Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Cevno]

Wasn't Marlon Samuels banned for 2 years recently for the exact same thing as Warne and Waugh recently i.e being in contact with bookmakers? When unlike Waugh and Warne there was no proof he had provided Information either.

 

[r3alist]

Furthermore, you appear to be basing your non-defence of Asif on his previous long charge sheet of behaving like a dick. Amir's subsequent behaviour - the wearing of stupid t-shirts to his disciplinary hearings, his defiance of the ban by playing club cricket in England this summer and his apparent admission of guilt to a court (therefore implying that he told the ICC tribunal a pack of lies) are all pretty severe black marks on his character.

The game of cricket is better off without such individuals. A life ban might be harsh on Amir as an individual, but so what? If a harsh ban for the three individuals involved make any youngster think twice about committing a similar offence in the future, then that player's career and the game have been well served. And the game of cricket is far more important than Mohammad Amir.

His tshirt is a black mark on his character? What a pathetic point, please grow up,

Cricket desperately needs exciting players and desperately needs great bowlers who are a dying breed, from that perspective you are losing the argument.

 

[Cevno]

As for Cricket Australia's handling of the whole Waugh,Warne affair, it was utterly shambolic.

Not only they hushed up the matter at the time with just imposing fines on them, and never disclosing the incident to anyone. They even never disclosed as a result, that both of Waugh and Warne had accused Salim Malik among others of having big links with bookies.

When this matter leaked though and a enquiry was launched against Salim Malik he was life banned in 2000 (after ending his career and retiring) alongside Ata - ur - Rahman who got the same punishment IIRC. And it was alleged in the enquiry report that he engaged in links with Bookies and Match fixing even between 1994 and 1999 a few times and this could have been prevented.

 

[BoyBrumby]

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.

Other players have mentioned being approached; Alec Stewart wrote about it in his biogrpaghy.

Of course I don't know he and other refused, but equally you don't know they accepted the blandishments offered either.

 

[four_or_six]

I don't think you can compare Warne/Waugh with things happening now, the rules and the awareness has changed a lot in the intervening period. Obviously it wasn't handled correctly, but if the same happened now I expect they would have been suspended... as would Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh after Headingly 1981, for example. Of course... if it was now, Lillee and Marsh would never have done such a thing, and possibly neither would Warne/Waugh. But Amir/Asif/Butt knowingly broke the rules, we know that they have all received ICC training on what is and isn't allowed, and therefore they got suspended.

 

[four_or_six]

Other players have mentioned being approached; Alec Stewart wrote about it in his biogrpaghy.

Of course I don't know he and other refused, but equally you don't know they accepted the blandishments offered either.

I believe that we know that Haddin, Watson and I think it was also a member of support staff had reported suspicious events to the ICC, because I remember seeing both of them giving annoyed interviews because it was supposed to be information given to the ICC in confidence.

 

[Bun]

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.

I am not obligated to respond to this just because you think it is trolling.

I am merely pointing out that asif too was just damn too greedy and damn too foolish just like warn or waugh were.

We are just making up our definitions and compartmentalisations as we go on, aren't we? I mean it's pretty obvious what warne and waugh did and what amir did all fall in the same broad category, which is being dishonest and greedy and aiding in illegal bookmaking and taking a cut off the gains.

 

[Bun]

I don't think you can compare Warne/Waugh with things happening now, the rules and the awareness has changed a lot in the intervening period. Obviously it wasn't handled correctly, but if the same happened now I expect they would have been suspended... as would Dennis Lillee and Rod Marsh after Headingly 1981, for example. Of course... if it was now, Lillee and Marsh would never have done such a thing, and possibly neither would Warne/Waugh. But Amir/Asif/Butt knowingly broke the rules, we know that they have all received ICC training on what is and isn't allowed, and therefore they got suspended.

I cannot agree. just because laws weren't in place doesn't mean they weren't transgressions or morally wrong. anyone with half a brain would know that betting your dollar on your opposition team when play is in progress just doesn't look fine. in many courts such activity can be iused as circumstantial evidence against the player for deliberately underperforming.

 

[zaremba]

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.

Of course he repeatedly lied. He denied that he agreed to bowl no-balls, the Tribunal found otherwise, and now (if what we are told is true) he admits that he did.

