THE EDITOR, Sir:
AFTER LISTENING to Dr. Akshai Mansingh's interview on RJR FM radio with Simon Crosskill and excerpts of reports of four doctors who have examined Samuels, and reading his press release, one is led to the irrefutable conclusions that:
1. Dr. Mansingh was the first doctor to recommend that Samuels is fit enough to play in the World Cup in spite of the knee problem. He outlined procedures for managing the knee in South Africa, otherwise he could break down.
2. After the World Cup, Samuels' knee should be reassessed.
3. Wes Hall and Viv Richards studied the technical medical report. Viv dropped Samuels because he was not 100 per cent fit.
4. After Viv's decision, WICB officials and Viv had a teleconference with Dr. Mansingh in which he pleaded for Samuels' inclusion in the team. Viv bluntly refused to lower his 100 per cent fitness criterion.
5. On Dr. Mansingh's advice, Samuels went to see a doctor in New York and saw his own doctor in Baltimore.
6. The reports of the two American doctors endorsed Dr. Mansingh's report for Samuels's inclusion in the team, though not fully fit. One doctor's recommendation that he refrains from running, jumping and those activities which impact on knee prompted Crosskill to comment if he thought Samuels was going for a swimming competition.
7. Hall and Richards took an about-turn, dropped the 100 per cent fitness criterion and re-selected Samuels.
The question that begs an answer from Hall is: Why did he not accept Dr. Mansingh's report and teleconference plea to let Samuels go to the World Cup? it shows WICB's inability to understand technical reports and inconsistency in their judgment. Are these facts too incompatible with Wes Hall's morals and ethics to acknowledge publicly and apologise to cricket fans worldwide?
I am, etc.,
THE MORAL FORCE
Kingston 6
