*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[Ikki]

Lara was never fined by any board. Warne was.

Yeah, for John the Bookie (one guy). If Warne was fined or was convicted on the basis of what an "Indian businesssman" saw then Lara would have been too. Because, guess what, he was there.

Yeah like Warne has so much credibility on the issue that people are going to believe him.

Yeah, and no one was going to believe Mehta either. Of course, Brian Lara who was with Warne. He is shady too. But yeah, Warne doesn't have credibility, just the businessman who previously attempted to extort is.

 

[Sanz]

Hahaha, let's see...because the article says "bookies", it somehow proves there was more than one? The article doesn't even mention who the bookies are. Nor is there any case where there has been a bookie other than John The Bookie. The title is "Waugh, Warne speak on bookies scandal". Which other bookie were they both involved with?

Clutching @ straws now ? You are the one who jumped on me for using the term 'Bookies' and started to give the spin as I am the first person who used it in context of Warne's match fixing links and somehow accusing him with contacts with multiple bookies. I showed it to you that it( Ther term 'Bookies' in reference to warne's )' has been used by cricket writers and administrators since 90s. Whether it proves anything or not is none of my concern. It has proven that Warne had contacts with bookies and he was fined for passing information to them. Whether it is one bookie or 1000 bookies, it is the same. You can latch it on and continue to clutch. It wont change the way history is going to written.


Rest of your posts same useless pieces of biased bull**** and I have no time for it. You can believe whatever you want. I have already shown Warne's performance between 1998-2001, and then 2002 onwards and he was caught cheating too. It is enough for me to accept that he was a drug cheat and his performance improved because of it.

 

[Ikki]

Clutching @ straws now ? You are the one who jumped on me for using the term 'Bookies' and started to give the spin as I am the first person who used it in context of Warne's match fixing links and somehow accusing him with contacts with multiple bookies. I showed it to you that it( Ther term 'Bookies' in reference to warne's )' has been used by cricket writers and administrators since 90s. Whether it proves anything or not is none of my concern. It has proven that Warne had contacts with bookies and he was fined for passing information to them. Whether it is one bookie or 1000 bookies, it is the same. You can latch it on and continue to clutch. It wont change the way history is going to written.

Rest of your posts same useless pieces of biased bull**** and I have no time for it. You can believe whatever you want. I have already shown Warne's performance between 1998-2001, and then 2002 onwards and he was caught cheating too. It is enough for me to accept that he was a drug cheat and his performance improved because of it.

I really haven't heard journalists use bookies (plural) as often as you. In fact, I've only seen those 2 articles you've shown. And what do they prove? Nothing. You based your argument on the plural form of the word without even having any other proof that backs the very case that word infers. That's shameless. You've provided zilch, nothing that has made an iota of sense. I'm still wondering whether Warne took drugs to heal his injury or to enhance his performance. Still wondering if there is actually more than one bookie. Still wondering how the hell you derived a match-fixing accusation out of all that. Still wondering where in all this you actually make some sense.

 

[subshakerz]

I'm not saying he is honest. I am saying he is stupid. But whether he is stupid or not, the sequence of events actually does much to extricate him from this suspicion.

Again, telling the board in advance of test results they would have already found out anyways does not mean he didnt taking something illegal, it just means he figured he'd tell the bad news to the board himself.

Why wouldn't it be his mother? His mother could have started it off with him and he could have obviously saw some positive events. Regardless if his mother gave it or otherwise, it does seem to point more to his vanity than his 'cheating' as some seem to suggest.

Dont know why you find this 'mother' story so iron clad, when even the biased board who conducted the inquiry found it unconvincing and inconsistent.

Face facts, while you may believe otherwise, few if any objective observer would find this more convincing than the injury recovery aspect. Your default position is 'No, its not humanly possible for Warne to cheat", and hence every misdeed, from his drug use to dealing with bookies, you chaulk up to naivety and stupidity.

By the way, can you tell me why Warne didnt get the maximum 2-year ban he should have?

