THE finer details of how Zimbabwe Cricket has once again outflanked the ICC were carefully put in place in two meetings of the ICC executive board during the summer. The first was in London in June. There, on the agenda, was this very issue: media protocol. And the main reason it was on the agenda was because sports journalists had been denied access to Zimbabwe during recent cricket tours. So it is not as if no one had seen this coming.

In London, it was agreed that a set of standards for the sports media should be put in place and that press accreditation should be guaranteed. Maxhood Ebrahim, the Zimbabwe representative at the meeting, one of the two most pro-Zanu (PF) hardliners in Zimbawe Cricket, then asked for an exception to be made for Zimbabwe. His point was that because of the Zimbabwe Government’s strict immigration controls, accreditation only followed the issue of a visa and this was a situation Zimbabwe Cricket was powerless to alter.

The rest of the executive were understanding to Ebrahim but made two requests. The first was that Zimbabwe Cricket should do its utmost to put an effective system in place. The second was more concrete, a request that, before tours, foreign journalists should have accreditation requests accepted or, in the worst-case scenario, rejected 30 days in advance.

This issue was followed up when the executive next convened, in Monaco in September. Ebrahim was asked if his diplomacy had softened the situation and, more particularly, whether the 30-day window was in place. He replied that nothing had been done because Zimbabwe Cricket had looked at how its system worked and decided that no changes were required.

At that stage, the executive conceded ground. They took Ebrahim at his word and moved on to the next item on the agenda. And so Zimbabwe retained carte blanche. And so, a day before the first England-Zimbabwe one-day international in Harare, Zimbabwe Cricket has again forced the ECB and the England players into the invidious position where they are forced to choose their own path unilaterally. David Morgan, the ECB chairman, has said that it is “embarrassing”.

“How can he say it’s embarrassing now,” Stuart Carlisle, a former Zimbabwe captain and one of the 15 rebels recently cast adrift by Zimbabwe Cricket, said, “when it’s been going on for 18 months?” One of those for whom this chapter still retained an element of surprise was Fidelis Mashu, the Zimbabwean shadow sports minister, who told The Times: “Because Robert Mugabe is the patron of Zimbabwe cricket, I expected him to welcome everyone here as a sign of international credibility. But, according to him, everything that comes from Britain is evil and to be abhorred. He can do anything he wants and he will take action to stop anything he suspects might undermine his authority.”

Appearance and reality are poles apart in Zimbabwean sport. In Athens in August, Zimbabwe enjoyed its greatest individual Olympic success thanks to the (white) swimmer, Kirsty Coventry. Her two gold, and silver and bronze medals were hailed by Mugabe as a product of the Zimbabwean sporting system (she had been training abroad for two years), and instead of returning to the United States as planned, she was rushed back to Harare for photographs with Mugabe and for all to admire. In Athens, however, her image had been carefully controlled by Lovemore Banda, the same Zimbabwean press chief who works for Zimbabwe Cricket, who, unknown to Coventry, turned away a number of interview requests from media who might have taken an antiMugabe line.

The spin here is so blatant that the former ZCU has just invested a large amount sum of money in an image makeover. It dropped the “U”, renamed itself Zimbabwe Cricket, and, complete with a new logo, hey presto, all its former sins are forgotten.

Yet the manner in which the Zimbabwe Cricket has bent the ICC to its own will in this issue is reminiscent of another situation only nine weeks ago. That was when the ICC called an inquiry to investigate claims made by Carlisle and the 14 other rebels that Zimbabwe Cricket espoused a racially motivated selection policy.

At the inquiry, Ebrahim and Ozias Bvute (the other leading Zimbabwe Cricket hardliner) insisted on sitting in to hear the players give their evidence and they refused to leave despite the request of the two judges. Thus intimidated, the players buckled, failed to give their full evidence and lost their case. Again, Zimbabwe Cricket had not been compliant with the ICC’s requests, and again, the ICC sat back and did nothing.

Zimbabwe victories are all too rare in cricket. On the political stage, however, they seem to be world champions.