SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA — One of the biggest cheating scandals in international cricket has erupted again, eight years after three Australian players were punished for illegally altering a cricket ball during a Test match against South Africa.
Retired Australian opening batsman Usman Khawaja has challenged the accepted account of the infamous 2018 Sandpapergate controversy, alleging that knowledge of the ball-tampering practice extended beyond the three players formally implicated.
His claims have reopened painful questions about what happened inside the Australian dressing room, why only certain players were suspended, and whether cricket authorities fully investigated the incident.
But Khawaja insists he is not trying to damage his former teammates.
In an Instagram video published on November 8, the 39-year-old said he had not thrown anyone under the bus by discussing the scandal in his forthcoming autobiography, Sabr.
Instead, he argued that the Australian team should have accepted collective responsibility.
The explosive allegation is that Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft bore the public consequences of misconduct that Khawaja believes was more widely understood within the team.
Cricket Australia, however, maintains confidence in its original investigation, while former coach Darren Lehmann disputes the suggestion that everyone knew about the use of sandpaper.
The controversy now threatens to reopen one of the darkest chapters in Australian sporting history.
And with Khawaja’s memoir scheduled for release on November 10, the questions may only become more difficult.
Usman Khawaja Says He Did Not Betray His Former Teammates
Khawaja addressed the controversy after excerpts from his autobiography attracted widespread attention in Australia.
His account suggested that the events at Cape Town in March 2018 were not the first occasion on which sandpaper had been used during that South African tour.
He also alleged that knowledge of the tactic was more widespread than the official investigation concluded.
The remarks immediately generated debate about whether he was implicating teammates who had previously denied involvement.
In response, Khawaja published a lengthy Instagram explanation.
He said his purpose was not to accuse particular players.
Rather, he believed responsibility should have been shared across the team.
Khawaja also argued that the three suspended cricketers endured a disproportionate share of the public humiliation.
His message was that he wanted the team, himself included, to confront the controversy collectively.
That distinction matters.
Khawaja is making serious allegations about the events of 2018, but his latest public explanation frames them as an argument for shared accountability rather than a demand to punish individual teammates.
Whether others accept that interpretation remains uncertain.
What Happened During Australia’s 2018 Sandpapergate Scandal?
The original controversy unfolded during the third Test between Australia and South Africa at Newlands in Cape Town in March 2018.
Television cameras captured Australian batsman Cameron Bancroft using a foreign material to alter the condition of the cricket ball.
He subsequently attempted to conceal the material.
The incident became known as Sandpapergate because sandpaper was used to scuff one side of the ball.
Altering the ball’s condition through prohibited methods violates cricket’s rules.
The practice can potentially change how the ball moves through the air, creating an unfair advantage for bowlers.
The televised footage prompted an immediate investigation.
Australian cricket faced intense criticism, and the scandal developed into a national sporting controversy.
Cricket Australia eventually sanctioned three players.
Captain Steve Smith and vice-captain David Warner received 12-month bans from Australian domestic and international cricket.
Bancroft received a nine-month ban.
Smith and Warner also faced leadership restrictions.
The fallout extended beyond the players themselves.
Australia’s reputation for competitive integrity suffered considerable damage.
Khawaja Claims the Sandpaper Practice Began Before Cape Town
One of the most significant claims in Khawaja’s memoir concerns the previous Test in South Africa.
According to excerpts reported by Australian media, he alleges that sandpaper was used during the second Test at St George’s Park in Port Elizabeth, now known as Gqeberha.
He describes an episode in which a player’s use of sandpaper produced a noticeable change in the condition of the ball.
Khawaja’s account suggests the tactic became known within the wider team environment.
He further alleges that Bancroft subsequently volunteered to carry out ball-tampering.
The practice allegedly continued into the third Test in Cape Town, where cameras exposed it.
These claims are significant because Cricket Australia’s 2018 investigation focused on the three players it identified as directly involved.
However, Khawaja’s account remains a disputed recollection, not a newly established official finding.
The available reporting does not independently prove that every member of the 2018 Australian squad knew about the alleged earlier use of sandpaper.