Well he was also injured when bowling in some series and they weren't the kind of injuries where you heal and you go bowling back to normal. You have to go through the process of learning how to bowl again because you're physically deformed (well, not what you were). How this connects to juicing up and bowling better, I don't know. How you made the connection that he knew about his form and hence ended up taking 'juice' to perform better, I don't know. It seems you pulled it from your rear end.

First, it was said he was using anabolic steroids to help him recover. Now it's that he used performance enhancing drugs to become better? Stick to being wrong at one thing at a time.

This is not rocket science. Before, he was struggling with injuries and hence poor form. If he took a substance to heal his injury, he played onwards without injury issues which helped his good form and performance.

 

[Sanz]

I really haven't heard journalists use bookies (plural) as often as you. In fact, I've only seen those 2 articles you've shown. And what do they prove? Nothing. You based your argument on the plural form of the word without even having any other proof that backs the very case that word infers.

No I don't prove my argument of plural or singular. I prove my arguments based on the facts that he was caught and punished and the whole cover by ACB.

If you haven't read journalists using the term 'Bookies' then it is because you don't want to. Bookie or Bookies just doesn't matter to me, if you are caught once and punished for it then that is enough for me to know that you are involved in the wrong doing, however, it seems that it is not enough for you and hence all the clutching over plural and singular.

 

[Sanz]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20864596-5006069,00.html

SHANE Warne has been dragged into a fresh drug controversy with world anti-doping boss Dick Pound virtually accusing him of taking steroids when he was suspended for taking a "fluid tablet" in 2003.

"The diuretic was a masking agent that could have hidden the possible use of steroids that would help the injury cure faster. He had returned to play almost twice as quickly as the experts had predicted."

He initially declared his intention to fight the ban but later changed his mind, saying it was the Australian way to "take it in the chin".

However it had also emerged that apart from having the ban downgraded when the appeal went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, he could have had it increased to the two-year ban considered mandatory around the world.

Cricket Australia had described his testimony – and that of his mother – as "vague and inconsistent".

Warne denied taking steroids at the time of his bust, claiming: "I feel I am a victim of the anti-doping hysteria."

Pound insists sport must take a stand against drug cheats.

"The rules are all pretty clear and the rules are being broken deliberately and that has to be confronted," he said.

"It is the biggest issue facing sport.

"If it doesn't get better, parents are going to stop putting their kids in competitive sport.

"It is a matter of cheating. If you are using these drugs, you are cheating."

Among the other "worst excuses" Pound lists are Cuban high-jumper Javier Sotomayor, who blamed a CIA plot for the drug bust that ended his career, and US sprinter Dennis Mitchell, who blamed his high testosterone levels on drinking beer and rampant *** with his wife.

 

[Migara]

Warne cheated even his wife and cheated in hs social life. Why not cheat in cricket?

 

[subshakerz]

Warne cheated even his wife and cheated in hs social life. Why not cheat in cricket?

Well, his social life is his own business as far as I'm concerned, but I don't trust him in cricketing matters.

 

[archie mac]

I must say personally I don't have a problem with players using Steroids to help them recover from injury (I must admit I don't think Warne did), if it is prescribed by a doctor (and lets have three separate ones to make sure we don't have a quack) what is the concern?

 

[Migara]

I must say personally I don't have a problem with players using Steroids to help them recover from injury (I must admit I don't think Warne did), if it is prescribed by a doctor (and lets have three separate ones to make sure we don't have a quack) what is the concern?

Perfectly OK provided that

1. It is legalized
2. There is such steroid without telling side effects.

Unfortunately, both has not happened up to now.

 

[archie mac]

Perfectly OK provided that

1. It is legalized
2. There is such steroid without telling side effects.

Unfortunately, both has not happened up to now.

I am no expert, but I thought steroids were used in many medications such as Asthma. Surely there are side effects with most medicines? And if it is only (roids) needed for a short time?

 

[Ikki]

Again, telling the board in advance of test results they would have already found out anyways does not mean he didnt taking something illegal, it just means he figured he'd tell the bad news to the board himself.

