Bermuda Cricket Board (BCB) yesterday broke silence over the lengthy ban they imposed on young Warwick batsman Dion Stovell.

Adamant that Stovell?s four-month ban would remain in force, BCB president Reggie Pearman sought to put the context of the suspension ? effectively sidelining the player for the duration of next season ? into proper perspective.

Pearman disclosed the player had been slapped with the lengthy suspension ?as a result of the disrespect and contempt shown to the disciplinary committee during his hearing? on October 6, 2004 and for a previous undisclosed offence.

The BCB chief also defended disciplinary committee chairman Gary Fray?s decision to involve himself in the disciplinary process ? despite his role as president of the player?s club, Warwick Workmen?s Club.

It has been previously argued that Fray?s involvement constituted a direct conflict of interest. The senior Board executive was accused of acting out a personal vendetta against the player who was in the process of transferring from Warwick to nearby Southampton Rangers.

Pearman said Fray had ?excused? himself from the deliberations and ?had no direct input with respect to the length of the ban?.

?I am very disappointed with his (Stovell?s) conduct towards the disciplinary committee,? said Pearman in a written press release.

?We all make mistakes and particularly in our youth but when we do so we must hold up our hands and be held accountable for our actions.

?Reports that have come back indicate that in addition to the underlying offence Dion showed dissent and contempt for the disciplinary procedure and also to the disciplinary committee. This is inexcusable.

?His ban is not, contrary to reports in the press, as a result of the initial offence (protesting an umpire?s decision in Jamaica while representing Bermuda?s Under- 23 national team) only but was a result of a combination of factors including his utter disrespect to the disciplinary committee and his attitude during the meeting.?

Asked what charge had been levelled against Stovell at a previous disciplinary committee hearing, Pearman refused to comment.

The Board, meanwhile, claimed that Stovell had failed to appeal against his ban within seven days of the ruling.

BCB bye-laws state: ?Notice of Appeal setting out the grounds must be given in writing to the secretary of the Board within seven days of the decision of the disciplinary committee?.

The BCB contend Stovell had been advised of the time frame in a letter on October 12, 2004 ? the letter concluding that ?failure to comply with the above would automatically render an appeal invalid?.

However, Stovell?s lawyer, Charles Richardson, yesterday questioned why his client was never asked by the Board when he actually received the letter.

Richardson also continued to argue that Fray should have never been involved in the disciplinary process ? whether he excused himself from deliberations or not.

?How could it be fair for Dion to appeal against the hearing ? which was held on October 6 ? within the seven days if the letter was sent out on the 12th?

?If the letter was sent on the 12th then by the time Dion would have received it . . . it would have already been too late to appeal,? he argued.

?The letter would have still been in transit on the seventh day. Now how can this be fair??

As to Fray?s involvement, Richardson charged: ?He (Fray) should have never been involved in the process from the outset.?

Richardson also hinted that the matter could possibly now go before arbitration.

Pearman, meanwhile, came to Fray?s defence.

?The chairman conducted himself entirely within the ambit of his charge which was to facilitate the meeting.

?Mr. Stovell was not prejudiced in any way whatsoever by the chairman?s presence at the meeting. Mr. Stovell is an incredibly talented cricketer and the BCB has high aspirations for him in the future ? both domestically and internationally.?