Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Burgey]

What I said is what it boils down to. You either attribute what you consider a significant proportion of the blame to his upbringing and environment and corruption-friendly system, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that Pakistan is a basketcase that cannot be trusted as a cricketing entity, or you acknowledge the inexcusable betrayal of a man who, far from being the village bumpkin leading a hand to mouth existance, was a greedy individual that didn't let his substantial experience of five years representing his nation at various levels deter him from seeking to line his pockets in an illicit manner. And this is only compounded by the evidence that it wasn't just meant as a one-off, but rather a means of demonstrating that he was amenable to further inducement.

Can it be both?

 

[zaremba]

I remember when I was 19 and all this started, and how utterly patronising I thought it was that Amir seemed to get so much sympathy for being young.

Seems to have got worse.

Hey, y'know, sometime teenagers can think.

It's not safe to assume that all teenagers are as mature as you were at that age; far from it. Speaking for myself (and apologies for patronising my 18-year-old self), even though I knew right from wrong, I was pretty bloody immature at 18.

The starting point here is that this particular teenager demonstrated that he was capable of pretty bloody stupid behaviour, one possible factor contributing to which was his youth.

And a teenager can be capable of rational thought and yet be rather more susceptible to pressure and persuasion than someone longer in the tooth.

 

[Flem274*]

What I said is what it boils down to. You either attribute what you consider a significant proportion of the blame to his upbringing and environment and corruption-friendly system, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that Pakistan is a basketcase that cannot be trusted as a cricketing entity, or you acknowledge the inexcusable betrayal of a man who, far from being the village bumpkin leading a hand to mouth existance, was a greedy individual that didn't let his substantial experience of five years representing his nation at various levels deter him from seeking to line his pockets in an illicit manner. And this is only compounded by the evidence that it wasn't just meant as a one-off, but rather a means of demonstrating that he was amenable to further inducement.

I'd say it's elements of both.

 

[Cevno]

What I said is what it boils down to. You either attribute what you consider a significant proportion of the blame to his upbringing and environment and corruption-friendly system, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that Pakistan is a basketcase that cannot be trusted as a cricketing entity, or you acknowledge the inexcusable betrayal of a man who, far from being the village bumpkin leading a hand to mouth existance, was a greedy individual that didn't let his substantial experience of five years representing his nation at various levels deter him from seeking to line his pockets in an illicit manner. And this is only compounded by the evidence that it wasn't just meant as a one-off, but rather a means of demonstrating that he was amenable to further inducement.

Or you can not see it in black and white but with more shades of grey.

What's that got to do with anything?

He was a 18 year old coming from a poor background,who was exposed to International cricket without any counselling or mental preparation.
It is really tough for such a young boy to reject it when the senior teammates and his ****ing captain come up to him,to tell him that he can make a large amount of money by just bowling a no ball and that they have been doing it all along. Who knows the captain and the senior players had threatened to alienate him and get him dropped?
Wouldn't surprise me if some adminstrators were involved too or he was threatened with other things.

Yes the last part is speculation, but lets all get off our ****ing high horse and try to understand the possible contexts of it too.

How many people would resist or go and whistleblow if their senior is getting some form of commision where they work and offers them to be part of some form of information leaking (which is not too much loss causing too)? Specially, when they have just joined the company at a age of 18,without any real high preparation or education and he threatens to put them under pressure or fire them if they do not comply?

And then if they get caught and there lawyer tells them to lie in court to get away with minimum punishment,how many will go and admit they were wrong and were part of the malpractice?
And if there lawyer tells them to admit their crime later even if they were not wrong,will they not?

He engaged in Spot fixing,not match fixing under these possible circumstances and it didn't really cause anyone any harm. Not worth wasting a entire career of a 18 year old on it. He commited a crime and has paid for it. The duration of the sentence is at question here not whether he should or not. And advocating the maximum possible penalty for such a crime is frankly bizarre tbh.

Btw, does ICC provide ****ing counselling to young players about all rules and procedures when they come into the team?Even after this incident.

He just bowled a no ball tbf, and that too as instructed to do by his ****ing captain and his teammate who i would imagine was supposed to be his bowling attack leader and mentor.

I meant counselling as in to know how much the punishment can be for the crime, how to deal with pressure from the peer group and the leader to do it? and to where ****ing report it when under pressure as a 18 year old under the circumstances i outlined above?
What to do when your captain and teammates along with officials present a scenario to you that if you just ball a single no ball, it affects nothing(nor the result) and you get paid a huge amoung but if you don't then you get alienated as a kid in the dressing room and the Captain sends out bad reports about you and the bookies intimdate other threats?

Basically the implication of what you are saying is that people who have low education or come from Poor background, either shouldn't be playing cricket or because they are playing cricket after growing up in a troubled area the whole country should be condemned if they succumb to other pressures in a far from perfect system?