What's to be bamboozled about? Either he agreed to bowl no-balls or he didn't. Doesn't strike me as particularly bamboozling for someone with half a brain cell.

And it seems silly even to have to point this out, but before lawyers speak on your behalf, they ask you what your side of the story is. They present a case in accordance with your instructions. They make very sure that you understand what case they are putting, because their neck is on the line if they fail to do so.

What's more, it was him, and not his lawyers, talking when he gave evidence in which(presumably) he repeatedly denied agreeing to bowl no-balls.

 

[Fusion]

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.

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.

I am surprised that people make light of what Waugh and Warne did (relatively speaking) to other “fixing” scandals. When Amir’s defenders try to put forth the argument that he only bowled a few no balls that didn’t affect the outcome of the game (an argument that I don’t agree with btw), the other side always counters that it was just a demonstration of the influence the bookie had over him. They argue that if Amir can be bought to bowl no balls, he could also be bought to do actual match fixing. Why is that argument not applied to Waugh/Warne? If they could be bought to provide inside match information (assuming that’s all they did), then the bookie now has influence over them. Just like it’s possible that Amir would’ve done more sinister things for money had he not been caught, couldn’t we say the same for Waugh/Warne?

 

[fredfertang]

As I see it the fundamental difference between, on the one hand, what Warne and Waugh did, and what Amir did on the other, is that had Warne and Waugh expressed precisely the same views to some TV pundit that they did to "John" the bookmaker, they would have done nothing worthy of censure

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Warne is also a professional gambler. Does tell you a lot about the man.

 

[Daemon]

Cribb is a professional Gambler

 

[Fusion]

As I see it the fundamental difference between, on the one hand, what Warne and Waugh did, and what Amir did on the other, is that had Warne and Waugh expressed precisely the same views to some TV pundit that they did to "John" the bookmaker, they would have done nothing worthy of censure

They didn’t express the views to the TV pundit though, they expressed it to a bookie. It’s a massive distinction. The bookie stands to make millions from that information, and will pay Waugh/Warne for the info. They thought it was harmless to provide that information, just like Amir could argue it was harmless to bowl the no balls. In each case, the player did something against the rules for money and we can safely argue that the bookie had influence over them.

 

[fredfertang]

They didn’t express the views to the TV pundit though, they expressed it to a bookie. It’s a massive distinction. The bookie stands to make millions from that information, and will pay Waugh/Warne for the info. They thought it was harmless to provide that information, just like Amir could argue it was harmless to bowl the no balls. In each case, the player did something against the rules for money and we can safely argue that the bookie had influence over them.

We can only base this on what it was proved that Warne and Waugh had done which was their admitted provision of opinions, not information, about pitches and weather conditions - what would be your view about them talking about those issues with a genuine fan? Supporters ask players such questions whenever they get the chance.

There is an understandable tendency in this thread for people to want to extrapolate the facts and convict and sentence for offences that could have been committed and/or that they believe would have been committed had Amir not been caught this time. As, I suspect by zaremba, has already been pointed out, that is quite simply not the way justice is dispensed

 

[Xuhaib]

I am surprised that people make light of what Waugh and Warne did (relatively speaking) to other “fixing” scandals. When Amir’s defenders try to put forth the argument that he only bowled a few no balls that didn’t affect the outcome of the game (an argument that I don’t agree with btw), the other side always counters that it was just a demonstration of the influence the bookie had over him. They argue that if Amir can be bought to bowl no balls, he could also be bought to do actual match fixing. Why is that argument not applied to Waugh/Warne? If they could be bought to provide inside match information (assuming that’s all they did), then the bookie now has influence over them. Just like it’s possible that Amir would’ve done more sinister things for money had he not been caught, couldn’t we say the same for Waugh/Warne?

love you Fusion so much awta for that.

 

[Xuhaib]

I think the biggest culprit in this whole episode is the PCB, giving a free hand to a known match fixer like Ijaz Ahmed with your upcoming 15-16 yr old cricketers was calling for disaster youngsters pick up very quickly from their parents,peers and teachers at that age not saying this is an excuse for Aamer but it is a shame that PCB let is happen under their noose.

 

[Bun]

love you Fusion so much awta for that.

awta.

 

[GotSpin]

They are completely different cases in my books (excuse the pun). One altered performance while another provided information that was publicly available anyway

 

[Xuhaib]

well done sir at completely missing the point.