Afridi The Cheat Strikes again

[Scaly piscine]

Afridi's just monumentally stupid. In his mind I'm sure he could justify what he did because he thinks everyone tampers with the ball, he just hasn't the brains to do it in a subtle manner. It's not really fair to be drawing comparisons with calculated theft like that.

 

[Point]

Hair

2 match ban is ridiculous, imo! But then again, Madugalle probably didn't want to take the risk of following Bob Woolmer.

What bout Naved and Asif? They get off scot free! Ideally, Afridi should've been sent off for the rest of the match and Pakistan docked 20 runs at least.

Shameful!

Bring back Darrel Hair!

Seriously, after the way the ICC shafted him, all other umpires are afraid to call out Pakistan for ball tampering.

 

[dikinee]

Afridi's just monumentally stupid. In his mind I'm sure he could justify what he did because he thinks everyone tampers with the ball, he just hasn't the brains to do it in a subtle manner. It's not really fair to be drawing comparisons with calculated theft like that.

What a load of crap, He is a repeat offender. You cant be a little bit dishonest, you are either honest or dishonest and he has proven himself to be the latter and in my opinion should be treated as such. It doesnt matter what he says in way of justifying his actions because people who cheat also lie, a proven fact.

 

[Streetwise]

If you look carefully I said that it is not acceptable to call anyone a ball-tamperer unless they've been found to have used sharp objects or vaseline (or equivalent) on a ball. However it is equally laughable to say that because someone has not been caught doing something that this automatically means they haven't done it.

So you think it would be laughable to say the England cricket team have never fixed a match for Indian bookies.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

So you think it would be laughable to say the England cricket team have never fixed a match for Indian bookies.

You really can't absolve any team, fairly. You can't say one way or the other, fairly, so why say anything at all?

 

[Burgey]

You really can't absolve any team, fairly. You can't say one way or the other, fairly, so why say anything at all?

Nah. Look, you can't have that attitude to sport. Barring some proof of things, a la Simon Jones admitting England systematically cheated to win the Ashes in 05, you can't think like that about people.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Nah. Look, you can't have that attitude to sport. Barring some proof of things, a la Simon Jones admitting England systematically cheated to win the Ashes in 05, you can't think like that about people.

You're not understanding me, are you? I'm saying presuming innocence, due to lack of evidence otherwise, is on the same level as presumption of guilt, despite lack of evidence. Neither is really justifiable.

 

[Streetwise]

You really can't absolve any team, fairly. You can't say one way or the other, fairly, so why say anything at all?

That was my point, Afridi has cast aspersions on all teams. He has brought the game into disrepute by suggesting all teams cheat. Further action must be taken.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That was my point, Afridi has cast aspersions on all teams. He has brought the game into disrepute by suggesting all teams cheat. Further action must be taken.

But I don't think that's what I'm saying.

 

[Uppercut]

You're not understanding me, are you? I'm saying presuming innocence, due to lack of evidence otherwise, is on the same level as presumption of guilt, despite lack of evidence. Neither is really justifiable.

But one is less likely to get you sued.

 

[Streetwise]

You're not understanding me, are you? I'm saying presuming innocence, due to lack of evidence otherwise, is on the same level as presumption of guilt, despite lack of evidence. Neither is really justifiable.

That dosent work, if a journalist asks an Australian bowler if Austrlaia tamper with the ball it would be laughable for him to deny that Australia tamper with the ball.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That dosent work, if a journalist asks an Australian bowler if Austrlaia tamper with the ball it would be laughable for him to deny that Australia tamper with the ball.

Fair enough?

 

[Burgey]

You're not understanding me, are you? I'm saying presuming innocence, due to lack of evidence otherwise, is on the same level as presumption of guilt, despite lack of evidence. Neither is really justifiable.

Well, that's all getting a bit philosophical I suppose - depends on one's outlook on life and people. I'd like to think the best of people for the most part, until convinced otherwise.

I mean, if you (in the general sense, not you personally) want to take the view that everyone's up to no good as your starting point, then that's ok, but personally I'd find it difficult to live a happy existence if I thought that way .

