Rate Him: Shane Warne

[Ikki]

My definition of match fixing has been pretty solid. I think you should fix your own.

As long as you acknowledge we have different definition that's fine. I just think you'll have a lot of people disagree with you. I am not trying to convince you that I am right and you are wrong but I just saw it fit to try and explain what people usually mean when they call someone a match-fixer.

Why not.? e.g. Trying to take quick singles, if I knew that Player 'A' has been suffering from some injury, I would plan to attack his end and it may work to my advantage.

The fact that it 'may' help shows what a stretch this really has become. To premeditate your shots like that is just as likely to get you out.

NO, your information is incorrect. You get to know the other team composition only after you have decided your final XI.

When tour sides are picked, even if you do not know who is injured in the immediate match or not it's still later fixable by changing your squad around. You tour with more than just XI players.

 

[Sanz]

Has there ever been any indication of this happening? Or have you made it up on the spot? The point is that it is just you reaching for straws to try and get Warne into a definition of matchfixer when it clearly doesn't fit. Maybe this, maybe that. At the end of the day he gave info to bookies, he didn't underperform, he's not a matchfixer. I don't think it's that complicated.

That wasn't my point, the point was until you show evidence that said player accepted money to under-perform he's not a matchfixer. You trying to include him into the definition of one by saying 'maybe this could happened or maybe that could happen' does not make it so. Accepting money from bookies does not make one a matchfixer until the players agree to underperfom. You can keep repeating it till you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact Warne is not a matchfixer.

Clearly your definition of match fixing differs from mine, which is fine.But, If I am reapeating the information, then so are you. Hopefully you will maintain the same standards for every other player that was involved in match fixing.

Your definition absolves Guys like Md. Azharuddin, Prabhakar, Ajay Jadeja etc from fixing any matches, because there is no proof that any of these guys under-performed in any match.

What If a player took money to under-perform but didn't (e.g. Gibbs) will that be match fixing ? Because even though he took money he didn't underperform i.e. in reality didn't fix any match.

 

[Sanz]

As long as you acknowledge we have different definition that's fine. I just think you'll have a lot of people disagree with you. I am not trying to convince you that I am right and you are wrong but I just saw it fit to try and explain what people usually mean when they call someone a match-fixer.

You were trying to convince me and others that I was wrong on Warne-Ratan Mehta issue by showing their statements. And I have shown you that it is hard to take Warne's statement on face value. He did know 'Mr. Mehta' in the past and that his statement on the
issue are a 'lie'. He has as much credibility as Md. Asif does on 'Drug' Charges.

When tour sides are picked, even if you do not know who is injured in the immediate match or not it's still later fixable by changing your squad around. You tour with more than just XI players.

Confusing the touring side with the Final XI, eh ? If you declare the Final XI for a match and the opposing team knows about it before they decide their own team, it is certainly an advantage.

 

[Ikki]

Clearly your definition of match fixing differs from mine, which is fine.But, If I am reapeating the information, then so are you. Hopefully you will maintain the same standards for every other player that was involved in match fixing.

Your definition absolves Guys like Md. Azharuddin, Prabhakar, Ajay Jadeja etc from fixing any matches, because there is no proof that any of these guys under-performed in any match.

What If a player took money to under-perform but didn't (e.g. Gibbs) will that be match fixing ? Because even though he took money he didn't underperform i.e. in reality didn't fix any match.

Azharuddin was found guilty of match-fixing and got the ban. It's beyond a doubt. The argument you have here is at best hearsay.

As for a player that takes money and doesn't throw the match, he should also be banned for getting into a contractual agreement to match-fix. If he doesn't carry out his obligation, it means he broke that agreement, however he was still guilty of agreeing to match-fix.

 

[Sanz]

The fact that it 'may' help shows what a stretch this really has become. To premeditate your shots like that is just as likely to get you out.

I was talking from a fielder's perspective. There are two batsmen 'A' and 'B' are at the crease, 'A' is suffering from an injury that the fielding team is aware off, The fielding team decides to attack the end he is running to. To me that's an advantage.

Warne has been suffering from some injury that he can't really bowl one particular delivery, If the other team knows that, clearly an advantage.

 

[Ikki]

You were trying to convince me and others that I was wrong on Warne-Ratan Mehta issue by showing their statements. And I have shown you that it is hard to take Warne's statement on face value. He did know 'Mr. Mehta' in the past and that his statement on the
issue are a 'lie'. He has as much credibility as Md. Asif does on 'Drug' Charges.