Nobody is saying that he wasn't aware of what he was doing completely and thus should be dealt with lighter,but the context of the action should be understood. You are just taking it to the other extent completely,for no reason. Though this is unrelated, Earlier you said that every kid in India would be aware of this.Do you really believe Munaf Patel growing up in a small district of Bharuch at the time which did not even have electricity at the time would be aware of the consequences of his action in the international stage for example?

Also You are giving too much importance to the corrupt or non corrupt system in the defence, when nobody has based their whole argument on it at all. Their are rotten apple everywhere but the question on hand is that whether he succumbed to the rotten apple or was one himself.

Herschelle Gibbs and Nicky Boje put most of the blame on Hansje Cronje,their and got away with lighter punishment or not much at all. Have we thrown South Africa out?
Their was evidence of Hansje Cronje advocating selection of players he thought would be compliant and also approaching Lance Klusener who knew about it but said nothing. Again did we throw South Africa out or hung Gibbs and Boje and even raise a finger at Klusener?

Mark Waugh and Shane Warne took money from a bookmaker and CA just privately fined them and hushed up the matter even though they had not reported the matter at all and divulged information to the bookie. This was revealed years later in full that the matter had been hushed up after it had been uncovered by CA that they had been in contact with the Bookies for a while.
And after a independent commision was formed it fined the fines to be inadequate and advocated a suspension of a decent time. ICC refused to try them again too and there were several inadequacies and inconsistencies as found by Judicial inquiry in Pakistan in 1999 in the defence of both Waugh and Warne .
Now, Marlon Samuels was banned for even being in contact with a bookmaker after years.So does it mean that because the whole cricket adminstration in Australia at the time was complicit in hushing up the matter and didn't act on them as they were "Unaware" of the implications according to their own explanation,we throw Australia out?

Few domestic players led by Azharrudin and Ajay Sharma in India were too involved in match fixing until the strings were tightened in 1999 and even though many were punished,many got away with it due to circumstances of their contacts. Do we throw India out too?

It's almost like the whole death penalty debate in India.Even though i am still torn on it and not fully decided,the basic argument thrown at the people advocating it's abolishment is that you are supporting the criminals and the crimes they did by it and the countries purporting these crimes by association. When not everything is so black and white and there are better arguments to be made on both sides.

 

[Bun]

What I said is what it boils down to. You either attribute what you consider a significant proportion of the blame to his upbringing and environment and corruption-friendly system, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that Pakistan is a basketcase that cannot be trusted as a cricketing entity, or you acknowledge the inexcusable betrayal of a man who, far from being the village bumpkin leading a hand to mouth existance, was a greedy individual that didn't let his substantial experience of five years representing his nation at various levels deter him from seeking to line his pockets in an illicit manner. And this is only compounded by the evidence that it wasn't just meant as a one-off, but rather a means of demonstrating that he was amenable to further inducement.

We are talking about a period when the individual in question was 13 yrs old - 17 yrs old.

Further cricket is his only specialisation. He spent as you rightly mentioned his formative years in this, and now all of a sudden, when he is a young adult, is prohibited from practising his craft at any stage, level, just because of a transgression into which he was misled by his superiors.

It doesn't need intricate analysis. Just step out of the legal imbroglio and approach the situation with a human heart. His case needs to be approached with an element of sympathy. After all he didn't kill anyone!

Parallels have to be drawn with another banning we saw. That of Shane Warne. The chap took drugs which possible could've hidden effects of other performance boosting stuff. He was 33 at that time, brought up in a system where ignorance simply cannot be an excuse, yet he was let off with just a one year ban. Which appears to be just right imho.

Or consider Warne/Waughs dalliance with the bookmakers which was hushed up and them let get away with it.

On the other hand, this guy bowled a no ball or two under pressure from his captain. He didn't play to lose the match. His performances are there for inspection. And yet we have people here advocating for life bans, which is a joke.

 

[NasserFan207]

Mate you can't compare Warne/Waugh with Amir, one case is basically slander while the other is a guilty plea.

 

[Burgey]

Mate you can't compare Warne/Waugh with Amir, one case is basically slander while the other is a guilty plea.

But Warne had an affair. Apparently that's relevant too.

 

[Daemon]

The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to agree with the current ban. 5 years is a ****ing long time, don't think people have quite gotten a grasp of that. A life ban would be terrible for a man that is likely to have reformed and never commit the same offence again by the end of his ban. It simply doesn't give a chance for the offender to change, it's just really really harsh.

 

[Cevno]

Mate you can't compare Warne/Waugh with Amir, one case is basically slander while the other is a guilty plea.

While i don't agree completely with the context in which Bun is using them, it isn't slander.

Both Waugh and Warne have been fined for it and admitted to it, several times even if they denied it at first. Even in front of a Pakistan judicial inquiry and a independent enquiry set up under pressure by CA later on which found their fines inadequate and said they should have received suspensions.

John the bookmaker controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[vic_orthdox]

Btw, does ICC provide ****ing counselling to young players about all rules and procedures when they come into the team?Even after this incident.

They did before this incident.

I know that even at the U19 World Cup, every team was subject to a presentation/lecture from an ICC Anti-Corruption Official about the methods used and dangers of interacting with bookies.

