I refer to Stephen Calleja’s article entitled “A hot summer at the pool” (TMIS, 12 September).

Despite Mr Calleja’s pre declared bias in favour of his team San Giljan, his subsequent statement defining his article a rational analysis of the just ended water polo season can be called a lot of things but certainly not rational.

Alex Vella’s allegedly biased reporting in The Times does not justify the inaccuracies and distortion of the truth Mr Calleja resorts to in the article in question.

Let’s start with his take on the Matthew Zammit case. His inference that had the player been a Neptunes or Sliema one, the ASA would have paid for his legal defence is not only gratuitous but also illogical. If, as asserted by the author later on in the article, the association is so hard up for cash, why would it offer to foot the said legal bill for other doping culprits whichever club they belong to. The thinly veiled call for a national team boycott by San Giljan players can only be described as laughable. As if any player would forego the chance to play for his country if given the chance.

Contrary to Mr Calleja’s assessment on the toughness of Matthew Zammit’s punishment, let it be said that this was perfectly in line with that meted out in the past to other internationally renowned players. Tibor Benedek immediately springs to mind.

Yes, definitely, San Giljan’s title aspirations took a severe knock as a result of M. Zammit’s punishment, thus denying all water polo lovers (myself for one) the chance of seeing a three-horse race instead of the usual Sliema Neptunes affair. But are Neptunes, Sliema, or the tooth fairy for that matter, to blame for this? Come on Mr Calleja, even through your self-declared blinkered vision, you should understand that there is no anti San Giljan conspiracy going on here.

And while on the subject of conspiracy theories, the “San Giljan U 14 got the short stick” record has now been played one time too often. As a responsible journalist, Mr Calleja should know that San Giljan persisted in defying an ASA’s council clear ruling that the foreign players they had fielded in their game against Neptunes (and for which they were awarded victory) were ineligible. How’s that for being obsessed with winning?

Mr Calleja knows very well that the implications of the first Protest Board’s judgement went far beyond a mere U 14 tournament and could have impacted on the whole senior championship.

Which brings me to the final bee in Mr Calleja’s bonnet, namely the incidents during the San Giljan-Neptunes game. Here the author has gone completely overboard with his revisionist version of the fracas that was perpetrated solely by a small number of SG players and a slightly larger number of so-called supporters.

For starters, the reason why Steve Camilleri was not involved in the ASA’s disciplinary measures was simply because he was not reported (and should not have been) by the match officials unlike the other three SG players mentioned. It is also simply not true that players came to blows. Had Mr Calleja been present at the match or even bothered to watch the relevant footage shown on TV, he would have seen three SG players and an official crossing over to their opponents’ side in an attempt to assault Steve Camilleri. That they did not manage to injure him was not due to the “protective efforts” of the police present but of a number of Neptunes officials and substitutes. Mr Calleja refers to provocation by Neptunes players. Of all people, he, as a sports journalist by birth, should know that in any sport retaliation is a definite no-no. (Remember Zinedine Zidane?)

Was the flying kick aimed at Dr S. Camilleri by Rainer Scerri the result of provocation too? Oops sorry, I forgot that the good doctor is Steve’s father, so perhaps he is guilty through family ties!!

The author should research his facts and quote correctly. What Neptunes president Matthew Bonello said on TV was that he was sure that, given the way things happened during the game, none of his players should have had any action taken against them. A far cry from the advance knowledge the author claims Mr Bonello had.

And finally for the cherry on this particular cake. Mr Calleja unbelievably takes the ASA president to task for being, as he claims, in the wrong place at the wrong time, while attempting to ensure that the crème de la crème of San Giljan supporters did not enter their opposing supporters area, something the police present failed to do. So I suppose that justifies his being assaulted for his pains.

For a person who says he is not obsessed with winning, Stephen Calleja surely goes about proving it in a very unconvincing manner.

Martin Borg