You are wrong on the Ratan Mehta issue. Not only is there meeting not provable neither is that they every did any business regarding cricket...let alone match-fixing.

You are jumping from one pebble to another. One day Mehta cannot be trusted saying he didn't meet Warne the next day his word is gospel because he said he met Warne before in 5-star hotels. Still, how does this prove that Warne knew him? Or even if he did, that he had any kind of match-fixing business?

To say this is clutching at straws is an understatement.

What I thought was a difference in definition was the John the bookie case, not Mehta.

Confusing the touring side with the Final XI, eh ? If you declare the Final XI for a match and the opposing team knows about it before they decide their own team, it is certainly an advantage.

It is a possible advantage. It is not a definite one and it is not match-fixing. When you match-fix, you agree to alter the outcome of the match to favour the other side. This would also need to be done with the knowledge of the players in both sides. If the players did not know what was going on but the bookies did, how can they fix the match?

 

[Sanz]

Azharuddin was found guilty of match-fixing and got the ban. It's beyond a doubt. The argument you have here is at best hearsay.

Nope, I was strictly sticking to pasag's criteria - "until you show evidence that said player accepted money to under-perform he's not a matchfixer."

So please tell me the match he fixed or the match he took money to underperform ? What about Prabhakar, Jadeja etc ? What matches did they fix and what proof does anyone have ?

As for a player that takes money and doesn't throw the match, he should also be banned for getting into a contractual agreement to match-fix. If he doesn't carry out his obligation, it means he broke that agreement, however he was still guilty of agreeing to match-fix.

Thank You. In this very forum we have had arguments where people didn't consider Gibbs a match fixer because he didn't under-perform.

 

[Ikki]

I was talking from a fielder's perspective. There are two batsmen 'A' and 'B' are at the crease, 'A' is suffering from an injury that the fielding team is aware off, The fielding team decides to attack the end he is running to. To me that's an advantage.

Again, a stretch. If it's that bad the batsmen will have a runner. If not, then it's not going to be much, if any, of an advantage anyway. And in order to take advantage of it you have to have the opportunity of a run-out...which the likelihood is...?

You gotta understand, these scenarios cannot fix a match. It's bad, but it's not match-fixing.

Warne has been suffering from some injury that he can't really bowl one particular delivery, If the other team knows that, clearly an advantage.

Again, very slight advantage. And again, a bookie is unlikely to give this kind of information to anyone. He will keep them for his own odds.

 

[Ikki]

Nope, I was strictly sticking to pasag's criteria - "until you show evidence that said player accepted money to under-perform he's not a matchfixer."

So please tell me the match he fixed or the match he took money to underperform ? What about Prabhakar, Jadeja etc ? What matches did they fix and what proof does anyone have ?

Intent to match-fix and getting into an agreement to match-fix is all that is needed IMO.

Have the matches that they were alleged to have fixed been made public? The ICC, CBI and BCCI found them guilty after a formal inquiry.

Thank You. In this very forum we have had arguments where people didn't consider Gibbs a match fixer because he didn't under-perform.

IMO, the only way Gibbs could exonerate himself from blame is if before the match had begun he had given all of the money back and said he wouldn't do it. Then he would have broken that agreement. Maybe some fine would be justifiable but not a permanent ban IF that was the case.

 

[Sanz]

You are wrong on the Ratan Mehta issue. Not only is there meeting not provable neither is that they every did any business regarding cricket...let alone match-fixing.

You are jumping from one pebble to another. One day Mehta cannot be trusted saying he didn't meet Warne the next day his word is gospel because he said he met Warne before in 5-star hotels. Still, how does this prove that Warne knew him? Or even if he did, that he had any kind of match-fixing business?

To say this is clutching at straws is an understatement.

What I thought was a difference in definition was the John the bookie case, not Mehta.

Repeat mode on - "Mehta's statement came under investigation by the outlook magazine and was backed by ACU" as opposed to the other statement that came out randomly.

It is a possible advantage. It is not a definite one and it is not match-fixing. When you match-fix, you agree to alter the outcome of the match to favour the other side. This would also need to be done with the knowledge of the players in both sides. If the players did not know what was going on but the bookies did, how can they fix the match?

Thank You. And I consider 'Giving information that gives another team an advantage" within the realms of match fixing, you do not and I am perfectly fine with your definition.