 

[TT Boy]

They did before this incident.

I know that even at the U19 World Cup, every team was subject to a presentation/lecture from an ICC Anti-Corruption Official about the methods used and dangers of interacting with bookies.

And the poor village boy Mohammed Amir who some people here still believe never left the village before playing international cricket played in the 2008 U19 World Cup in Kuala Lumpur. Amir also toured Australia, England, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Sri Lanka before full international debut.

 

[Spikey]

Maybe Amir was sick in bed that day and didn't hear the lecture

 

[Hurricane]

But Warne had an affair. Apparently that's relevant too.

If we can't agree on anything else I think we can all agree that an affair = a life time ban.

 

[Daemon]

I don't subscribe to those views favouring both a life ban or a less harsh punishment but from the last couple of pages people are taking things out of context. If I'm not wrong what Cevno was saying is that his cultural background and the relatively higher tolerance for corruption amongst authorities that is prevalant in Pakistan led to Amir basically believing Butt and others that nothing was going to happen should he get caught. The fact that people have got away with it in the past may also have influenced his mentality. While that argument is feasible in explaining the reasons why the scandel on Amir's part can be partially attributed to ignorance, like I've said before, ignorance cannot be used as an excuse for reducing the ban.

5 years is right imo, and that's a decision by people who are qualified and know more about this case in detail compared to us. A life ban would be completely decimating a young boys career, albeit because of something disgusting he himself chose to do, and not giving him any chance whatsoever to play the game he presumably loves as an honest person. You can't just hand out life bans when some guys entire career is on the line without some consideration, it wouldn't be human to do so. At the end of this current 5 year ban, if Amir is going to show dedication and put in the immense effort that is required to make a comeback, then it's going to show he's a changed person. Is it bad for cricket if that happens? I don't see why it would be.

As for those saying this argument wouldn't be happening if it was Michael Amir (don't see why that matters) or a **** cricketer in question, I don't know about others but my argument would be pretty much the same.

 

[Daemon]

And 5 years is a pants ****tingly long time so it is definitely a sufficient deterrance to cricketers. To put things into perspective, imagine if you were banned from the internet for 5 years

 

[G.I.Joe]

Can it be both?

I'd say it's elements of both.

IMO, it is.

 

[cricpk]

I hope no one minds.
First of all I think Amir, Asif or Butt, they should never be allowed to represent Pakistan again, though they should be allowed to play domestically after their ban is over. But here lots of people don't even think that players from other countries might have also been involved in Spot fixing but the thing is they were never being caught.

 

[Teja.]

Previously I was one of those advocating for a two-year ban for Aamir but the more I reflect on the situation, The more I feel he should be banned for life.

Basically the central Pro-Aamir argument is that he was from a socially deprived section of society and suddenly thrust into the big bad world with greedy bookies out to get him. This argument comes close to frustrating me now considering the information that has been brought to light regarding Aamir's past. It's almost sif repeating the argument millions of times increases it's validity.

He is a player who has played multiple overseas tours with different captains, played ICC competitions in the past, studied till 6th form and at the very least know that he'd be doing something terribly wrong by going ahead and bowling those no balls.

You could have some sympathy for a thief if he has been abruptly taken from a surrounding where thieving was considered acceptable and placed in a completely different one but not for a thief who has had 4 years of tutoring repeatedly drilling into him that thieving is the biggest sin possible in the next social setting he's placed into and then placed in it.

Next, the distinction between spot-fixing and match-fixing comes up. For me there's a very thick line that Aamir has crossed i.e. the unauthorized accepting of money for determining what he does on the cricket field and that, for me, is the key issue here.

i) It, from the video we've had access to, is extremely likely that the no-balls were just a 'demo', for the lack of a better word, by the bookie to show that his power extends to the cricket field.

ii) Accepting money for performing a minor act can also mean it's probable that the player would be ready in the future to accept more money to perform a bigger indiscretion.

Then comes the discussion regarding age, individual right to fair punishment vs benefit to society etc. and in this case I feel the cost-benefit analysis is strongly tilted towards Aamir never playing again. The general impression of the viewing public is almost as important as the truth in itself for a sport and on a personal level, I don't I'd ever be able to watch Aamir overstep without a capital D lingering in my head.

 

[Furball]

Next, the distinction between spot-fixing and match-fixing comes up. For me there's a very thick line that Aamir has crossed i.e. the unauthorized accepting of money for determining what he does on the cricket field and that, for me, is the key issue here.

i) It, from the video we've had access to, is extremely likely that the no-balls were just a 'demo', for the lack of a better word, by the bookie to show that his power extends to the cricket field.

ii) Accepting money for performing a minor act can also mean it's probable that the player would be ready in the future to accept more money to perform a bigger indiscretion.

iii) Amir, Asif and Butt were about to compete in a limited overs series - intuition tells me that a contest lasting 40 overs or 100 overs would be much easier to fix than a contest lasting 5 days.

 

[Howe_zat]

Wahey, good to see you Teja