Khawaja's 'The Whole Team Knew' Claim Reopens Sandpapergate as Lehmann Challenges Australia's 2026 Investigation

In cricket, old controversies sometimes return with the force of a new ball striking the bat on the fifth day of a Test. The scandal that damaged Australian cricket at Newlands in Cape Town in 2026 has resurfaced eight years later. This time, the central issue is neither a disputed umpiring decision nor a player's poor form. It concerns what happened inside the dressing room, where discussions about altering the condition of the ball allegedly took place.

Former Australia opener Usman Khawaja has claimed, while discussing his forthcoming autobiography, Sabr, that the entire Australian team knew about the use of sandpaper during the 2026 tour of South Africa. His statement, 'It was all of us', challenges the findings of Cricket Australia's original investigation, which held Cameron Bancroft, Steve Smith and David Warner responsible. Khawaja has also claimed that the issue was not confined to the Cape Town Test. According to his account, sandpaper had been discussed during the previous Test at Port Elizabeth, now known as Gqeberha.

Former Australia coach Darren Lehmann has rejected the suggestion that everyone knew about the plan. He says he was unaware of the sandpaper strategy and does not believe it is reasonable to assume that every member of the team had prior knowledge. The eight-year-old controversy has therefore moved beyond the question of three players' suspensions. It has become a test of dressing-room communication, leadership accountability and the credibility of Cricket Australia's investigation.

The sound of a dressing room and the silence of a cricket ground

What has always fascinated me about Test cricket is that its real character rarely appears entirely on the scoreboard. Across five days, conversations in the dressing room, a bowler's plans, a batter's patience and a captain's decisions all contribute to the story. Years of listening to cricket through radio commentary and recording the reactions of spectators have taught me that some of the most important information comes from places the television camera cannot reach. The 2026 sandpaper controversy belongs to that invisible part of the game.

During the Cape Town Test, Cameron Bancroft was caught on camera using sandpaper on the ball. The incident led then captain Steve Smith to acknowledge that the team's leadership group had planned to alter the ball's condition. David Warner and Bancroft also became central figures in the scandal. Following its investigation, Cricket Australia imposed 12-month bans on Smith and Warner and a nine-month suspension on Bancroft.

The episode caused serious damage to Australia's cricketing reputation. Smith had to relinquish the captaincy, while Warner faced additional restrictions on leadership positions. Lehmann, Australia's head coach at the time, also resigned after the controversy. However, he was not found to have had direct involvement in or prior knowledge of the sandpaper plan.

An important distinction must be understood here. Reverse swing is a legitimate bowling skill in Test cricket. Depending on the condition of an older ball and how its surface is maintained, bowlers can generate unusual movement through the air. Keeping one side of the ball shiny while allowing the other side to wear naturally has long been part of cricket strategy. Deliberately altering the surface with an external object such as sandpaper, however, is a breach of the playing regulations. Treating these two processes as identical would be technically and ethically misleading.

In his recent response, Lehmann said South Africa were generating reverse swing effectively and Australia had discussed how to counter it. He also stressed that knowing reverse swing was occurring was different from knowing about a plan to use sandpaper. That distinction is one of the most important technical and administrative elements of the entire dispute.

From Port Elizabeth to Cape Town: the new dimension in Khawaja's account

The most significant part of Khawaja's revelation is not simply his claim that the entire team knew. He alleges that the idea of using sandpaper to roughen the ball had emerged earlier at St George's Park in Port Elizabeth. According to his account, discussions took place in the dressing room about ways of scuffing the ball, including the effectiveness of sandpaper.

Khawaja says Cameron Bancroft volunteered to use the method. He has also claimed that Steve Smith made it clear during the discussion that he did not want to know about the matter. For now, these details must be treated as Khawaja's personal account. The available material does not independently establish them through verified documents or confirmation from every individual involved.

The significance of this claim lies in its potential to change the timeline of the controversy. The incident that became public in 2026 was associated with the third Test at Cape Town. If Khawaja's account is independently corroborated, however, the second Test and earlier dressing-room conversations may also need to be considered when examining the events.

Khawaja has also said that after Bancroft was caught on camera, he urged his teammates in the dressing room to accept collective responsibility. He believes that presenting the incident as the individual wrongdoing of only three players failed to reflect the complete picture. In his view, the team should have acknowledged responsibility as a unit.

The distinction between collective responsibility and individual guilt is crucial. Seeing someone tamper with the ball, hearing a discussion about a possible plan, approving that plan and personally participating in it are four different circumstances. A player who knew about a plan but did not participate would require a different assessment. If a senior player knew about an improper activity and failed to intervene, the issue could extend to leadership and supervisory failure. But membership of a team does not automatically establish direct involvement.

Lehmann's response: the distance between knowledge and accountability

Rejecting Khawaja's claims, Lehmann said he did not believe the entire team would have known about the use of sandpaper. His argument is that he can speak only about what he personally knew. He also explained that separate meetings were taking place within the team and that he was occupied with several discussions involving Cricket Australia officials.