But please be consistent, when you call Azhar, Jadeja etc as match fixers. Also Please be consistent and do not call guys like Wasim etc match fixers.

 

[Ikki]

Repeat mode on - "Mehta's statement came under investigation by the outlook magazine and was backed by ACU" as opposed to the other statement that came out randomly.

Correct me if I am wrong: but the statements come from the businessman and all that it says is that what the businessman told Outlook was the same as what he told the ACU. That does not give a value of truthfulness. Just of consistency. It could be the same lie, for instance.

Thank You. And I consider 'Giving information that gives another team an advantage" within the realms of match fixing, you do not and I am perfectly fine with your definition.

But please be consistent, when you call Azhar, Jadeja etc as match fixers. Also Please be consistent and do not call guys like Wasim etc match fixers.

I think you can get more unfair advantage by ball-tampering frankly.

I called Azhar a match-fixer because it seems to have been proven so by those organisations I listed that imposed his ban. TBF, I did not follow the cases with great detail.

And I have never considered Wasim a match-fixer. Wasim, like Warne here, was at best under suspicion but nothing can be proved against him without a reasonable doubt.

For me, this is why I keep such a stringent standard. This is a serious claim and suspicion alone does not suffice for me. To tarnish someone like this is an equally immoral act.

 

[jammay123]

Shane Warne= best their is, best their was and the best their ever will be.

 

[Sanz]

Have the matches that they were alleged to have fixed been made public? The ICC, CBI and BCCI found them guilty after a formal inquiry.

They have been. I am reading the CBI report, right now. Seems like Azhar did accept that he did 2 matches, but no proof on Jadeja, Prabhakar, Mongia etc.

 

[Ikki]

Shane Warne= best their is, best their was and the best their ever will be.

Shane "The Hitman" Warne?

 

[Sanz]

Correct me if I am wrong: but the statements come from the businessman and all that it says is that what the businessman told Outlook was the same as what he told the ACU. That does not give a value of truthfulness. Just of consistency. It could be the same lie, for instance.

What ? ACU was running an investigation. Are you now questioning the credibility of the whole investigation itself based on Warne's statement ?

I think you can get more unfair advantage by ball-tampering frankly.

I think you get even a bigger advantage by being a Drug Cheat.

 

[Ikki]

What ? ACU was running an investigation. Are you now questioning the credibility of the whole investigation itself based on Warne's statement ?

Er. I think we are on different pages.

The ACU said the businessman is credible because he gave the same story he gave to them to Outlook. Whether this story is true or not is not proven because the mystery businessman happened to give the same story twice.

I think you get even a bigger advantage by being a Drug Cheat.

Diuretics give you an advantage?

 

[Tom Halsey]

My definition of match fixing has been pretty solid.

In your own opinion, and no-one else seems to use your definition.

With Pasag on this, passing info to bookies was wrong, and is punishable, but it is not match-fixing in the common sense of the term and there is no arguing with that.

 

[Sanz]

Er. I think we are on different pages.

The ACU said the businessman is credible because he gave the same story he gave to them to Outlook. Whether this story is true or not is not proven because the mystery businessman happened to give the same story twice.

ACU didn't say that the businessman is credible because he gave same story to both the sources. They just said that he is a reputable witness and then also confirmed his story to the media.

So Mr. Mehta in his statement to the investigation agency does say that 'He has met Warne in five star hotels' (which is what this businessman seems to have said) Whereas Mr. Warne says he has never heard of Mr.Mehta.

And you are telling me that I am wrong.

 

[Sanz]

In your own opinion, and no-one else seems to use your definition.

How do you know no-one ? Have you spoken to everyone on this forum on this ?

Why not start a poll and ask the question if members of the forum believe 'Warne is a Match Fixer' ? Let's see how many agree with me and and how many do not.

With Pasag on this, passing info to bookies was wrong, and is punishable, but it is not match-fixing in the common sense of the term and there is no arguing with that.

That's fine. Respect your opinion/stand on the issue but please do not claim that you represent everyone else(not including me) on this forum.

 

[Tom Halsey]

How do you know no-one ? Have you spoken to everyone on this forum on this ?

Why not start a poll and ask the question if members of the forum believe 'Warne is a Match Fixer' ? Let's see how many agree with me and and how many do not.

Key word "seems". Of those that have posted thus far, you are on your own, and your definition of match-fixing differs from what (in my experience) is the unanimously accepted one.