Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[salman85]

Actually no.I have always been under the impression that this case will have an indirect effect on their bans since the ICC might have second thoughts on the suspensions it handed out incase this case shows that some player was innocent,and did not conspire to cheat and collect corrupt payments.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Well Amir has pleaded guilty, so no change for him. Butt will most likely be found guilty and could go to jail or be fined. Asif is the only one who I think will get away with it but I don't think his 5 year ban will be reduced because the video evidence is enough for the ICC.

 

[Faisal1985]

Why would it be a disgrace if they are found not guilty in a fair trial by an unbiased jury? Personally, I think they are guilty. I can't say that they're guilty (or not guilty) for a fact though, and neither can anyone else on the planet save for Majeed and the accused trio. You and I were not part of the jury, we didn't hear all the evidence, and we're basing our opinion of their guilt on hearsay and without being subjected to any legal limitations.

Either verdict (guilty or not guilty) would be a result of fair trial according to established procedures. People can certainly agree or disagree with the verdict, but there's no justification to label it as a disgrace IMO.

People can get away with murder under the justice system....they are still murderers.

Aamir pleaded guilty, that closes the case for me..Guilty as charged all three of them...

 

[Fusion]

People can get away with murder under the justice system....they are still murderers.

And innocent people can be found guilty in the court of public opinion. That’s why we have the justice system to give everyone a fair trial. Sometimes the correct verdict is reached, sometimes it’s not. But since that’s the system we all agreed to abide by, we shouldn’t call it an outrage if we disagree with the verdict. To reemphasize, I personally believe all 3 are guilty and would be extremely pleased with a guilty verdict. I just don’t understand the potential outrage if it happens to turn out otherwise.

 

[Faisal1985]

Well Amir has pleaded guilty, so no change for him. Butt will most likely be found guilty and could go to jail or be fined. Asif is the only one who I think will get away with it but I don't think his 5 year ban will be reduced because the video evidence is enough for the ICC.

That doesn't make any sense at all...video evidence????

So a 2 hours ICC hearing is a more just outcome than over a 3-4 weeks trial in a Crown Court where every little detail is scrutinized....??? and an independent jury gives the verdict?

It is complete rubbish if a player is found not guilty by the jury in this trial and is still serving a ban....completely ridiculous.

 

[Faisal1985]

And innocent people can be found guilty in the court of public opinion. That’s why we have the justice system to give everyone a fair trial. Sometimes the correct verdict is reached, sometimes it’s not. But since that’s the system we all agreed to abide by, we shouldn’t call it an outrage if we disagree with the verdict. To reemphasize, I personally believe all 3 are guilty and would be extremely pleased with a guilty verdict. I just don’t understand the potential outrage if it happens to turn out otherwise.

I don't know about the outrage...but personally don't want to see Asif and Butt playing for Pak ever again...we know they did it....

If anything I would have been happy to see Aamir let off the hook for his first crime..

 

[smash84]

good point though........if a player is found not guilty in a public trial then can he have his ban challenged?

 

[Scaly piscine]

That doesn't make any sense at all...video evidence????

So a 2 hours ICC hearing is a more just outcome than over a 3-4 weeks trial in a Crown Court where every little detail is scrutinized....??? and an independent jury gives the verdict?

It is complete rubbish if a player is found not guilty by the jury in this trial and is still serving a ban....completely ridiculous.

Not really. The burdens of proof are different for a start.

For me it's similar to if someone takes performance enhancing drugs. You don't have to prove they too the drugs consciously, in full knowledge of their effects and so on. You show they took the drugs and it's up to the player to show it was done by accident or whatever. Bowling a no-ball at a specified time in the match, you just need to prove that part. After that it is up to the player to show that they had a good and legitimate reason for it. Otherwise you assume the worst, same as with a positive drugs test. That's how I see it anyway.

In a court you have to not only prove they deliberately bowled a no-ball, but that they did it for financial gain etc. Deliberately bowling a no-ball at a pre-planned point in the match in itself is not a criminal offence. But for the ICC it is enough.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

The burdens of proof are different for a start.

Exactly.

 

[Furball]

It is complete rubbish if a player is found not guilty by the jury in this trial and is still serving a ban....completely ridiculous.

No it isn't. This trial isn't about whether or not the players bowled deliberate no-balls, it is about establishing whether they were doing so in an attempt to defraud bookmakers and solicit illegal payments. Them being found not guilty of those offences doesn't change the fact that the no-balls were bowled and that the ICC has banned them for this.

 

[zaremba]

That doesn't make any sense at all...video evidence????

So a 2 hours ICC hearing is a more just outcome than over a 3-4 weeks trial in a Crown Court where every little detail is scrutinized....??? and an independent jury gives the verdict?

It is complete rubbish if a player is found not guilty by the jury in this trial and is still serving a ban....completely ridiculous.

Scaly and Furball on the money here. The players are on trial for different offences, and being held to a higher standard of proof, than was the case at the ICC disciplinary panel. So any "not guilty" verdicts in the criminal case really shouldn't affect the disciplinary findings or sanctions.

Having said which, if powerful and relevant evidence emerged during the criminal case which might cast doubt on the correctness of the disciplinary findings, the players would be entitled to try to use that in an appeal against the disciplinary decision.

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Scaly and Furball on the money here. The players are on trial for different offences, and being held to a higher standard of proof, than was the case at the ICC disciplinary panel. So any "not guilty" verdicts in the criminal case really shouldn't affect the disciplinary findings or sanctions.

