintain ethical restraint.
Disrespect and Bullying: The report identified multiple instances of internal disrespect, workplace harassment, and bullying within CA, along with an "old boys" club mentality favoring former players.
“Gilded Bubble": Players were described as living in an isolated bubble where poor behavior was frequently tolerated and cheating was subtly redefined as simply "playing hard".
Gender Imbalance and Disconnect: The review highlighted a severe gender imbalance and a lack of diversity, though it explicitly noted that the women's cricket side of the organization was untainted and unaffected by these cultural issues.
Overlap with the Scourge: The report concluded that the perceived causes of the Cape Town ball-tampering incident—involving Steve Smith, David Warner, and Cameron Bancroft—directly mirrored the broader cultural state of Australian cricket at the time.
Outside of three (3) players sanctioned, the wider impacts of the ball tampering and the conduct that followed, along with the issues uncovered during the investigation and the review, exploded across the organisation. Major sponsors terminated Cricket Australia and player sponsorships. The coach of the Australian team, Darren Lehman, quit his post before he had even left South Africa. Within nine (9) months, Cricket Australia lost four board directors – Bob Every, Chairman David Peever, Tony Harrison and former test cricket captain Mark Taylor. The resignation of longstanding CEO James Sutherland as well as two of his most senior executives, Ben Amarfio and Pat Howard, also followed the crisis.
Handling new evidence
The fact that a participant offers a different account to the basis of the Board’s sanctioning of three (3) players and the ethics report almost a decade later in a book to be made commercially available to the general public may raises a useful question for sporting organisations: how should new information emerging after an investigation has concluded be assessed?
There is no universal answer.
The nature, credibility and materiality of the information, the scope of the original investigation, applicable rules, procedural fairness, and the interests of finality are all relevant considerations, as are the compelling nature of any new evidence and its availability at the time. Some information may warrant further assessment. Other information may already have been considered, may not be sufficiently reliable, may not have been substantiated under the applicable standard of proof on the evidence available, or may have no material bearing on the original findings.
Importantly, the emergence of new allegations does not automatically require an investigation to be reopened. The appropriate response must be informed by the particular circumstances, rather than public pressure or a perceived need to defend or revisit an earlier decision - especially where a decision was ‘sensational’ and attracted comment by the Prime Minister of the day.
Sydney Swans: Looking beyond individual incidents
The Sydney Swans have recently taken an initially broad approach to concerns about player behaviour and the culture of their organisation. In a letter to members published on 5 November 2026, Chairman Andrew Pridham and CEO Matthew Pavlich acknowledged the impact of recent incidents involving players and outlined steps being taken by the club. The club confirmed that its Board had commissioned a comprehensive examination of its AFL program in September 2026, following disciplinary sanctions imposed against five (5) players in August.
The process includes interviews with AFL players and staff, the club's annual end-of-season review, and a separate, board-endorsed independent component involving broader engagement across the organisation. That independent component is being undertaken by workplace culture advisers ‘Intersection’, led by Natasha de Silva. The review is ongoing, with recommendations and actions expected to inform changes considered necessary by the club.
What makes this example relevant is the distinction between investigating particular conduct and reviewing the organisational environment in which that conduct occurs. An integrity or disciplinary investigation will ordinarily focus on establishing what happened, whether applicable rules or policies were breached, and whether particular individuals should be held responsible, with any further findings or recommendations dependant upon the investigation’s terms of reference.
A broader cultural or governance review serves a different purpose. It may consider the effectiveness of leadership, behavioural expectations, organisational values, reporting systems, accountability mechanisms, and the wider environment in which decisions are made.
The Swans' decision to undertake such a review should not be interpreted as establishing that broader cultural failures caused any particular incident. Those are matters to be assessed, rather than assumed. However, the club's approach demonstrates that disciplinary processes and broader organisational reviews can serve complementary purposes.
For sporting boards, the challenge is knowing when an isolated incident requires a targeted response and when a pattern of events warrants a wider examination of organisational systems and culture.
The ongoing lessons of Belooussov v Gymnastics Australia
As I discussed previously in ‘You Better Get a Lawyer, Sport’ (https://www.gameintegrity.com.au/blog/ia9qwzufx6arwn753pp48tac3ey0gr), valuable legal perspective on the importance of well-conducted integrity processes can be found in the NST's determination in Olga Belooussov v Gymnastics Australia (NST-E24-331101).
