The CA CEO defends how the Warners leadership ban review appeal was handled, saying the level of transparency was appropriate.

David Warner has withdrawn his appeal to have his leadership ban overturned . Warner was banned from cricket after the 2018 ball-tampering scandal .

Melbourne (Australia), December 10 : Nick Hockley, the CEO of Cricket Australia (CA), has defended his organisation's approach to serving veteran opener David Warners' appeal to rewrite his lifetime leadership ban, saying that the independent review panel's job was to be transparent and effective.The Australian Cricketers Association (ACA) announced on Friday that Warner had abandoned his bid to have his lifetime leadership ban, which was enacted after the 2018 ball-tampering controversy, reversed after the panel found that Warner's wish for a private hearing was rejected.Warner released a statement following the denial of the investigation committee's decision to order a retrial of the events of 2018.Rather, Hockley said that the well-being of Warner and his family would have been a priority during the process, and that requests could have been made to hold certain parts of the hearing in private.

We are sad that he withdrawn his application.This is not the end result that we hoped for.According to ESPNCricinfo, Hockley's statement is insignificant because it has become such a public phenomenon.He could have continued with the process, and a petition may have been lodged during the hearing to ask that accredited media not participate in parts.

But clearly, David has felt the need to mention certain things.Hockley said that it was not about finding the origins of events or original punishment but rather about examining conduct.In a tweet, CA praised Warner and stated that the hearing would be a private one.The panel was given the complete scope of the investigation as a result of the change in the code of conduct doctrine.

I make no apology for working with the best people, having best-in-class leadership, and having a transparent, transparent, and independent process, as endorsed by Hockley.

.
.
.
.