Having said which, if powerful and relevant evidence emerged during the criminal case which might cast doubt on the correctness of the disciplinary findings, the players would be entitled to try to use that in an appeal against the disciplinary decision.

If they are cleared though you can bet (poor word i know) that they will bung in an appeal /threaten legal action to ICC within minutes of being cleared.

 

[Daemon]

If they are cleared though you can bet (poor word i know) that they will bung in an appeal /threaten legal action to ICC within minutes of being cleared.

Haha yeah. Though tbf if they didn't it would mean they're probably guilty

 

[smash84]

Scaly and Furball on the money here. The players are on trial for different offences, and being held to a higher standard of proof, than was the case at the ICC disciplinary panel. So any "not guilty" verdicts in the criminal case really shouldn't affect the disciplinary findings or sanctions.

Having said which, if powerful and relevant evidence emerged during the criminal case which might cast doubt on the correctness of the disciplinary findings, the players would be entitled to try to use that in an appeal against the disciplinary decision.

quality post. Makes things much clearer

Haha yeah. Though tbf if they didn't it would mean they're probably guilty

lol.....true

 

[Faisal1985]

Not really. The burdens of proof are different for a start.

For me it's similar to if someone takes performance enhancing drugs. You don't have to prove they too the drugs consciously, in full knowledge of their effects and so on. You show they took the drugs and it's up to the player to show it was done by accident or whatever. Bowling a no-ball at a specified time in the match, you just need to prove that part. After that it is up to the player to show that they had a good and legitimate reason for it. Otherwise you assume the worst, same as with a positive drugs test. That's how I see it anyway.

In a court you have to not only prove they deliberately bowled a no-ball, but that they did it for financial gain etc. Deliberately bowling a no-ball at a pre-planned point in the match in itself is not a criminal offence. But for the ICC it is enough.

So anyone can predict a no ball in betting and If its predicted correctly the player who bowled the no ball will have the burden of proof and will be banned until he proves his innocence? In the ICC.

And a public trial of the players lays the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the players committed the crime. However, for ICC to prosecute the same players they don't have to "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt or for that matter prove anything that players cheated. They can still punish the players?

Did I get that right?

In your opinion is it in line with the fundamentals of justice that the burden of proof be laid on the suspect? Or the other way around? This way any bets that end up coming true could put the players in a tough situation...where they have to prove they didn't cheat.

 

[Faisal1985]

No it isn't. This trial isn't about whether or not the players bowled deliberate no-balls, it is about establishing whether they were doing so in an attempt to defraud bookmakers and solicit illegal payments. Them being found not guilty of those offences doesn't change the fact that the no-balls were bowled and that the ICC has banned them for this.

So the ICC can ban you for bowling deliberate no-balls....?

 

[fredfertang]

So anyone can predict a no ball in betting and If its predicted correctly the player who bowled the no ball will have the burden of proof and will be banned until he proves his innocence? In the ICC.

And a public trial of the players lays the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the players committed the crime. However, for ICC to prosecute the same players they don't have to "prove" beyond a reasonable doubt or for that matter prove anything that players cheated. They can still punish the players?

Did I get that right?

In your opinion is it in line with the fundamentals of justice that the burden of proof be laid on the suspect? Or the other way around? This way any bets that end up coming true could put the players in a tough situation...where they have to prove they didn't cheat.

There is just a teensy bit more to it than bowling a no ball though isn't there?

 

[Faisal1985]

There is just a teensy bit more to it than bowling a no ball though isn't there?

..that teensy bit more is why the ICC banned them in the first place...its confusing because when we say that this trial's out come has nothing to do with the sanctions the justification is that ICC banned them for deliberate no balls and the trial is about collecting corrupt payments. 2 different charges hence trial's out come has no affect on sanctions. But when we go that teensy bit more to the reasons of sanctions...we see why exactly they were banned.

haven't been there occurrences in the past of a bowler bowling a deliberate no ball to avoid giving the batsman a ton or something....different reasons for sure and probably that is the reason why those bowlers didn't get banned. Therefore the bans of the ICC have every bit to do with collecting illegitimate payments by bowling planned no balls or deliberate no balls and not just bowling a deliberate no ball....Reasons are the main factor...which are the same for the trial and the ICC ban.

 

[Prince EWS]

We aren't onto the whole "the court case has an impact on the ICC ban" thing again are we? FFS.

The standards of proof required are not the same.
The laws of evidence are not the same (different things are admissible etc).
The laws/rules they've broken (or not) are not the same.
The hearings weren't conducted in the same way.
Not guilty and innocent aren't the same.

Get it into your thick skulls FFS. It'd make as much sense to say that because they were banned by the ICC already then there's no reason to have the trials and that we might as well just throw them all in gaol now. They wouldn't have bothered having the ****ing ICC hearing in the first place if the court case had the slightest bearing on it.

 

[Furball]

We aren't onto the whole "the court case has an impact on the ICC ban" thing again are we? FFS.

The standards of proof required are not the same.
The laws of evidence are not the same (different things are admissible etc).
The laws/rules they've broken (or not) are not the same.
The hearings weren't conducted in the same way.
Not guilty and innocent aren't the same.

Get it into your thick skulls FFS. It'd make as much sense to say that because they were banned by the ICC already then there's no reason to have the trials and that we might as well just throw them all in gaol now. They wouldn't have bothered having the ****ing ICC hearing in the first place if the court case had the slightest bearing on it.

Quoted for truth.