Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Prince EWS]

..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.

That's not the point though. Two different hearings in two different systems can produce two different verdicts for all the reasons I mentioned above, even if the charged offenses are the same (which they weren't anyway).

The biggest thing to note here is the difference in the standard of proof required. Even if you ridiculously assume that the two hearings go in the exact same way and the judges/juries/whatever come to exactly the same opinions, that can still lead to a guilty verdict in the ICC hearing and a not guilty verdict in a court of law because the latter requires a greater standard of proof. To dumb it right down - if you're 75% sure Butt did what he's been accused of then that's not guilty in the criminal trial and guilty in the ICC hearing.

 

[fredfertang]

They're being tried because the Crown Prosecution Service have established that there is a prima facie case against them in respect of committing a criminal offence in England - the prosecution had diddley squat to do with the ICC's disciplinary procedure

 

[BoyBrumby]

I don't pretend to be an expert, but Justice Cooper's summing up (or the bits that've been reported) seem to favour the prosecution's case quite strongly. He's pointed out Asif's story changed between arrest and trial, has said that Majeed and Aamir are involved in spot fixing and the jury should infer "common sense conclusions" from the evidence as presented.

Might be selective reporting (and obviously his honour hasn't finished yet), but is this usual?

 

[Faisal1985]

My whole point is....it could be a different system, different burden/standard of proof etc etc...but...if the trial yields a not guilty verdict for "collecting corrupt payments" on part of the players. Then the reasoning behind ICC banning the players was just proven incorrect in a UK court with a profound trial. Therefore, after such a scenario the ban on players will be that for delivering deliberate No-Balls. For whatever reasons they bowled those no balls (i.e. collecting corrupt payments) didn't prove correct.

And I am wondering if there have been situations in the past of bowling deliberate no balls and players getting banned for it.

To me a not guilty verdict from Crown Court means nullification of the kind of incentive ICC thought players bowled the No balls for. That changes the whole situation quite a bit....

 

[Faisal1985]

They're being tried because the Crown Prosecution Service have established that there is a prima facie case against them in respect of committing a criminal offence in England - the prosecution had diddley squat to do with the ICC's disciplinary procedure

Whose fundamentals are similar to the reasons for which they were banned by the ICC.

While fighting a case you can always cite other cases of similar nature so there is nothing wrong with talking about why shouldn't the outcome of this case affect the ICC decision....

 

[fredfertang]

They are two different situations though - a breach of the ICC Code of Conduct does not mean that it automatically follows that there has been an offence committed, nor indeed is the reverse necessarily true

 

[Furball]

My whole point is....it could be a different system, different burden/standard of proof etc etc...but...if the trial yields a not guilty verdict for "collecting corrupt payments" on part of the players. Then the reasoning behind ICC banning the players was just proven incorrect in a UK court with a profound trial. Therefore, after such a scenario the ban on players will be that for delivering deliberate No-Balls. For whatever reasons they bowled those no balls (i.e. collecting corrupt payments) didn't prove correct.

And I am wondering if there have been situations in the past of bowling deliberate no balls and players getting banned for it.

To me a not guilty verdict from Crown Court means nullification of the kind of incentive ICC thought players bowled the No balls for. That changes the whole situation quite a bit....

All of what you've just posted is complete rubbish.

 

[fredfertang]

All of what you've just posted is complete rubbish.

Now you're just trying to live up to the reputation I'm creating for you

 

[Faisal1985]

They are two different situations though - a breach of the ICC Code of Conduct does not mean that it automatically follows that there has been an offence committed, nor indeed is the reverse necessarily true

I am only trying to understand how is it in a hypothetical situation in which the players walk free of charges of collecting corrupt payments from UK trial yet are deemed to have violated the code of conduct of the ICC to a level of being banned for half a decade and so on...To me this harsh punishment was only acceptable because they were involved in spotfixing...and they took money or anything of such value to fix a part of the game...

You can't ban someone for bowling a deliberate no ball for 5-7 years, especially when it was not bowled for money or a fix.....thats ****ed up.

 

[Faisal1985]

All of what you've just posted is complete rubbish.

Just say you submit to my opinion.