I seem to keep repeating myself. That's not the point I am making. When you are assuming he would do all this based on the character he has; the point is someone who WAS trying to cheat certainly wouldn't do that and would at least wait for his B samples to pass.

Dont know why you find this 'mother' story so iron clad, when even the biased board who conducted the inquiry found it unconvincing and inconsistent.

Face facts, while you may believe otherwise, few if any objective observer would find this more convincing than the injury recovery aspect. Your default position is 'No, its not humanly possible for Warne to cheat", and hence every misdeed, from his drug use to dealing with bookies, you chaulk up to naivety and stupidity.

I don't think it's iron clad. I think it's so stupid, with the rest of what Warne did that the possibility of being true is just as likely as he did take it to mask.

I think Warne is more stupid and naive than he is a cheat. That's pretty much my stance.

By the way, can you tell me why Warne didnt get the maximum 2-year ban he should have?

I can't tell you that. It could be because they found out all his samples were identical and hence he didn't take anything. Maybe. Not really much known about it.

This is not rocket science. Before, he was struggling with injuries and hence poor form. If he took a substance to heal his injury, he played onwards without injury issues which helped his good form and performance.

Before he was struggling with career changing injuries and had poor form. Then he recovered learning to bowl with the changes in his body and he got back. It's actually quite simple. There is nothing abnormal about the length of Warne's career or his success. To misconstrue it this way, however, is shameless if not slanderous.

 

[Ikki]

No I don't prove my argument of plural or singular. I prove my arguments based on the facts that he was caught and punished and the whole cover by ACB.

Yes, he was punished only once. Not twice. If you can find out where he was punished twice, that'd be good. If you can't. Then you should concede a losing case.

If you haven't read journalists using the term 'Bookies' then it is because you don't want to. Bookie or Bookies just doesn't matter to me, if you are caught once and punished for it then that is enough for me to know that you are involved in the wrong doing, however, it seems that it is not enough for you and hence all the clutching over plural and singular.

Well, considering there only was 1 bookie and false allegations of possibly others, it won't sway me to consider there more than 1 bookie.

Considering you have nothing except the plural form found in an article, I think you're clutching straws.

And besides all that, you're still yet to explain how he match-fixed. No one has made that allegation but you. It's quite amazing how you've come up with new cases we've never heard before.

 

[Ikki]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,20864596-5006069,00.html

SHANE Warne has been dragged into a fresh drug controversy with world anti-doping boss Dick Pound virtually accusing him of taking steroids when he was suspended for taking a "fluid tablet" in 2003.

"The diuretic was a masking agent that could have hidden the possible use of steroids that would help the injury cure faster. He had returned to play almost twice as quickly as the experts had predicted."

He initially declared his intention to fight the ban but later changed his mind, saying it was the Australian way to "take it in the chin".

However it had also emerged that apart from having the ban downgraded when the appeal went to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, he could have had it increased to the two-year ban considered mandatory around the world.

Cricket Australia had described his testimony – and that of his mother – as "vague and inconsistent".

Warne denied taking steroids at the time of his bust, claiming: "I feel I am a victim of the anti-doping hysteria."

Pound insists sport must take a stand against drug cheats.

"The rules are all pretty clear and the rules are being broken deliberately and that has to be confronted," he said.

"It is the biggest issue facing sport.

"If it doesn't get better, parents are going to stop putting their kids in competitive sport.

"It is a matter of cheating. If you are using these drugs, you are cheating."

Among the other "worst excuses" Pound lists are Cuban high-jumper Javier Sotomayor, who blamed a CIA plot for the drug bust that ended his career, and US sprinter Dennis Mitchell, who blamed his high testosterone levels on drinking beer and rampant *** with his wife.

And we went through this, it is not such an unusual thing to come back from injury, even twice as quick. Footballers come through with such progress regularly. Ali Karimi got injured just prior to the world cup - with an ACL injury - and managed to play in it through pain.

Warne was also bowling through pain at the time. He was also not supposed to play until the latter stages of the competition.

