Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Agent Nationaux]

I think that Amir definitely bowled the no-ball intentionally, but I'm not sure whether it had links to match-fixing, either.....

It did. Prosecution have released text messages that Amir had with Mazhar Majeed about doing the deed. Amir is definitely caught. It's Asif that is puzzling because the prosecution have so far ignored him in their opening statement and defence. Hence my argument that they might not have anything on him apart from the video (unless they are choosing to delay).

 

[morgieb]

It did. Prosecution have released text messages that Amir had with Mazhar Majeed about doing the deed. Amir is definitely caught. It's Asif that is puzzling because the prosecution have so far ignored him in their opening statement and defence. Hence my argument that they might not have anything on him apart from the video (unless they are choosing to delay).

Meant Asif. *facepalm*

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Do I really need to spell that one out?

Please do.

 

[zaremba]

Nah I vaguely remember that being Asif's defence...

Does the CAS have to have as much proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' as a court of law?

Not sure.

I think that the ICC panel probably would have applied a high civil standard of proof - basically, proof on the balance of probability but requiring a high level of cogency of evidence, but falling short of the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not sure because they haven't published the judgment in the UK, but this was the approach taken in the Symonds / Harbhajan case.

As for whether an acquittal in a criminal court would in itself give grounds for an appeal against the disciplinary decision, I very much doubt it for the reasons given by PEWS. However if, say, particular evidence comes out which assists Asif, that could well be deployed by him in such an appeal.

 

[Furball]

It did. Prosecution have released text messages that Amir had with Mazhar Majeed about doing the deed. Amir is definitely caught. It's Asif that is puzzling because the prosecution have so far ignored him in their opening statement and defence. Hence my argument that they might not have anything on him apart from the video (unless they are choosing to delay).

Bottom line though is that Asif bowled the no-ball at the designated moment, which is enough evidence to find him guilty of spot-fixing. That there might not be enough evidence to convict him in court of a conspiracy to defraud bookmakers ultimately doesn't change the fact that Asif bowled the no-ball, and deserves the cricketing consequences of doing so.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

That's because Randiv and Dilshan are dicks. FWIW, I'd have banned both men for that incident as well.

 

[morgieb]

Not sure.

I think that the ICC panel probably would have applied a high civil standard of proof - basically, proof on the balance of probability but requiring a high level of cogency of evidence, but falling short of the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not sure because they haven't published the judgment in the UK, but this was the approach taken in the Symonds / Harbhajan case.

As for whether an acquittal in a criminal court would in itself give grounds for an appeal against the disciplinary decision, I very much doubt it for the reasons given by PEWS. However if, say, particular evidence comes out which assists Asif, that could well be deployed by him in such an appeal.

 

[Furball]

Please do.

Because if Asif's defence is that it was all Butt's fault, Asif would be implicating himself.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Bottom line though is that Asif bowled the no-ball at the designated moment, which is enough evidence to find him guilty of spot-fixing. That there might not be enough evidence to convict him in court of a conspiracy to defraud bookmakers ultimately doesn't change the fact that Asif bowled the no-ball, and deserves the cricketing consequences of doing so.

Forget about the court, there isn't even enough evidence to give him a ban.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Because if Asif's defence is that it was all Butt's fault, Asif would be implicating himself.

How?

He could play the innocent card....my captain told me to do it and I don't even know what match fixing is.

 

[morgieb]

How?

He could play the innocent card....my captain told me to do it and I don't even know what match fixing is.

Bull**** he doesn't know what match-fixing is!

**** the Asif defence you're suggesting seems to lacking in much logic.

 

[zaremba]

Didn't Dilshan do that to deny Sehwag his century. IIRC, the bowler obeyed. No reaction there on live TV.

Even if that was on the captain's orders, which I have no idea about, the cases are hardly comparable. Because the bowler in that case would at least have understood why his captain was asking him to do it. And because his captain presumably had a lot less riding on it than Butt. And for many other reasons that I CBF typing out on my iPhone. Basically I can't believe anyone would seriously think that the "following orders" defence is anything other than laughable.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Bull**** he doesn't know what match-fixing is!

