Ross Emerson's recent comments in the Melbourne Age have added fuel to this conspiratorial perception. Emerson, who no-balled Muralitharan in 1996 and 1998, has revealed that he was encouraged to do so by officials within the Australian cricket board. Emerson says: "The ACB never told me his action was all right. Quite the contrary, [a Cricket Australia official] encouraged me to call him a week before Adelaide in January 1998."
Broad has not helped himself by not checking his facts. The assertion that Muralitharan's doosra is "new" is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Murali first learnt the delivery from a school friend called Priya Wickramatunga at St Antony's College. He started to bowl it in international cricket post-1996 and mastered in the last 12 months.
Those of use that have watched Murali, series after series, have seen him bowl it a thousand times. Just read old newspapers on the Internet and see how India's journalist's marvelled at the delivery way back in 2001. That same year, Broad was a commentator for TalkSport Radio in Sri Lanka.
Of course, Broad is quite entitled to question the legality of any delivery no matter when it was first conceived. Unfortunately, though, his assertion that it is "new", because he has been told so from "informed sources", has undermined his credibility in Sri Lanka – every trishaw driver in town knows that's tripe.
Many believe Murali's testing by the University of Western Australia in 1996 was a sham. But how many have seen the actual report? Contrary to popular opinion, the conclusion was not simply that he had a congenital deformity and therefore could not straighten his arm. Yes, his permanently bent-arm was identified. But, also, no partial straightening was detected from six different cameras shooting at a thousand frames per second.
How many people realise that after these tests, Murali undertook two further and voluntary tests on his bowling action, in Hong Kong in 1996 and in England in 1999? These tests even used sensors on his arms and elbow to detect partial movement – again the conclusion was that his action was legal.
Let science be the judge