And again, you're talking about taking steroids as if it's PK chewing gum. One, it stays in your body for about 6 months - which reminds me, when did he get injured exactly? - and, two, it has side-effects that last. You aren't going to take roids and be honky dory for the rest of your life.

Warne cheated even his wife and cheated in hs social life. Why not cheat in cricket?

Hahahaha, yeah, to be honest, that's probably a smarter argument than the one answered above.

 

[udara]

Murali is the best

what ever say murali is the best bowler in the world.
anyway there's a poll between Murali Vs Warne vote in it please and let's see who's the best.
http://muraliwarne.googlepages.com/home.html

 

[Migara]

This is where my point in the other thread comes in with regards to momentum. Warne can bowl a great spell, not take wickets and will have to start all over again. Murali bowls much more and will carry that momentum for a much longer time and will eventually clean up what's left to make his strike-rate acceptable all the while having a negligible effect on the game.

E.g. Warne bowls 25 overs and takes 2 wickets, that is a strike-rate of 75.
Murali bowls 30 overs and takes 2 wickets, but finishes out the rest of the innings with another 10 overs for 2 more wickets and that will bump it up to 60. And really, by then it's a foregone conclusion.

Here is a simple way of thinking about it: Warne bowls either great and takes wickets or bowls great not taking wickets or not bowling well and not taking wickets.
Murali will either bowl well and take wickets or bowl poorly and still take em..

Wrong. Warne took more tail end wickets than Murali. Your point is dead where it started

Murali

Warne

 

[Ikki]

Been over this:

The point is that Murali bowls to more batsmen, Warne comes in when usually - if not more than - 2-3 have fallen. The fact that about 40 wickets seperates them in more than 100 test is actually damning to Murali.

Take this: when Warne comes in, McGrath and co. have usually knocked off about 3, if not more wickets. Which leaves about 7, let's say, wickets left for Warne. 3 are going to be tailenders.

Whereas when Murali starts bowling, often none or, for this example, let's say 1 wicket has fallen. He bowls very early compared to Warne. So there are about 9 wickets left and 3 are tailenders.

Therefore, the fact that Warne doesn't have the opportunity to bowl to more upper-order batsman makes that facet look worse. If both got an equal opportunity at facing all 10 batsmen, then you'd have a point. Considering that regularly Warne doesn't and regularly Murali does, it isn't favourable to Murali to have such a small difference. Actually, it's quite easy to make the statement that Murali relies more on the tail to improve his figures than Warne does.

 

[Migara]

Take this: when Warne comes in, McGrath and co. have usually knocked off about 3, if not more wickets. Which leaves about 7, let's say, wickets left for Warne. 3 are going to be tailenders.

]Therefore, the fact that Warne doesn't have the opportunity to bowl to more upper-rder batsman makes that facet look worse. If both got an equal opportunity at facing all 10 batsmen, then you'd have a point. Considering that regularly Warne doesn't and regularly Murali does

Going by your theory, tal enders are easy to be dismissed than top order batsman. So Warne should have a lower average, strike rate and an economy rate, which is not the case.

 

[Migara]

it's quite easy to make the statement that Murali relies more on the tail to improve his figures than Warne does.

The statistics clearly tell otherwise. Out of Warne's wickets 37% are tail enders, and Murali's 31% tail enders. If you reduce those wickets 708-263= 445 for Warne and 723-229 = 494 for Murali respectively. Number of top order wickets become much more for Murali.

 

[Ikki]

Going by your theory, tal enders are easy to be dismissed than top order batsman. So Warne should have a lower average, strike rate and an economy rate, which is not the case.

Indeed they usually are. But considering Warne has taken 2/3rds of his wickets in top/middle order batsmen and when they've settled it will undoubtedly raise his average. Whereas Murali faces most the batsmen when they're not settled and in the beginning.

Anyway, the difference between their averages isn't this, it's the fact that Murali plays at home and against minnows so often. This is a very small difference between them. So when you are taking into account why Warne doesn't have better averages, it has nothing to do with this and it depends which averages you're really talking about.