Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Howe_zat]

I don't believe that Ponting is of questionable character and I don't have an issue with someone someone being a professional gambler. I am merely suspicious that someone who is a professional gambler once was involved wrongly with a bookie. That puts a stain on Warne's character for me and makes me wonder if he could have done more than just pass information.

So you don't have an issue with it but it makes you inexplicably suspicious?

 

[Spark]

The assertion that liking gambling is of any relevance whatsoever is ridiculous tbh.

 

[Furball]

The assertion that liking gambling is of any relevance whatsoever is ridiculous tbh.

It's a tiny bit relevant; Warne and John the bookmaker got aquainted in a casino in Colombo after Warne dropped $5k.

 

[Arachnodouche]

Warne could have been gambling for years before he started professionally in 2008. People who have never gambled before don't just suddenly decide that they want to become professional gamblers. There is always a back story related to these type of events.

Plain conjecture. Your kid just accepted culpability. Ban for life.

I understand the context in which fixing occurs, especially in sub continental conditions, where the law is often feeble and virtually non existent in regions outside the mainstream. It's not a simple matter of these cricketers being approached and them accepting money. With the underworld obviously involved, the ramifications for turning down an approach can only be imagined. Everyone can't be expected to be cut of the same moral fibre. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and if Amir is the "lamb" to the slaughter, then so be it.

As for those who're in favor of downgrading the sentence because it was just a matter of bowling a few no-balls..I'm afraid the gravity of spot fixing is lost on them. Looked at in isolation, yes just a few no-balls..but if not reined in now, then it has the ability to spread across all five days of a game, scattered at random (or not so random) intervals. Drops make an ocean and all that. Harder to detect than tailored outcomes, but easier to arrange. Reduces a game as statistically driven as cricket to a complete farce.

 

[zaremba]

Plain conjecture. Your kid just accepted culpability. Ban for life.

I understand the context in which fixing occurs, especially in sub continental conditions, where the law is often feeble and virtually non existent in regions outside the mainstream. It's not a simple matter of these cricketers being approached and them accepting money. With the underworld obviously involved, the ramifications for turning down an approach can only be imagined. Everyone can't be expected to be cut of the same moral fibre. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and if Amir is the "lamb" to the slaughter, then so be it.

As for those who're in favor of downgrading the sentence because it was just a matter of bowling a few no-balls..I'm afraid the gravity of spot fixing is lost on them. Looked at in isolation, yes just a few no-balls..but if not reined in now, then it has the ability to spread across all five days of a game, scattered at random (or not so random) intervals. Drops make an ocean and all that. Harder to detect than tailored outcomes, but easier to arrange. Reduces a game as statistically driven as cricket to a complete farce.

A good post, but your comment that Amir "just accepted culpability. Ban for life" deserves a response.

Amir was found guilty by the tribunal on a Not Guilty plea. That finding of guilt also amounted to a finding that his defence had been false (he didn't simply stay silent and invite the prosecution to prove its case; he put foward a positive defence in which he denied any participation, and the tribunal's finding of guilt meant that it simply disbelieved him on that). Based on those findings, he was banned for five years. Why then should his subsequent admission of guilt cause his sentence to be increased? For one thing, it's double jeopardy. For another, the fact that he was, in fact, guilty all along is something which already formed the basis for the 5 year ban in the first place. And for another, an admission of guilt, even belatedly, is if anything to his credit rather than a further stick to beat him with.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

So you don't have an issue with it but it makes you inexplicably suspicious?

I don't have an issue with someone being a gambler (it's his problem), however the problem is when that person also does something dodgy like passing formation to the bookie. It's a problem because he could cheat in his capacity as a gambler or do something like Butt and co did.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Not really, it went public 4 years after the event.

It doesn't matter after how long it went public. Once something like this goes public, people become a lot more cautious or they stop altogether. Therefore Warne is lucky, otherwise he could have taken part in more serious activities.

