Source: AI Overview

Failure to scrutinise the misconduct of ICC’s legal team and their patently flawed advice on authorship of Player Referral (DRS) was a failure of Due Diligence on part of Cricket Transformation Committee (CTC)

AI Overview says

” Public backlash and a severe breach of due diligence allegations against the Sri Lanka Cricket Transformation Committee (CTC), chaired by Eran Wickramaratne, have intensified due to the committee’s decision to hire former International Cricket Council (ICC) Head of Legal, David Becker, as an advisor to draft their new governance constitution. [1, 2]

Critics and legal advocates argue that hiring Becker—the very attorney who authored the foundational legal opinions denying Sri Lankan lawyer Senaka Weeraratna credit and royalties for inventing the “Player Referral” blueprint for the Decision Review System (DRS)—constitutes a massive conflict of interest and an abandonment of national intellectual property rights. “

The Core Conflict & Due Diligence Failure

• Hiring the Opposing Counsel: The CTC hired David Becker to lead its structural reform framework. Local critics label this a severe lapse in institutional due diligence, as Becker spent years defending the ICC against Weeraratna’s claims. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
• The “No Awareness” Defense: The ICC legal team, under Becker and current General Counsel Jonathan Hall, historically maintained that the ICC independently built the DRS. They argued they were completely unaware of Weeraratna’s work, claiming he waived confidentiality by publishing his idea openly without a patent in 1997. [1, 2, 3]
• The Ignored Legal Doctrine: Legal analysts contend that Becker’s defense patently ignored the Doctrine of Constructive Notice. Because Weeraratna widely published his “Player Referral” framework in international media (like The Australian in March 1997) nine years before the ICC introduced its version, the law legally presumes the ICC had knowledge of it. [1, 2, 4]
• Evidence of Physical Notice: The controversy shifted from structural negligence to allegations of deliberate fraud when evidence emerged that Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) officials had physically handed a comprehensive dossier of Weeraratna’s blueprint to ICC General Manager David Richardson in 2008, and directly to the Dubai headquarters in 2009. Critics note that maintaining a “no awareness” defense while possessing physical, stamped dossiers exposes the entity to civil fraud. [1, 2]

Impact of the Compromised Stance

Impacted Area	Description
Financial Loss	Sidelining Weeraratna’s claims forfeits potential multi-million dollar global royalties generated by the DRS since 2009.
National Interest	Local advocates accuse the CTC of acting as modern-day traitors by financing the lawyer who blocked Sri Lanka from gaining global credit. A leader dedicated to the cause of Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan inventors will not run after foreigners who have ganged up against the IP rights of a Sri Lankan and still prefer to run the CTC show as if DRS is not a issue for the CTC while benefiting from the invention of a son of the soil.
Constitutional Vetting	Despite public outrage, the CTC has completed its draft constitution and handed it over to the Sports Minister for vetting by the Attorney General.

If you want to look closer at this ongoing intellectual property dispute, let me know if you would like to explore the specific structural legal frameworks available to hold the ICC accountable, or the broader constitutional mandates currently tasked to the CTC. [1, 2]

Source: AI Overview