Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[mono]

uh cause he match fixed?

well technically he didn't fix a match, he bowled a bunch of no balls. But my point is that he was 18. he was almost a minor.

 

[G.I.Joe]

well technically he didn't fix a match, he bowled a bunch of no balls. But my point is that he was 18. he was almost a minor.

Should have stayed at home playing with his G.I.Joes instead of pursuing a professional sport then, eh?

 

[intcricket]

well technically he didn't fix a match, he bowled a bunch of no balls. But my point is that he was 18. he was almost a minor.

Yes. Playing devils advocate, bowling 3 no-balls doesn't even come close to doping that was done by a now retired Australian spinner and disclosing pitch conditions to bookies. He didn't get a jail term like these 3, but such is life.

 

[Spikey]

Yes. Playing devils advocate, bowling 3 no-balls doesn't even come close to doping that was done by a now retired Australian spinner and disclosing pitch conditions to bookies. He didn't get a jail term like these 3, but such is life.

yeah someone covered that silly comparison in the first few pages of this thread bro.




have a look at sydney. if it turns out something happened there it's likely it would have been along the lines of ensuring australia got a lead of 100+ - australia entered day 5 with a lead of 80, two wickets left - or let siddle-hussey get a 50 run stand or something like that. let hussey get his ton. they haven't fixed the match....but they've changed the match. Same with the no-balls. For three balls of the match they've tried not to win, and that could change the match. Now I was like you once willing to say "oh it's just one little thing"....but cricket is decided on those little things. Spot fixing is match fixing. You're changing the course of the match. As for oh he's 18. Well one, he probably isn't but two, he's been told for years - given he was in Pakistani National Youth Squads - not to fix matches and report any approaches.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Yes. Playing devils advocate, bowling 3 no-balls doesn't even come close to doping that was done by a now retired Australian spinner and disclosing pitch conditions to bookies. He didn't get a jail term like these 3, but such is life.

Not sure you've quite grasped the "devil's advocate" concept there, old son.

Firstly the gentleman in question was not definitively caught "doping", rather taking a substance sometimes used to hide evidence of the same (I'm sure we all have our own opinions, but suspicion is a very different beast than conviction in a court of law) & secondly whilst, at best, naive and morally dubious, accepting money from illegal bookmakers isn't, in itself, prima facie evidence of wrong doing.

 

[intcricket]

yeah someone covered that silly comparison in the first few pages of this thread bro.




have a look at sydney. if it turns out something happened there it's likely it would have been along the lines of ensuring australia got a lead of 100+ - australia entered day 5 with a lead of 80, two wickets left - or let siddle-hussey get a 50 run stand or something like that. let hussey get his ton. they haven't fixed the match....but they've changed the match. Same with the no-balls. For three balls of the match they've tried not to win, and they could change the match. Now I was like you once willing to say "oh it's just one little thing"....but cricket is decided on those little things. Spot fixing is match fixing. You're changing the course of the match.

When a player reveals the playing conditions, it plays just as much an influence on team strategies of the opposition (assuming the news gets leaked) as bowling no balls. Similarly, doping is trying to elevate your performance levels, which is tantamount to influencing a match.

All I am saying is that lets use the same whip for everyone. Not for a moment can anyone condone what these 3 did. But lets not let the buck stop with these 3. Investigate people to whom needles of suspicion have been pointed at and lets not let this positive momentum go waste.

 

[intcricket]

Not sure you've quite grasped the "devil's advocate" concept there, old son.

Firstly the gentleman in question was not definitively caught "doping", rather taking a substance sometimes used to hide evidence of the same (I'm sure we all have our own opinions, but suspicion is a very different beast than conviction in a court of law) & secondly whilst, at best, naive and morally dubious, accepting money from illegal bookmakers isn't, in itself, prima facie evidence of wrong doing.

Different view points on the same subject always add to the discussion.

 

[Spikey]

When a player reveals the playing conditions, it is plays just as much an influence on team strategies of the opposition (assuming the news gets leaked) as bowling no balls.

Quite simply it doesn't.

And all I'll say on this silly matter is that it'll always amaze me Warne and Waugh got paid to say stuff that would have been in the papers and on the radio. Indeed at the time Michael Slater actually had a deal with a radio station here where he pretty much said the exact same things as Warne and Waugh did. You want Tony Greig done in for doing his pitch reports?

 

[intcricket]

Quite simply it doesn't.

And all I'll say on this silly matter is that it'll always amaze me Warne and Waugh got paid to say stuff that would have been in the papers and on the radio. Indeed at the time Michael Slater actually had a deal with a radio station here where he pretty much said the exact same things as Warne and Waugh did. You want Tony Greig done in for doing his pitch reports?

Quite absurd because it is Tony Greig's job to do pitch reports and it isn't Shane Warne's job to reveal conditions one day prior to the match. Did Greig ever do that? We can however agree to disagree on this subject.