Again though, I excuse the 05 England cricket team from that way of thinking.

Then again, if what you're saying is we just don't know, then that must be true of course, but I'm not fussed on vewing sportspeople like that. Would rather take it at face value that they're playing within the rules unless shown otherwise.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well, that's all getting a bit philosophical I suppose - depends on one's outlook on life and people. I'd like to think the best of people for the most part, until convinced otherwise.

I mean, if you (in the general sense, not you personally) want to take the view that everyone's up to no good as your starting point, then that's ok, but personally I'd find it difficult to live a happy existence if I thought that way .

I know it's not a very practical outlook, but it's a fair one IMO. It's not an outlook of suspicion though. It's more a lack of it. But maybe I'm complicating things even more by explaining it that way.

Again though, I excuse the 05 England cricket team from that way of thinking.

You need to excuse Simon at least. Because, well, he's Simon Jones.

Then again, if what you're saying is we just don't know, then that must be true of course, but I'm not fussed on vewing sportspeople like that. Would rather take it at face value that they're playing within the rules unless shown otherwise.

I suppose that's the ideal, positive way of looking at things. I can get on board with it, if it's not exercised arrogantly, like certain road smart people...

 

[Point]

Burden of evidence.

You're not understanding me, are you? I'm saying presuming innocence, due to lack of evidence otherwise, is on the same level as presumption of guilt, despite lack of evidence. Neither is really justifiable.

I completely disagree. It is impossible to prove a negative.

It cannot be proven that Glen McGrath didn't ball tamper just as it can't be proven that Shane Warne can't fly. But saying that there is no evidence that Warne can't fly and therefore the proposition that he can fly is equal to the proposition that he can't, is nonsensical.

There are dozens of camera's at cricket grounds these days and it is difficult to get away with much. But I think the way that he shielded himself from the umpires using the bowler and covering the ball with his hands thinking that no one would see, betrays an extremely naive personality without a firm grasp of reality.

Why would anyone then give any weight to his claims about other teams particularly when they are qualified with sweeping adjectives?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

It cannot be proven that Glen McGrath didn't ball tamper just as it can't be proven that Shane Warne can't fly. But saying that there is no evidence that Warne can't fly and therefore the proposition that he can fly is equal to the proposition that he can't, is nonsensical.

That's not what I'm saying at all. At all.

 

[Burgey]

Although, the more I think about it, I'd like to be able to say that whenever someone beats a team I go for, they cheated.

 

[Point]

That's not what I'm saying at all. At all.

Well then what exactly are you saying?

If 20+ camera's don't pick up ball-tampering, practically speaking, that's more than enough evidence to assert that they don't. Though of course it is logically impossible to absolutely prove that.

The burden of proof here is on those making making the claim that teams do tamper.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well then what exactly are you saying?

If 20+ camera's don't pick up ball-tampering, practically speaking, that's more than enough evidence to assert that they don't. Though of course it is logically impossible to absolutely prove that.

The burden of proof here is on those making making the claim that teams do tamper.

Honestly not passionate enough about the point to rephrase it. Sorry.

I will say that when TV cameras are the standard for spotting cheating, we have to remember that TV feeds (even for the umpires) are controlled by the director and vision mixer of the TV stations. Not the ICC.

 

[dikinee]

You're not understanding me, are you? I'm saying presuming innocence, due to lack of evidence otherwise, is on the same level as presumption of guilt, despite lack of evidence. Neither is really justifiable.

Nah. Look, you can't have that attitude to sport. Barring some proof of things, a la Simon Jones admitting England systematically cheated to win the Ashes in 05, you can't think like that about people.

Presumption of innocence is the right of everyone. You cant say someone is guilty because you suspect they may have done something, that would pave the way to all sorts of baseless accussasions being levelled at people who have done nothing wrong. You must have proof, but once you have that proof then get rid of them from all levels of cricket including club cricket.
These international players must be held more accountable than anyone else because of the impact their actions have on young people globally.