 

[Faisal1985]

They are two different situations though - a breach of the ICC Code of Conduct does not mean that it automatically follows that there has been an offence committed, nor indeed is the reverse necessarily true

But they are about the same situation in a game....

 

[Furball]

Now you're just trying to live up to the reputation I'm creating for you

Oh come on, that was a fairly measured response by my supposedly furiously angry standards.

 

[Furball]

I am only trying to understand how is it in a hypothetical situation in which the players walk free of charges of collecting corrupt payments from UK trial yet are deemed to have violated the code of conduct of the ICC to a level of being banned for half a decade and so on...To me this harsh punishment was only acceptable because they were involved in spotfixing...and they took money or anything of such value to fix a part of the game...

You can't ban someone for bowling a deliberate no ball for 5-7 years, especially when it was not bowled for money or a fix.....thats ****ed up.

Madjid appears on camera and says "Amir and Asif will bowl no balls on these particular deliveries." They do. The ICC (IMO) doesn't need much further evidence in terms of banning both men. The Crown however, requires a ****load more evidence than that to convict Asif and Butt beyond all reasonable doubt, of the completely different offences that they have been charged with.

 

[Prince EWS]

My whole point is....it could be a different system, different burden/standard of proof etc etc...but...if the trial yields a not guilty verdict for "collecting corrupt payments" on part of the players. Then the reasoning behind ICC banning the players was just proven incorrect in a UK court with a profound trial

That's just downright wrong though. You've shown absolutely no understanding of the my posts at all. Being found not guilty of UK criminal law by a UK criminal court is not the same as being found not guilty of ICC regulations by an ICC tribunal. It doesn't matter if the individual facts of the case are consistently adjudicated on throughout different systems for several reasons that I've already outlined. For example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend in a US criminal court, and then a US civil court determined that he'd done it and owed millions of dollars in compensation to the victims' estates. The two verdicts conflicted within the same legal system and yet they stood independently - two different systems with two different standards of proof and two different hearings came to two opposite verdicts - sound familiar? And let me tell you that US criminal court and US civil court are much more similar to each other than UK criminal court is to an ICC tribunal.

I wish I could ****block myself from the thread tbh.

 

[Faisal1985]

Madjid appears on camera and says "Amir and Asif will bowl no balls on these particular deliveries." They do. The ICC (IMO) doesn't need much further evidence in terms of banning both men. The Crown however, requires a ****load more evidence than that to convict Asif and Butt beyond all reasonable doubt, of the completely different offences that they have been charged with.

Its not that simple...

 

[Prince EWS]

I am only trying to understand how is it in a hypothetical situation in which the players walk free of charges of collecting corrupt payments from UK trial yet are deemed to have violated the code of conduct of the ICC to a level of being banned for half a decade and so on...To me this harsh punishment was only acceptable because they were involved in spotfixing...and they took money or anything of such value to fix a part of the game...

You can't ban someone for bowling a deliberate no ball for 5-7 years, especially when it was not bowled for money or a fix.....thats ****ed up.

You're missing the point there completely though. The ICC tribunal verdict is allowed to conflict with the UK criminal court verdict. They can be banned for spot fixing by the ICC even if the courts can't prove it to the standard required by the courts, because the standard required by the ICC isn't as great.

 

[Prince EWS]

Its not that simple...

No, it really is.

You seem to be under the impression that if a court of law finds them not guilty of spot fixing, the ICC can't ban them for that offence under their own regulations. Which is absolutely rubbish. They can 'disagree' for lack of a better word.

 

[fredfertang]

But they are about the same situation in a game....

Not sure that's of any relevance tbh

What about this scenario

Asif bowls six consecutive beamers at a tail end batsman

He gets banned for breaching the ICC Code of Conduct

He gets charged with and acquitted of attempted GBH

Do you have the same problem with that?

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Not sure that's of any relevance tbh

What about this scenario

Asif bowls six consecutive beamers at a tail end batsman

He gets banned for breaching the ICC Code of Conduct

He gets charged with and acquitted of attempted GBH

Do you have the same problem with that?

Stop making sense, you will give the poor lad a headache.

 

[salman85]

I had the option of taking up Law as a career.

After going through this thread,i'm Glad i chose Banking.

Show me the money bitches!