 

[Spikey]

Quite absurd. We can however agree to disagree on this subject.

what about when the groundsman in the days leading up to the test tells the media how he expects the pitch to play. Surely he's 'reveal(ing) the playing conditions' and is having an 'influence on team strategies'?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Why is this even a discussion? Opposition teams are allowed to have a look at the pitch days before the game anyway. It's hardly a secret.

 

[Spikey]

Why is this even a discussion? Opposition teams are allowed to have a look at the pitch days before the game anyway. It's hardly a secret.

he started it



feel like I don't sound enough like a whiny 8yo but nevertheless

 

[flibbertyjibber]

he started it



feel like I don't sound enough like a whiny 8yo but nevertheless

Start saying how it so unfair and you always get blame for everything then you are getting there.

 

[Hurricane]

It is entirely plausible for one to be guilty and the other innocent. One of them could have bowled a deliberate no ball, and the other could have overstepped innocently. Therefore, each one of them has to have an individual case built against him, you can't treat them as a single entity who are either all guilty or all innocent. Disclosing Amir's plea of guilty would ensure that the jurors fall into the trap of assuming guilt by association (or whatever the legal term is). I mean, look at yourself. You've made the same mistake.

You have a point - But what is the probability ....Amir's no ball, was admitted to being on purpose. Somehow the Amir predictions were using accurate fore knowledge and the Asif one was a fluke? Why would the fellow make an accurate prediction about Amir and then decide on a whim to invent some wild prediction for Asif. It would be unlikely. It would deter his chances of repeat business for a start.

either they (the predictions) are all a fluke or all are deliberate - that is what I and the jury would no doubt think.

 

[fredfertang]

It is a matter for the trial judge as to whether or not a jury should be told about the guilty pleas of co-defendants and he was clearly persuaded here, as is often the case, that it would prejudice the cases of Amir and Butt to admit that evidence

That decision having been made Amir, and indeed Majeed, could still have given evidence for either side. Clearly on the strength of his Basis of plea Amir wouldn't have helped the Defence, but he would have helped the Prosecution. It may be he didn't offer to give evidence for the prosecution, or maybe he did but they decided they didn't want to call him - either way it was because either he or the prosecution or both didn't fancy his being exposed to cross-examination, which is the whole point - it is not fair to admit evidence in a trial where that evidence can't be tested, and the fact of the co-defendants guilty pleas without more falls fairly and squarely into that category.

 

[G.I.Joe]

You have a point - But what is the probability ....Amir's no ball, was admitted to being on purpose. Somehow the Amir predictions were using accurate fore knowledge and the Asif one was a fluke? Why would the fellow make an accurate prediction about Amir and then decide on a whim to invent some wild prediction for Asif. It would be unlikely. It would deter his chances of repeat business for a start.

either they (the predictions) are all a fluke or all are deliberate - that is what I and the jury would no doubt think.

Yeah, I agree the chances are that they're both guilty. But I can understand why the court would take the stance they did. Majeed's confessions were introduced as evidence after the trial had began. They were not valid as evidence before the trial, and hence the judge had no business basing his decisions on something that, to all intents and purposes of the court, did not exist. He had to go by the principles of natural justice at the start of the trial. This I base on sound logic and reason, which I would assume the law is based on, and plenty of experience gleaned from multiple readings of courtroom novels Where are the resident ambulance chasers when you need them, dammit.

Edit: Tangy

 

[Hurricane]

It is a matter for the trial judge as to whether or not a jury should be told about the guilty pleas of co-defendants and he was clearly persuaded here, as is often the case, that it would prejudice the cases of Amir and Butt to admit that evidence

That decision having been made Amir, and indeed Majeed, could still have given evidence for either side. Clearly on the strength of his Basis of plea Amir wouldn't have helped the Defence, but he would have helped the Prosecution. It may be he didn't offer to give evidence for the prosecution, or maybe he did but they decided they didn't want to call him - either way it was because either he or the prosecution or both didn't fancy his being exposed to cross-examination, which is the whole point - it is not fair to admit evidence in a trial where that evidence can't be tested, and the fact of the co-defendants guilty pleas without more falls fairly and squarely into that category.

Thank you.

 

[marc71178]

If they serve their respected times in prison and are somehow selected for Pak after their 5 year ban, who here would still be against that?

I would say pretty much everyone.

 

[fredfertang]

I've only just realised that the Prosecution haven't accepted Amir's basis of plea - I would think therefore that he may well have offered to give Prosecution evidence (turn Queen's evidence) as that would help him as mitigation, but clearly if the CPS didn't accept his basis they wouldn't be interested in calling him to give evidence that would, effectively, conflict with their case.

 

[SJS]

I've only just realised that the Prosecution haven't accepted Amir's basis of plea - I would think therefore that he may well have offered to give Prosecution evidence (turn Queen's evidence) as that would help him as mitigation, but clearly if the CPS didn't accept his basis they wouldn't be interested in calling him to give evidence that would, effectively, conflict with their case.

Thats right. He faces a sentence as well though it just might be a lighter one.

It is interesting to see the reaction of former Pakistani cricketers to the judgement. Some of them have really changed their stance I suspect. . .