In a statement issued through lawyers last night, Hair, the umpire at the centre of the unprecedented forfeiture at the Brit Oval eight days ago, claimed that he was invited to put his offer in writing by Doug Cowie, the International Cricket Council umpires manager. Effectively, it means that a smoking gun is beginning to come into focus with fingerprints on it from the ICC hierarchy.

Although Hair wants to continue as an international umpire, his position has been widely considered untenable since Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive, released on legal advice details of his offer to resign and cover up the details. But the idea of one stressed man acting alone may prove to be over-simplified.

Hair sent out a teaser in the Australian press when he said that his offer “was not a spur of the moment thing” and that he had dialogue with the ICC. This immediately put the focus on Cowie, who first responded to the infamous Hair e-mail last Tuesday by suggesting that his resignation offer “may have merit”.

But Hair has now claimed that Speed made only a partial disclosure of exchanges three days later and his lawyer said that his latest statement was designed to “address certain misconceptions that appear to have arisen as a consequence of the release of certain confidential correspondence between Mr Hair and ICC.”

Hair said: “I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on August 25. During an extended conversation on August 21 with Mr Cowie I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the e-mail correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC.

“I would have thought that it was quite apparent from the text of correspondence that I had been in discussions with ICC about the issue. The opening words of my e-mail to Mr Cowie confirm this: ‘Just (to) firm up what we discussed earlier this evening . . . ’”

The ICC quickly rebutted Hair’s claim. A spokesman said: “There were many informal discussions between Mr Hair and Mr Cowie between the end of the Oval Test and Mr Hair’s first e-mail on Tuesday, including a discussion on the potential impact on his career.

“Mr Cowie’s role was to support and counsel Mr Hair, as his manager, at a difficult time. It is our understanding that at no stage during their conversations was there discussion of a pay-off, nor secrecy, nor deadlines, nor misleading the public over reasons for retirement — all of which was subsequently laid out in Mr Hair’s e-mail.”

Speed has said that he wants Hair to continue as an international umpire but does not know whether he will. Now Cowie has also received his equivocal support. “If he could play it again, Doug would play it differently,” Speed said. “When the e-mail came to me, I saw that not for one second could we contemplate it.”

Hair’s next international appointment is the Champions Trophy in India in October and November, but if the Oval affair and its fallout were not reason enough to step down or be removed, then his public conflict with the ICC makes his presence even less plausible.

With the story becoming more extraordinary by the day, it has been easy to forget that Inzamam-ul-Haq, the Pakistan captain, is the man actually facing charges. His code of conduct hearing relating to ball-tampering and bringing the game into disrepute will now be held in the last week of September, possibly away from England.

At least Pakistan have pledged to fulfil their commitments for the rest of the tour, beginning with the Twenty20 international against England at Bristol this afternoon.