Those distinctions are essential when reporting allegations involving athletes who were not sanctioned.
Steve Smith Allegedly Stopped Khawaja From Speaking Out in 2018
Khawaja also revealed why he did not publicly challenge the official narrative eight years ago.
He said he wanted to speak to the media after Smith, Warner and Bancroft received their suspensions.
According to Khawaja, he was shocked by the severity of the punishment.
He believed the wider Australian team should have accepted responsibility.
But he said Smith persuaded him not to make the matter public.
Khawaja portrayed the former captain as someone willing to accept the consequences rather than expose additional teammates to scrutiny.
His account adds a new dimension to Smith’s role in the scandal.
Smith has previously spoken about the emotional impact of the suspension and his departure from South Africa.
As WWC ONE MEDIA reported in its September feature on Smith’s lasting Sandpapergate trauma, the former captain has described how ordinary camera sounds can still trigger memories of the public fallout.
Khawaja’s latest allegations may prompt renewed discussion of whether the punishments were proportionate.
But they do not invalidate the original findings or establish the involvement of previously cleared individuals.
Khawaja Says He Considered Speaking Out Again in 2021
The former opener said the controversy resurfaced for him in 2021.
At that time, questions were raised about whether Australian bowlers had known about the use of sandpaper.
Pat Cummins, Mitchell Starc, Josh Hazlewood and Nathan Lyon publicly rejected suggestions that they had known a foreign substance was being used on the ball.
Khawaja said he wanted to challenge the idea that responsibility rested only with the three sanctioned players.
He discussed the issue with then-coach Justin Langer and Todd Greenberg, who was leading the Australian Cricketers’ Association at the time.
But he again chose not to make his account public.
According to Khawaja, returning to the Australian team created further complications.
He felt a responsibility to protect team unity while continuing his international career.
He has now retired, allowing him to speak without being part of the current dressing-room environment.
That explanation helps answer why the allegations have emerged in 2026 rather than immediately after the scandal.
It does not, however, settle whether his recollection is accurate.
David Warner Was Allegedly Aware of Khawaja’s Plan to Speak
Khawaja also revealed that he discussed his intention to share his account with David Warner.
The two cricketers have known each other since childhood.
According to Khawaja, he promised Warner that he would explain his perspective after retiring from international cricket.
His autobiography is intended to fulfil that commitment.
Khawaja has said he also spoke with Smith and Bancroft about his decision to revisit the events.
The suggestion that the suspended players knew he intended to discuss the scandal is important.
It challenges the assumption that his memoir was published without any warning to those most directly affected.
However, discussions between Khawaja and the three players should not be interpreted as confirmation that they endorse every allegation in the book.
The full extent of their agreement or disagreement has not been independently established.
Cricket Australia Defends Its Original Investigation
Cricket Australia responded to the renewed allegations by defending its 2018 investigation.
The governing body said it remained comfortable with the findings reached at the time.
Those findings identified Smith, Warner and Bancroft as the players involved in the sandpaper plan.
The organization also indicated that relevant new information could be provided for consideration.
That position is important because Khawaja’s claims challenge the completeness of the original investigation.
He has argued that the inquiry did not adequately examine the wider team environment.
He also said he was not interviewed during the investigation.
Cricket Australia has not announced that it is reopening the case.
The organization has not issued new sanctions against players or coaching staff.
For now, the governing body’s official position remains unchanged.
The controversy is therefore a dispute between Khawaja’s newly published account and the conclusions of the original investigation—not proof that Australian cricket has formally established a broader conspiracy.
Former Coach Darren Lehmann Rejects the Claim That Everyone Knew
Darren Lehmann, who coached Australia during the 2018 tour, has publicly disputed parts of Khawaja’s version of events.
Speaking to ABC Sport, Lehmann said he did not personally know that sandpaper was being used.
He also questioned the suggestion that every member of the team and coaching staff had been aware of the practice.
Lehmann acknowledged that illegal ball-tampering methods had existed in cricket for many years.
But he distinguished general awareness of ball tampering from specific knowledge of Australia’s sandpaper plan.
That distinction is central to the dispute.