The matter was determined on 20 May 2025 by the highly respected Bruce Collins KC, with the determination published in December 2025. The case concerned allegations of bullying against a gymnastics coach. An investigation conducted under Gymnastics Australia's integrity framework resulted in seven (7) of twelve allegations being substantiated and sanctions imposed. Mrs Belooussov disputed the findings and sanctions, and the matter proceeded to arbitration before the NST.
The arbitration was a hearing de novo, requiring the evidence supporting the allegations to be presented and tested afresh, rather than simply reviewing the reasonableness of the earlier decision.
Following that hearing, Collins KC determined that the sanctions imposed against Mrs Belooussov were null, void, and of no effect. Importantly, Collins KC identified significant procedural and evidentiary deficiencies in the investigation and subsequent handling of the matter.
His concerns included the absence of adequate reasoning supporting findings, insufficient analysis of the elements of the alleged policy breaches, reliance on material that had not been properly tested, and failures to afford appropriate procedural fairness. He was also critical of Gymnastics Australia's understanding and management of the arbitration process itself.
These were findings made by the Tribunal after considering the evidence and submissions before it. They should not be confused with the unresolved questions surrounding Cricket Australia's historical investigation or the ongoing Sydney Swans review.
A lasting contribution from Bruce Collins KC
Bruce Collins KC, who sadly passed away recently in September 2026, was one of Australia's most accomplished barristers and arbitrators, with a distinguished career extending across commercial disputes, international arbitration, and sports law. His contribution to sport extended well beyond the law, including a lifelong association with cricket and service on the boards of Cricket Australia and Cricket NSW.
His determination in Belooussov offers sporting organisations a particularly valuable set of practical lessons, including that:
at paragraphs 154–176, Collins KC addressed the importance of properly understanding disciplinary processes, analysing the elements of alleged policy breaches, interviewing and managing witnesses, producing relevant documents, applying appropriate standards of proof, and preparing reasoned decisions;
he also emphasised the value of obtaining properly targeted legal advice, without suggesting that sporting organisations must necessarily incur substantial legal expenses in every disciplinary matter; and
at paragraph 171, he distilled the difficulties into the basic requirements of natural justice, supported by practical experience and appropriate legal advice.
This is a particularly important message for sporting organisations operating with limited budgets and resources. Effective integrity management is not necessarily about engaging the largest legal team, undertaking the longest investigation, or adopting the most complex procedures. It is about understanding the applicable rules, properly identifying the issues, fairly assessing the evidence, and ensuring that decisions can withstand appropriate scrutiny.
As per my previous comments on this matter, there can be considerable costs associated with misunderstanding or mismanaging integrity processes. Collins KC's determination remains a useful reminder that the rights of complainants, respondents and other participants all depend upon sporting organisations having fair, competent and legally sound processes.
Vale Bruce Collins, KC.
Five practical lessons for sporting organisations
Considering these three (3) matters together, there are several important principles for sporting organisations to consider when managing investigations, disciplinary proceedings and organisational reviews:
1. Understand the purpose and scope of the process
Not every complaint requires a formal investigation. Equally, not every investigation should extend into a broad examination of organisational culture.
The nature of the concern, applicable rules, and potential consequences should inform the appropriate response.
Clear terms of reference are important, particularly where investigators are engaged externally.
These should identify the matters to be examined, the applicable policies, the questions to be answered, and the scope of the investigator's authority.
Where relevant new information emerges, there should be a process for considering whether the scope requires adjustment.
2. Ensure independence, objectivity and procedural fairness
The importance of independence depends upon the nature and circumstances of the matter. Some complaints can be appropriately assessed or investigated internally. Others, particularly those involving senior officials, conflicts of interest or sensitive allegations, may warrant external appointment.
However, independence alone does not guarantee a fair or competent investigation.
Investigators must approach the evidence objectively, recognise the rights of those involved, and afford procedural fairness consistent with the applicable policies and law.
That includes ensuring respondents understand the substance of allegations against them and have an appropriate opportunity to respond.
