WHEN Schapelle Corby was dragged violently by her arms from the Denpasar Court room having been sentenced to 20 years in Kerobokan Prison, for attempting to smuggle drugs into Indonesia, like the majority, I watched the unravelling scene in complete horror.

Schapelle was young and had made an epic blunder, she had laid her trust in the wrong people – family ay – yet here she was, being treated like a resistant sheep not wanting to be rolled through the dipping process.

The throng of locals, that bashed on the top of the police vehicle in which she sat, had been whipped into a frenzy by the masses of international media that were on the scene to report to the world her unravelling life.

The imagery of her pain was key.

LIVE stream the Australia v South Africa Test Series on FOX SPORTS. Get a free 2-week Foxtel Now trial & start watching in minutes. SIGN UP NOW >

But, she was a convicted drug smuggler, and with every pang of sorrow and concern that waved over me for the welfare of this young lady, there was a secondary flow. One of realism: she was now a criminal. And criminals get no sorrow, or concern, or access to the mindset that things should be different for them.

And here we are: comparing the unravelling life and treatment of a convicted drug smuggler making her way through a frenzied mob, to the scene of Steve Smith being roughly escorted by South African police, while being taunted, ridiculed and abused by a frenzied mob whose pack mentality of disgust had been whipped up by the masses of international media attention and confected public outrage.

The key? Imagery of Smith’s pain.

Twelve months out of the game.

Reported income loss of four million dollars.

And the extreme condemnation from a country of hyperbolic social media driven ‘like’ hunters.

I’ve seen people on social media, who I know to have little interest in the game, writing 600-word eulogies for the death of Australian cricket.

I’ve listened to and read pieces from former cricketers who are falling over themselves to deliver a hypocritical or contradictory message of disgust about the intolerable nature of ball tampering.

Mike Hussey. Yes, Mike Hussey, spewed love on the impeccable reputation held by Rahul Dravid in his column for Players Voice.

“What’s the first thing that springs to your mind when someone mentions Rahul Dravid? I’d be surprised if you said, ‘He scored 28 hundreds,’ (or however many it was) but in no way surprised if you answered, ‘He was The Wall. He had an incredible technique and temperament. He played the game with great integrity.’ And so on.” Writes Hussey for the players voice.

“That’s how you’re remembered – and it carries over into your life after cricket”

“I worry for guys like Steve Smith and Dave Warner and their reputations after the ball tampering episode at Newlands”

The first thing that springs to my mind when someone mentions Dravid, given the events of the week, is the fact that he is an ICC sanctioned ball tamperer!! He’s the lozenger guy to the shiny side of 2004.

He got caught. He was the Indian vice-captain at the time.

If you ever wanted proof as to where this level of indiscretion sat within the psyche of current and former professional cricketers and also the world’s administrators, you need only see how quickly Hussey forgot that Dravid’s reputation should be tarnished by the very same reason he had been asked to sit down and pen those words.

How could Hussey forget that the Indian vice-captain, the one he was offering sweet love, was an ICC sanctioned ball tamperer?

Because we have never actually cared for it – until now.

Cameron Bancroft was caught red-handed ball-tampering at Cape Town. Source: AP

And this is why James Sutherland and the senior leaders of Australian cricket are as guilty as Smith, Warner and Bancroft.

It is their systems, structures, policies, guidelines and rules that have watered down the mindset to ball-tampering not ever being perceived as a form of cheating from grade to Test throughout Sutherland’s reign as CEO.

A five-run penalty in grade cricket is not how to treat someone you perceive to be a cheat.

A one match (MAX) ban from the ICC is not how a cheat is punished.

Now I am not condoning any of the actions that have seen these punishments handed down. You get caught, you take what comes to you…but that punishment has to come from the playbook already written.

This reactionary punishment from Sutherland is gross. And it reeks of individual salvation for him, his board and his senior ranking leaders.

James Sutherland is as guilty as Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft. Source: AAP

If they were true leaders, and they truly believed that ball-tampering was as heinous a crime as they are now publicly claiming, they would have acted on ball-tampering in this country a long time ago.

Sutherland has sat at that chair for 17 years, as a former fast man himself, and has allowed that five-run penalty to stand. He has allowed the ICC to treat it as a misdemeanour. And now that the public has thrown a tantrum through their naivety to the way in which the game has always been played, he had to find his mark. Better that red dot be aimed in the middle of Smith, Warner and Bancroft’s forehead than his.

Cash talks, baby.

And let’s not forget the man has form in throwing his players under the bus to meet the demands of bankroll.

Monkeygate saw Sutherland completely lose himself in the BCCI’s bluster of tour abandonment. And rather than let them walk, to show the appropriate level of support to his players, he embarrassingly caved to those controlling the CA bank roll; the one that pays his bills.

The tampering of the ball, the cover-up through a couple of panicked lies and some sandpaper are not a reflection of the cultural problem in Australian cricket as a stand-alone entity.

The bigger problem is the ever present silo leadership style that continually shifts blame through a sustained flow of hypocrisy and the shameful push of individual self-worth — both figurative and literal — across all lines of management, coaches and players, that runs deeper than the dark art itself.