A player might know that ball tampering sometimes occurs in international cricket without knowing that a particular teammate was using sandpaper during a specific match.
Lehmann was cleared of direct involvement in the original investigation.
He nevertheless resigned as Australia’s head coach during the fallout.
His latest comments reinforce that Khawaja’s broad account remains contested.
Could the 2018 Investigation Have Missed Important Evidence?
Khawaja’s revelations naturally raise questions about the scope of Cricket Australia’s original inquiry.
Investigations depend on witness interviews, available records and the information investigators receive.
If relevant individuals were not interviewed or if material evidence was unavailable, an investigation may not address every possible question.
However, the absence of an interview does not automatically establish that the investigation was deliberately incomplete or misleading.
The appropriate question is whether Khawaja has information that materially changes the evidence.
For example, investigators would need to distinguish between firsthand observations, conversations with teammates and conclusions drawn after the event.
They would also need to consider conflicting accounts.
Khawaja’s allegations could encourage renewed public scrutiny.
But speculation about another investigation should not be presented as an official decision.
As of November 8, Cricket Australia had not confirmed a reopened disciplinary inquiry.
Why Sandpapergate Still Haunts Steve Smith Eight Years Later
The consequences of the scandal have remained visible throughout Smith’s career.
His reputation suffered serious damage.
He lost the captaincy and spent a year outside Australian international cricket.
Although he later returned and continued producing important performances, public criticism persisted.
The controversy became particularly relevant again when Australia returned to South Africa for a Test series in October 2026.
As WWC ONE MEDIA reported before the Cape Town series decider, Smith’s return to Newlands revived memories of the venue where his career changed dramatically.
That context explains why Khawaja’s autobiography has attracted so much attention.
The revelations arrived shortly after Australia revisited the location most closely associated with the scandal.
For Smith, the renewed debate could bring further public examination of events he has spent years attempting to move beyond.
Australia’s October South Africa Tour Adds Another Twist
Australia’s return to South Africa in October 2026 was closely watched.
The three-Test series marked the team’s first Test tour of the country since the 2018 controversy.
South Africa eventually won the series 2–1.
The result added to the scrutiny surrounding Australia’s performances.
During the second Test in Gqeberha, South Africa secured a commanding innings-and-31-run victory.
As WWC ONE MEDIA reported in its coverage of Australia’s selection crisis following that defeat, the result raised questions about team balance, batting depth and the choices facing captain Pat Cummins.
Those competitive concerns are separate from Khawaja’s allegations.
But they help explain why Australian cricket has been under intense public attention.
The latest memoir controversy adds a historical integrity dispute to an already difficult period.
The Bowlers Who Previously Denied Knowledge
One of the most sensitive aspects of the scandal concerns the position of Australia’s bowling group.
Cummins, Starc, Hazlewood and Lyon have publicly rejected claims that they knew about the use of a foreign substance to alter the ball.
Their position has been cited repeatedly in discussions about Sandpapergate.
Khawaja’s allegations now challenge the broader understanding of who knew what.
However, his statement about collective responsibility should not automatically be interpreted as an accusation that each bowler personally planned or carried out ball-tampering.
Knowing that questionable conduct was occurring is also different from authorizing, participating in or concealing a specific act.
These distinctions matter when reputations are involved.
The available evidence does not establish that any of the four bowlers directly participated in the 2018 sandpaper incident.
Their denials remain part of the public record.
Why Khawaja Rejects Claims He Is Selling a Controversy
The timing of the revelations has led to questions about whether Khawaja is using the scandal to promote his autobiography.
His memoir, Sabr, is scheduled for release on November 10.
The controversy erupted just days before publication.
Khawaja rejected the suggestion that his motivation was simply commercial.
He argued that he had wanted to discuss the events for years.
He also pointed out that he delayed the publication until after retiring from international cricket.
In addition, he noted that the book was held back until after Australia’s recent South African Test tour.
Those are Khawaja’s explanations.
They do not independently establish his motivations, but they provide important context for readers evaluating the timing.
Publishing a memoir can serve multiple purposes, including personal reflection, public accountability and commercial sales.
