I couldn't care less about O'Regan's qualifications or his professional reputation. Why dont you tell me what powers did Mr. O'Regan have to conduct his inquiry. Who were his witnesses and how many of them made statements under oath ? How about ZERO ? What investigations he did besides speaking to 60 people, most of which were Aussies and were not even related to match fixing.
TBH O'Regan inquiry has as much credibility as the Chandrachud Comission.
As far as my agenda is concerned, I think you should worry about your own agenda because you seem to clearly have a double standard here on this issue and like a true aussie continue to defend match fixers. Anyone who calls mark waugh's match fixing involvement as stupidity is, on this issue, basically biased to the core.
One thing I can say for sure is that even the most biased Indian fan will not defend the match fixers from his country.
See, the problem with dealing with people with such ingrained nationalistic prejudices is that they rarely understand that others may have a capability that they have failed to master- that it is possible to consider an issue without bringing in silly nationalistic slurs. It is no coincidence that those who identify themselves as racists often see their view that "well, they hate me as well" as a sort of misguided justification for their tainted views.
I am Australian by naturalisation, British by birth, and Indian by heritage. My national pride and patriotic allegiances resides with all three countries.
Where have I "defended" Mark Waugh? I have agreed that what he did was wrong, and that he should have been punished far more severely than he was. I have also made it clear that the ACB was decidedly wrong in trying to conceal the issue. I would suggest that my "defence" of Waugh has been, at worst, comparable to yours of Azharrudin above.
I have maintained that there is a stark difference between the crime you attribute to him and the offence he was confirmed to have committed. No more, no less.
And exactly what double standard have I expressed? That everyone should be judged on what they actually did, rather than what someone assumes (which, in reality, is all you acutally have) them to have done?
Again, try and understand that not everyone has your limitations. I can form an opinion on a case without simply projecting my own prejudices, and back up my opinions with facts rather than wild accusations. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get there some day- you just have to let the hate go.
I have faith in you.
Yes you are the one who is completely lacking any credibility on the issue.
Of all the names named by Mukesh Gupta (not Gupte), only Waugh was the one who was fined by his board. Waugh's is also the case that has been supported by Prabhakar, the link between cricketers and Bookies.
7) Mark Waugh: MK was introduced to Mark Waugh by Prabhakar during a six-a-side tournament in Hong Kong. Prabhakar has accepted this in his statement.
I have seen his name spelt both ways. Either is sufficient to get my point across.
Yes, I believe I mentioned ALL of the places in that report where Mark Waugh's name was mentioned. There was a single accusation that encompassed all five- that being that Prabhakar introduced him to Gupte (heh), and that Gupte paid him in return for information. The ONLY dispute between the conclusions of the report and Waugh's admissions is the extent of the information provided- specifically whether the information provided included "team strategy [and] morale etc".
That report didn't make any mention of even the slightest suggestion that Mark Waugh threw a game, nor did it make even a remote indication that it occurred "for most of the 90s". Those accusations are no more than your own unfounded assumptions.
You are clearly misinformed or probably pretending to be one by leabing the next part of the quote which clearly specified the scope of the investigations. Let me quote the whole thing :-
I am not misinformed, and I would hope that if I was pretending to be I would be failing miserably.
Yes, the investigation had "focal points". There is a massive (and obvious) difference between a focus and a limitation. The investigation was unlimited, and spread to any person or organisation that the investigation uncovered.
Waugh and Warne were the only ones to be fined by their boards for their involvement with the bookies. As for Cronje, SA fans denied his involvement as long as they could. Waqar, Inzi, Crow, Deano, Arjuna, Lara etc were never implicated by anyone else, never fined either and if you can show me anything that says otherwise, I will accept that they were involved too.
Yep. Although Waugh and Warne both went to their board independently before any allegation, and long before the CBI investigation convened.
Answer this hypothetical- if Warne and Waugh hadn't gone to the ACB to report the matter, would the accusations against them currently hold any more weight than those made against the other players?
They confessed to their offence (BEFORE there was any suggestion that any investigation would be considered, let alone convened), and submitted themselves for the punishment of their board. How does this add any weight to your baseless exaggerations?
There is no evidence to suggest that Azhar, Jadeja etc threw any game either.
No question. That's why I'm not accusing them of anything of the sort. It's called natural justice.
Note that even though the same report that you have used to condemn Waugh stated,
"the evidence against Azharuddin, which is discussed next, clearly establishes that he took money from bookies/punters to fix cricket matches", I STILL haven't used it as a justification to accuse Azharuddin of fixing a match. In my view, the evidence provided is still too vague and inconclusive to provide a base for such an untested accusation.
It is also called consistency- something that obviously eludes you.