The interests of complainants must also be respected, including their safety, welfare, privacy, and access to appropriate support.
These responsibilities are complementary, not competing, features of a properly functioning integrity framework.
3. Findings must be supported by evidence and reasons
A central lesson from Belooussov is the importance of properly connecting the available evidence to the elements of the alleged policy breaches.
An investigator or decision-maker must understand what conduct is prohibited, what must be established and the applicable standard of proof.
Evidence must then be analysed against those requirements.
The civil standard of proof, where applicable, remains the balance of probabilities. The principle in Briginshaw v Briginshaw doe snot raid ea new standard of proof, but rather it reminds decision-makers to consider the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences of findings when evaluating whether the evidence is sufficiently persuasive.
Clear reasons are important, particularly where findings are contested or serious sanctions may follow.
A conclusion without an adequate explanation of how the evidence supports it may be difficult to defend, even where considerable investigative work has been undertaken.
4. Investigations should inform organisational improvement
An individual disciplinary matter and a cultural or governance review may have different objectives, but both can provide valuable information about the effectiveness of an organisation's systems.
Where appropriate, sporting organisations should consider whether complaints or incidents reveal opportunities to improve reporting mechanisms, policies, education, leadership, and/or oversight.
This does not mean every investigation should produce systemic recommendations, or that isolated misconduct necessarily reflects broader cultural problems.
Rather, sporting organisations should be willing to consider whether there are lessons extending beyond the immediate matter.
The Sydney Swans' current review provides a contemporary example of an organisation undertaking that broader examination.
5. Boards must understand their responsibilities
Boards are responsible for ensuring that their organisations have appropriate integrity and governance arrangements.
That responsibility does not mean directors should personally investigate allegations, determine disciplinary matters, or interfere with independent processes.
It means ensuring suitable policies, resources, expertise, oversight and reporting arrangements are in place.
Boards should understand the distinction between complaints assessment, investigation, disciplinary decision-making, appeals and independent review.
They should also recognise when specialist expertise or legal advice is required.
As Collins KC emphasised in Belooussov, properly targeted legal assistance can be both practical and economical.
Just as importantly, organisations should maintain adequate records of investigations, decisions and relevant documents.
Personnel may change, but the organisation's responsibilities in relation to its records and corporate knowledge remain.
Beyond the headlines
Public controversies will always attract scrutiny of how sporting organisations respond to allegations, misconduct and organisational problems.
The renewed Sandpapergate debate, the Sydney Swans' cultural review, and the lessons from Belooussov v Gymnastics Australia concern different circumstances and processes. They should not be treated as interchangeable examples, or as evidence that all sporting organisations face the same problems. However, together they reinforce the importance of designing integrity frameworks that are appropriate to the organisation, supported by qualified personnel, and capable of delivering fair and defensible outcomes.
An investigation is not simply a means of bringing a controversy to an end. It is a process for establishing relevant facts, assessing conduct against applicable standards, and informing appropriate decisions. A broader governance or cultural review may then help an organisation identify opportunities for improvement beyond particular incidents.
And where disciplinary findings are challenged, an organisation must understand and be able to support the legal and evidentiary foundations of its decisions.
Ultimately, effective sports integrity is not measured by the number of complaints investigated, findings substantiated, or sanctions imposed. It is measured by the fairness, competence and effectiveness of the processes used, and the confidence those processes deserve.
That is a lesson worth remembering, both when a sporting controversy first emerges and long after the headlines have moved on.
Reference materials:
ABC News, ‘Khawaja's claims’, 7 November 2026, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-11-07/usman-khawaja-sandpapergate-ball-tampering-south-africa-cricket/107345086
ABC News, ‘Khawaja's further comments’, 8 November 2026, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-11-08/usman-khawaja-defends-timing-of-sandpaper-revelations/107360744
Cricket Australia, ‘Reviews published into cricket culture’, 30 October 2018, https://www.cricket.com.au/news/3294569
Sydney Swans, ‘Letter to Members’, 5 November 2026, https://www.sydneyswans.com.au/news/2162066
NST, Belooussov v Gymnastics Australia, (NST-E24-331101), determination dated 20 May 2025, https://www.nationalsportstribunal.gov.au/decisions/nst-e24-331101