Lehmann acknowledged that he probably should have known about a conversation involving Bancroft. That admission makes his position more complicated. While denying direct knowledge of the sandpaper plan, he has also accepted that questions can be asked about his supervisory responsibilities as coach.

This is the least discussed aspect of the controversy: knowing about wrongdoing and a leader failing to hear about an important conversation are not the same question. If a coach did not know about an alleged plan, that does not establish direct involvement. Yet it remains reasonable to ask why an important discussion about changing the condition of the ball did not reach the team's leadership.

Lehmann also questioned the timing of revisiting the controversy eight years later. He referred to Khawaja's autobiography and the commercial context of book sales. He believes that reopening the issue could bring back painful memories for the players and their families. Lehmann said he went through a difficult mental period after the incident and did not leave his house for approximately four months.

That human dimension should not be ignored. Accountability matters in sport, but so does the psychological impact on those involved in an old controversy. Recognising Lehmann's distress does not require rejecting Khawaja's claims. Equally, the commercial purpose of Khawaja's autobiography does not automatically make every detail in his account unreliable. The truth of a statement must be assessed through evidence, not merely through the timing of its publication.

Cricket Australia's investigation and the challenge to the official record

The most serious institutional question concerns Cricket Australia's 2026 investigation. That inquiry held Bancroft, Smith and Warner responsible. No equivalent sanctions were imposed on other players. Khawaja's new account presents a different picture and raises questions about the scope of the original findings.

Khawaja has also questioned why investigators did not interview him, despite his being seated alongside Bancroft during the Test. He says he waited for investigators to contact him, but his phone never rang. If accurate, this account could raise fresh questions about the investigation's process and the selection of witnesses.

Cricket Australia has defended its original findings. The governing body says relevant information presented to it was properly considered and that it remains comfortable with the outcome of its integrity process. It has also indicated that the opportunity to submit relevant information remains open. This response matters because the organisation has not indicated an immediate intention to overturn its findings, while also leaving room for further information to be considered.

Another important development came in 2026. Australia's fast bowlers Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc and Josh Hazlewood, along with spinner Nathan Lyon, publicly stated that they had no prior knowledge of a foreign substance being used on the ball. Khawaja's latest account conflicts with those statements as well. That does not justify declaring either side wrong without examination. It means the different accounts now need to be compared more carefully.

The real lesson of Sandpapergate extends beyond the surface of a cricket ball

The most important issue for me is that a breach of cricket's regulations does not always involve only the person seen on camera. Modern Test teams operate within a shared strategic environment involving captains, coaches, analysts, bowlers and batters. But a shared environment does not automatically mean shared wrongdoing. The quality of an investigation is reflected in its ability to understand that distinction.

Sandpapergate had already delivered a major lesson to Australian cricket. The public admission, suspensions and apologies following the television footage sent a message that the reputation of the game was greater than individual achievements. Yet the claims emerging eight years later suggest that formal punishment does not necessarily resolve every social and institutional question surrounding an incident.

Cricket's credibility is built through more than punishing those responsible; it also depends on confidence that investigators asked the right questions of the right people. If Khawaja has notes, detailed recollections or other evidence from the period, those materials deserve independent examination. If his memories conflict with statements from other players, those contradictions also need to be clarified.

There is a potential mistake to avoid. An eight-year gap can affect memory, but the passage of time does not automatically invalidate testimony. Equally, confidence in a personal account does not establish its accuracy. Khawaja's claims should be assessed against the formal investigation and other available evidence, rather than being treated as a new final verdict.

Increased media attention around a book publication is understandable. Through Sabr, Khawaja is presenting his experiences and perspective. The value of the information will depend on whether the details can be compared with accounts from other players, available records and independent witnesses. Equally, Lehmann's argument that everyone should move on cannot itself answer questions about the past. Moving forward and maintaining accountability are not mutually exclusive.

What should be watched next?

The most important signals will come from three areas. First, does Khawaja's autobiography contain specific details, dates or sequences of events that can be independently verified? Second, do Smith, Warner, Bancroft and the bowlers involved maintain their earlier statements or provide further explanations? Third, will Cricket Australia review its investigation records in response to any new information?

Facts must be established before calls for new suspensions are made. If an investigation produces a new finding, it should be presented on the basis of evidence. If the original conclusions remain unchanged, the governing body should be able to explain how the questions raised by Khawaja were addressed in the earlier process.

I still remember the particular silence of Test cricket when a bowler turns an old ball between his fingers and the crowd waits for the next delivery. Every mark on that ball becomes part of the contest, but who created those marks and how they were created determine the integrity of the game. Eight years later, Australian cricket faces the same question again. Will the complete story of the dressing room finally emerge, or will history remain confined to the three names the world already knows?