Afridi The Cheat Strikes again

[Burgey]

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.

Well actually, the presumption of innocence isn't the right of everyone everywhere, but I think the point you make about it being the most practical and best way to deal with these things is right.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Well actually, the presumption of innocence isn't the right of everyone everywhere, but I think the point you make about it being the most practical and best way to deal with these things is right.

This is true. And that's why I admitted my alternative outlook was not practical. Not saying that you're saying I didn't btw, but just affirming that I did.

 

[dikinee]

Another thing that hasnt been mentioned is the fact that all these international players have sponsors. I certainly wouldnt want to see a player I had sponsored displaying that kind of behavior on live tv or anywhere else for that matter.

So Affridi has embarrassed himself, his team, his family, his country and his sponsor. I hope he loses any financial rewards he was set to gain from such sponsorship.

 

[Debris]

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.

Maybe true but that way lies paranoia. Everyone is a foreign spy out to kill me until they can prove otherwise. Better to just assume sides haven't tampered with the ball until you have proof they have.

 

[Matt79]

Ignore Richard - he's a drug dealer. And I challenge him to prove that he isn't - bearing in mind that not having been caught proves nothing.

 

[Sir Alex]

We all tamper: Shahid Afridi | Herald Sun

But Afridi has a ball-tampering history. India's Times Now television network taped him talking privately at a function in 2006 when he admitted to a small group of people that tampering was a routine custom in his team.

Afridi, unaware that the camera filming him was from a television station, dropped his guard when asked how much time his team had to tamper with the balls.

"We do not have that much time," Afridi said. "Only (a) few get to do some bit of ball tampering. If the weather is dry and hot then you can get some help from the pitch while bowling.

"But you also have to help the ball yourself. You have to tamper with the ball to make it swing (on subcontinental pitches).

"It spells death for bowlers if you don't tamper with the ball. You can get some help from the pitch but even then you have to 'make' the ball.

"The game and its rules are changing. You should be allowed to tamper with the ball after the 30th or 40th over."

 

[Shri]

At least he is consistent.

 

[slippyslip]

I think Afridi knew what he was damn well doing and just wanted to cop a ban so he doesnt have to play the Twnety20 and he can go home.

 

[Richard]

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

It would be a fairly reasonable presumption, but anyone suggesting it can't possibly be the case would be living in a fool's paradise, because of course there's an outside chance it could've happened.

BTW getting away with ball-tampering and getting away with informing 11 (maybe more) players of your intention to fix a match is on a rather different scale. A better comparison would be to say:

So you think it would be laughable to say an England cricket player has never attempted to fix a match for Indian bookies.

To do that would indeed be utterly foolhardy, because of course that could very easily have happened and no-one could know.

 

[Richard]

Maybe true but that way lies paranoia. Everyone is a foreign spy out to kill me until they can prove otherwise. Better to just assume sides haven't tampered with the ball until you have proof they have.

Not really. Better to say that until sides are caught tampering there's no certainty that they have but the possibility always exists.

Saying teams have to be caught tampering with balls for it to be possible that they have is fools-paradise-ism, for me.

 

[Richard]

Ignore Richard - he's a drug dealer. And I challenge him to prove that he isn't - bearing in mind that not having been caught proves nothing.

For all you CWers know, I might be a drug-dealer. I know I'm not, and because I'm not there's very little chance of me being accused of it and being punished, but anyone on CW saying "Richard is clearly not a drug-dealer" would have no grounds for saying that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

awta.

I'd have made the claim that "Richard is clearly not an ignoramus", but as you say, I'd have no grounds for saying that.

 

[Richard]

Well TBF you do, because I've shown that with my high-calibre posting on here. But none of my postings - nor in fact anyone's - can show anything conclusive about drug-dealing, not least because discussion of it is illegal in most countries and thus against forum rules.

 

[Sir Alex]

Hitler's reaction

YouTube - Hitler Finds out about Afridi's Ball Bite