Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[benchmark00]

Set to vibrate iirc.

 

[Jono]

*insert phone in Jono's arse*

Man, knowing the phones they used back in your day, that will seriously hurt:

 

[benchmark00]

Not for you I hear.

 

[Jono]

Another gay joke from Benchy (y)

 

[Bun]

burgey can you please elaborate in bunnish terms, as to how making betting can runs players from being approached to underperform?

 

[Burgey]

burgey can you please elaborate in bunnish terms, as to how making betting can runs players from being approached to underperform?

Sorry mate, I don't quite follow. If you mean how does legalising it deter players?

Well, with legalisation comes regulation, for one thing. The bookmakers can have their records checked, for one thing. Also, if there's a plunge in a given market, and that market is legal, the various (legal) bookies can freeze it, as the different sports agencies did here when there was a plunge on first points to be scored in an NRL match here last year.

 

[Bun]

Sorry mate, I don't quite follow.

curse the autofill function in my phone.

I meant to say, can you please explain in laymanish terms, like to a dummy like me, how making betting legal, can stop players from being approached by bookies to underperform. As far as I know, the issue is not whether the govt gets taxes or not from these guys, but that players play under par on the field, from cricketing viewpoint.

Sorry about the earlier post.

 

[Burgey]

curse the autofill function in my phone.

I meant to say, can you please explain in laymanish terms, like to a dummy like me, how making betting legal, can stop players from being approached by bookies to underperform. As far as I know, the issue is not whether the govt gets taxes or not from these guys, but that players play under par on the field, from cricketing viewpoint.

Sorry about the earlier post.

No probs mate - I thought that was it, and edited my post above.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The fact is the only way to make sure there isn't anything dodgy going on is to have a blanket ban on betting on the sport, whether for your team or against, or whether matches involving your team or not.

It might vary from sport to sport, but up here I think the majority of major team sports do prohibit it. There's been a couple of (in)famous cases up here. Ed Giddins got a five year ban for betting against Surrey in a game in which he played. He'd retired inbetween the game and the verdict so I think he knew the jig was up for him.

The other involved two St Helens' players (neither of whom is renowned as a genius, it must be said) who got word Saints would be fielding a very weakened team against Bradford and bet against their own side. From The Independent. They can consider themselves a bit lucky to get 3 and 4 month bans. Both were current GB internationals at the time, which may or may not have been a factor in the judge's leniency. Shades of Junior & Warney....?

No suggestion either bet on Oz games tho, etc...

 

[morgieb]

Did Junior/Warne actually bet on their games, or just provide bookies information about the games? Because if it was the former, they were lucky to never get banned.

Actually, Lillee & Marsh were lucky they were playing in an older era, cos they bet on the 500/1 Hedingely match....

 

[BoyBrumby]

Did Junior/Warne actually bet on their games, or just provide bookies information about the games? Because if it was the former, they were lucky to never get banned.

Actually, Lillee & Marsh were lucky they were playing in an older era, cos they bet on the 500/1 Hedingely match....

The latter, as far as I know.

They were merely foolish and greedy rather than actively bent. I think the way CA handled it was horrible tho.

 

[Burgey]

The latter, as far as I know.

They were merely foolish and greedy rather than actively bent. I think the way CA handled it was horrible tho.

It certainly was. Terribly handled.

 

[Bun]

The latter, as far as I know.

They were merely foolish and greedy rather than actively bent. I think the way CA handled it was horrible tho.

yep, just like Amir.

 

[BoyBrumby]

yep, just like Amir.

Ok, if that isn't just a blatant troll, you're going to need to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

As I said there's no suggestion Waugh jr or Warne ever attempted to negatively affect the outcome of a game for money whereas Aamer is facing a criminal case for the very crime.

 

[r3alist]

No, I don't buy that for a second. Several players have been approached by shadowy Indian "bookmakers" and very few have succumbed.

That others have taken money to influence games doesn't mitigate Aamer's actions at all. His youth might explain them, but it doesn't excuse them. It's insulting to every eigtheen year old to suggest otherwise.

How do you know other bowlers have not taken money? You don't.

And what's all this nonsense about Amir repeatedly lying, he was probably bamboozled by this whole episode and his lawyers were talking on his behalf.

The failing is with the pcb for not protecting and advising their players, before and after. butt was an embarrassment with his handling.

 

[Athlai]

Ok, if that isn't just a blatant troll, you're going to need to explain how you've arrived at that conclusion.

As I said there's no suggestion Waugh jr or Warne ever attempted to negatively affect the outcome of a game for money whereas Aamer is facing a criminal case for the very crime.

Neither was Aamer tbh, sure we have plenty of suspicion but that wasn't what he was punished for.

 

[BoyBrumby]

How do you know other bowlers have not taken money? You don't.

And what's all this nonsense about Amir repeatedly lying, he was probably bamboozled by this whole episode and his lawyers were talking on his behalf.

The failing is with the pcb for not protecting and advising their players, before and after. butt was an embarrassment with his handling.

You're quite right, I don't know that other bowlers haven't taken money. Anymore than you know that they did. If you have evidence to suggest they did I'm sure the ICC's anti-corruption unit would be very keen to see it.

 

[r3alist]

There is also a fundamental hole in people's logic, he was simultaneously the most exciting bowler in the world but also a cheat - it's not quite so binary.

He and the people he listened to were guilty of crass opportunism, spot fixing us not the worst crime in isolation, but I agree the influence of external factors is insidious, I would argue the fault lies structurally within the pcb more than individuals.

In the absence of proper governance why are you surprised this happens???

 

[Prince EWS]

Neither was Aamer tbh, sure we have plenty of suspicion but that wasn't what he was punished for.

Deliberately bowling a no-ball is negatively affecting the outcome of a game.

There's a massive, massive difference from a cricket governance perspective, IMO, between supplying information to bookies and deliberately doing something in a match contrary to competitive team tactics. One compromises the integrity of the game and the other rips off punters. Neither are acceptable practices obviously but one is forgivable and the other absolutely isn't, from where I sit. From what we know, Waugh and Warne maintained their competitiveness throughout every ball; the match itself was not tarnished.

 

[r3alist]

You're quite right, I don't know that other bowlers haven't taken money. Anymore than you know that they did. If you have evidence to suggest they did I'm sure the ICC's anti-corruption unit would be very keen to see it.

I don't have evidence.

But it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.

You seem to imply all other players have refused involvement, you don't know that.