The relevant editorial issue is whether the allegations can be supported, not merely whether they appear in a book.
Scott Boland’s Rise Shows Australian Cricket Has Moved Forward
Australian cricket has changed considerably since 2018.
A new generation of players has become important to the national team.
Fast bowler Scott Boland is among those who have made substantial contributions in recent years.
As WWC ONE MEDIA reported during Australia’s October tour of South Africa, Boland claimed four wickets for 31 runs in a demanding Test match at St George’s Park.
His performances demonstrated the depth of Australia’s bowling resources.
But the current controversy also shows that on-field success does not necessarily erase unresolved questions about an organization’s past.
The team can develop new talent while continuing to face scrutiny over historical decisions.
For Cricket Australia, protecting public confidence requires both competitive performance and credible standards of integrity.
What Does Collective Responsibility Mean in Professional Sport?
Khawaja’s central argument raises an important question about the responsibilities of teammates.
In a professional sporting environment, individuals have their own obligations to follow the rules.
Team leaders also have responsibilities to establish standards and respond to misconduct.
But collective responsibility is not identical to collective guilt.
A team may need to acknowledge an institutional failure without concluding that every player committed the same offense.
That distinction is essential to evaluating Khawaja’s remarks.
His argument appears to focus on whether Australia should have accepted the scandal as a wider team failure rather than leaving three players to endure its consequences.
Cricket Australia’s disciplinary findings addressed particular individuals.
The two perspectives concern related but different questions.
One is about the culture and accountability of the team.
The other is about which individuals were found responsible for specific prohibited acts.
A balanced assessment must consider both.
Could Cricket Australia Reopen Sandpapergate?
Khawaja’s memoir has renewed public discussion of the original investigation.
But a formal reopening has not been announced.
Cricket Australia maintains confidence in its earlier conclusions.
Lehmann disputes the claim of widespread knowledge.
Former players have also made statements defending their previous accounts.
For the case to move beyond public debate, authorities would need to determine whether the new information is sufficiently credible and material to warrant additional action.
That may involve evaluating Khawaja’s detailed account and any supporting evidence.
The release of Sabr on November 10 could bring further attention to the dispute.
However, the existence of additional book material does not guarantee a new disciplinary process.
There is also no verified announcement of new punishments.
For now, the controversy remains a major public debate about Australian cricket’s past.
What Happens Next?
The immediate focus will be the release of Khawaja’s autobiography.
Readers and cricket authorities will be able to examine the full account rather than rely exclusively on excerpts and social-media statements.
The responses of Smith, Warner, Bancroft and other former teammates may also shape public understanding.
Cricket Australia could face further questions about the scope of its original investigation.
But no new inquiry should be assumed until one is officially announced.
The broader challenge for Australian cricket is maintaining trust while different participants offer conflicting memories of a deeply controversial period.
That will require careful consideration of evidence rather than treating one person’s recollections as definitive proof.
The Bottom Line: Sandpapergate’s Biggest Questions Are Back
Eight years after Cameron Bancroft was caught using sandpaper during a Test match in Cape Town, Australian cricket is again confronting the scandal that damaged its international reputation.
Usman Khawaja alleges that knowledge of the ball-tampering practice extended beyond the three players formally sanctioned.
He says he wanted to reveal his account in 2018 but was persuaded not to speak publicly.
He also says he reconsidered speaking out in 2021 before ultimately waiting until his retirement.
Khawaja insists his objective is not to blame former teammates.
Instead, he believes the team should have acknowledged collective responsibility.
Cricket Australia stands by its original investigation.
Former coach Darren Lehmann disputes Khawaja’s claim that everyone knew about the sandpaper.
And the four bowlers who previously denied knowledge have not been newly found responsible for misconduct.
The publication of Khawaja’s memoir could bring further revelations, but it has not yet resulted in a reopened investigation.
As Australian cricket confronts another wave of questions about its most notorious cheating scandal, one issue remains unresolved: Did Steve Smith, David Warner and Cameron Bancroft carry the consequences of a wider team failure—or will Cricket Australia’s original findings withstand the latest challenge from someone who was inside the dressing room?