**** the Asif defence you're suggesting seems to lacking in much logic.

Hyperbole on my part regarding the 'I don't know what match fixing is'.

But he could say he only did it because his captain asked him to. It isn't that far fetched.

 

[Furball]

How?

He could play the innocent card....my captain told me to do it and I don't even know what match fixing is.

Judge: Why did you do [insert crime that defendant is accused of committing]?
Defendant: I didn't do it.

vs

Judge: Why did you do [insert crime that defendant is accused of committing]?
Defendant: Because Mr X asked me to it/paid me to do it.

Look at what each answer implies. The first answer is a straight denial; I didn't do it, I am not guilty of the crime I am accused of, someone else is guilty of it. In the second answer by shifting the blame to Mr X (in this case, Salman Butt) there is an implied admission of guilt in the answer. When you're seeking to be acquitted, the first answer is a far better answer to give. Hence why Asif didn't seek to blame Butt; doing so would have led to several further, awkward questions being asked.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Even if that was on the captain's orders, which I have no idea about, the cases are hardly comparable. Because the bowler in that case would at least have understood why his captain was asking him to do it. And because his captain presumably had a lot less riding on it than Butt. And for many other reasons that I CBF typing out on my iPhone. Basically I can't believe anyone would seriously think that the "following orders" defence is anything other than laughable.

In Pakistan cricket it isn't laughable because it's Pakistan. You must have noticed how they react regarding seniority. Juniors have to do whatever the seniors say or it's bye bye to cricket. It's all politics and connections in there.

 

[Furball]

Even if that was on the captain's orders, which I have no idea about, the cases are hardly comparable. Because the bowler in that case would at least have understood why his captain was asking him to do it. And because his captain presumably had a lot less riding on it than Butt. And for many other reasons that I CBF typing out on my iPhone. Basically I can't believe anyone would seriously think that the "following orders" defence is anything other than laughable.

Must not Godwin thread...

 

[zaremba]

He could play the innocent card....my captain told me to do it and I don't even know what match fixing is.

Ah, the penny has dropped. Until I read this post I thought you were being serious. Sorry, please ignore my previous post.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Judge: Why did you do [insert crime that defendant is accused of committing]?
Defendant: I didn't do it.

vs

Judge: Why did you do [insert crime that defendant is accused of committing]?
Defendant: Because Mr X asked me to it/paid me to do it.

Look at what each answer implies. The first answer is a straight denial; I didn't do it, I am not guilty of the crime I am accused of, someone else is guilty of it. In the second answer by shifting the blame to Mr X (in this case, Salman Butt) there is an implied admission of guilt in the answer. When you're seeking to be acquitted, the first answer is a far better answer to give. Hence why Asif didn't seek to blame Butt; doing so would have led to several further, awkward questions being asked.

But Amir did use the second argument in the appeal. His defence did say that Butt told him to do it. There is nothing guilty about passing the buck onto someone else. Imagine if he really had been innocent then Asif would have told the truth, that Butt told him to do it.

 

[Furball]

But Amir did use the second argument in the appeal. His defence did say that Butt told him to do it. There is nothing guilty about passing the buck onto someone else. Imagine if he really had been innocent then Asif would have told the truth, that Butt told him to do it.

No, if he'd been truly innocent then Asif wouldn't have bowled the no-ball in the first place. The whole scandal emerged because the NOTW's reporter was told "Amir will bowl a no-ball on this delivery, Asif will bowl a no-ball on this delivery" and that's exactly what transpired. If Madjeed had been telling the NOTW a pile of ****e then there would have been no story. There's two explanations; that Asif's no ball was a massive coincidence, or he was guilty of some degree to spot fixing.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Ah, the penny has dropped. Until I read this post I thought you were being serious. Sorry, please ignore my previous post.

Got you there.

No but seriously it isn't that much of a far fetched argument that his captain told him to do it. Ignore the 'I don't know what match fixing is, I really was joking there.