 

[Jono]

But he didn't in the 4 years afterwards.

Look I don't think Warne (or Mark Waugh) is a saint, but he's not lucky it became public. He's just lucky that he was dealt with in a lenient way.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

But he didn't in the 4 years afterwards.

Look I don't think Warne (or Mark Waugh) is a saint, but he's not lucky it became public. He's just lucky that he was dealt with in a lenient way.

We don't know that.

 

[Jono]

 

[Burgey]

Warne could have been gambling for years before he started professionally in 2008. People who have never gambled before don't just suddenly decide that they want to become professional gamblers. There is always a back story related to these type of events.

Warne's value to that business stems from his fame as a sportsman. Honestly mate, this is a real stretch here.

 

[Prince EWS]

Cribb is a professional Gambler

Indeed. I take offence to the assertion that there is something inherently unvirtuous about that profession.

 

[Jono]

You're only a professional gambler if you have a system which you follow. If so, under law you will be required to pay tax on the income you make from your gambling activities.

Unless you're paying taxes Prince, you're not a professional gambler.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're only a professional gambler if you have a system which you follow. If so, under law you will be required to pay tax on the income you make from your gambling activities.

Unless you're paying taxes Prince, you're not a professional gambler.

Under the eyes of the law I'm not a professional gambler (in fact, to my knowledge the ATO has actually never recognised anyone in the country as such a thing, ever) but the dictionary definition, I believe, is "one whose primary source of income is gambling revenue" or some such, which would mean I qualify. I consistently make an annual profit on it that exceeds the money I make doing odd jobs for the family business.

Either way, I resent the implication that doing such a thing indicates poor character.

 

[Jono]

Under the eyes of the law I'm not a professional gambler (in fact, the ATO has actually never recognised anyone in the country as such a thing, ever) but the dictionary definition, I believe, is "one whose primary source of income is gambling revenue" or some such, which would mean I qualify. I consistently make an annual profit on it that exceeds the money I make doing odd jobs for the family business.

Yeah they have. People have had to pay taxes on their gambling revenue before in this country.

Either way, I resent the implication that doing such a thing indicates poor character.

Yeah obviously agree there.

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah they have. People have had to pay taxes on their gambling revenue before in this country.

I read somewhere recently that despite having the ability to do so, the ATO has never actually taxed gambling winnings under the 'professional gambler' clause. It was online though so it might have been bull****. I'll try to find the link; I think it was on a horse racing tips site or something.

 

[Jono]

I'm positive what you've read will be referring to the fact that gambling winnings has never been taxed as "personal income" (i.e. salary/wages). But gambling winnings will be deemed to be "business income", if you have a system about how you win (i.e. you don't just make bets based only on hunches and your general knowledge of the thing you are gambling on).

There was a case (Trautwein v. FCT (1936) 56 CLR 63) where a horse breeder who also regularly bet, and consistently made profits, was deemed to be carrying out a business of betting, and hence his profits were assessable income, and therefore able to be taxed. This is because he had a system of acquiring information from trainers, he used agents to bet for him etc. It was deemed not to be a hobby.

 

[Jono]

Ftr Prince, I've contacted a friend of mine at the ATO and dobbed you in. They're going to investigate you now. This should ensure that your gambling winnings are taxed and the money used to build school halls and canteens across Australia

 

[Prince EWS]

Ftr Prince, I've contacted a friend of mine at the ATO and dobbed you in. They're going to investigate you now. This should ensure that your gambling winnings are taxed and the money used to build school halls and canteens across Australia

!! WAC. Alex to get me out of it.

 

[Burgey]

!! WAC. Alex to get me out of it.

Alex voted against a Bill to enable firefighters who acquired cancer on the job to received compensation. The Bill was to have a rebuttable presumption that if they had certain types of cancer, it was caused by exposure to fumes at work.

Ran the floodgates argument agaisnt the idea.

WAG, eh?