Warnie's revisionism

I watched Michael Parkinson's interview with Shane Warne over the weekend. I quite enjoyed it. Especially when Warne's pat answers to questions about his sexual infidelities were accompanied by an increasing amount of sweat pouring from his head. But the Sydney Morning Herald points out that Warnie took considerable liberties with the truth in relation to the book-keeping incident early in his career. In summary Warne forcefully maintained during the interview that he was a naive 22 year old at the time who was introducted to "John" the bookie only as a "friend", that he accepted money from this friend on a one-off basis, answered some questions "around Christmas 1994", again on a one-off basis, and then cut-off relations when he found out "John" was a bookie. As the SMH points out, Warne was in fact 25, and the formal enquiry into the matter concluded that he was introduced to "John" as a "friend who bets on cricket" and that "John" then stated he was a bookie; that he gave advice to "John" on at least three seperate occasions between October 1994 and February 1995; and that it was "John" who ended the relationship, not Warne.

The SMH archfully points out that Shane Warne was executive producer of the money-spinning interview and then with a tone of annoyance pronounces:

Usually, retired players talk up their career highlights. Here is a case of a player, an executive producer of his own tell-all interview, downplaying one of the darkest incidents in Australian cricket.