Sreesanth gets life ban

[Top_Cat]

Didn't do it, lawyer ****ed me!

 

[fredfertang]

Folk often say that to me

 

[smash84]

won't be missed much except maybe by the likes of Teja. IIRC At one time Teja's signature boasted enough Sreesanth love that it stated that Teja was would have Sreesanth's babies. Teja, I hope you raise his kids well

 

[Daemon]

Jails are full of innocent people. Just ask the inmates to put up their hands if they are guilty. You won't see one.

Been to one have you?

 

[smash84]

 

[kyear2]

Folk often say that to me

Sure not.

If they were truely interested they could get to the bottom of this problem and it reflects badly on the BCCI as well, so why keep going after just the players and not try to expose the ones who are preying on them.

 

[Flem274*]

Jails are full of innocent people. Just ask the inmates to put up their hands if they are guilty. You won't see one.

 

[morgieb]

Been to one have you?

I imagine his post was sarcastic.

 

[hendrix]

The BCCI should have waited until the court case went through. They could have left him suspended pending the findings of the court case. That way they would actually have had access to the information of the police and been able to access the evidence.

It's very poor form to rush this through, and it's clearly an attempt to save face and cut ties.

 

[Esperance]

He's definitely innocent, my brother's in the Swiss military.

 

[Daemon]

I imagine his post was sarcastic.

It was a stupid post. And because it's hooksey I hated it even more.

 

[Tangles]

Hate leads to the dark side ftr

 

[Cevno]

The BCCI should have waited until the court case went through. They could have left him suspended pending the findings of the court case. That way they would actually have had access to the information of the police and been able to access the evidence.

It's very poor form to rush this through, and it's clearly an attempt to save face and cut ties.

I am guessing they had access to all info from Police needed already, to take this decision.

The court case is for Cheating and fraud amongst other things like Organized crime, and will be tougher for the police to prove conclusively as there wasn't any law against Match fixing in sport per say at the time.

Also, Amit Singh has been banned for 5 years despite not having a formal police case against him and Sid Trivedi for 1 year despite turning witness for the police now. He had taken money from Chandila but returned it later saying he can't fix matches.

 

[Prince EWS]

Sid Trivedi for 1 year despite turning witness for the police now. He had taken money from Chandila but returned it later saying he can't fix matches.

I'm all for rubbing match- and spot-fixers out of the game but I reckon that's pretty harsh if it's all there was to it.

 

[Cevno]

Azharuddin and Jadeja etc.. during the whole Cronje/SA issue weren't formally charged by the police at any time IIRC, but they were banned the BCCI too.

Weird though they haven't banned the lynchpin Chandila yet. Guess, if they are acquitted in court all of this will appeal and try and get their bans reduced by the high court anyway which is still a avenue open to them.

 

[benchmark00]

Nah anyone actively working with bookmakers should get banned, irrespective of whether they happen to have a late change of heart.

 

[Cevno]

I'm all for rubbing match- and spot-fixers out of the game but I reckon that's pretty harsh if it's all there was to it.

It's a tough one. The case against him is that he did meet bookies and was aware of Chandila's links but didn't report it to anyone even though he returned the money earlier and after this scandal broke he turned prosecution witness.

Details and the opposite argument are given in this article -

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/why...be-more-important-than-sreesanth-1109209.html

 

[Prince EWS]

It's a tough one. The case against him is that he did meet bookies and was aware of Chandila's links but didn't report it to anyone even though after this scandal broke he turned prosecution witness.

Details and the opposite argument are given in this article -

http://www.firstpost.com/sports/why...be-more-important-than-sreesanth-1109209.html

Yeah, I suppose the ban is fair enough. If he took money, then changed his mind, gave it back and reported it then it'd be different, but only opening his mouth after it all came out makes him somewhat culpable.

 

[Arjun]

The BCCI should have waited until the court case went through. They could have left him suspended pending the findings of the court case. That way they would actually have had access to the information of the police and been able to access the evidence.

It's very poor form to rush this through, and it's clearly an attempt to save face and cut ties.

Tip of a very large iceberg sadly. Hope this leads to more being done but I doubt it.

Exactly. This act of banning these players for life (or less), whatever be their shortcomings, is rather destructive. These blokes could have turned informants, and helped the BCCI catch the real culprits who cause massive losses to them- the betting syndicate. Banning errant players is no more than a cop out. We've seen boards of other countries stand by their players who were found guilty, and they've profited. BCCI, on the other hand, are just shrinking India's talent pool with these strong-arm tactics.

The BCCI should push for wiping out the betting syndicate, because they are the ones who suffer the most because of the money transferred by illegal betting.

They're hardly the purest, cleanest people around. Already the BCCI chief has a load of accusations against him, and his way of handling board activities has been very, very poor. From losing loads of money in bad deals to losing allies like South Africa, and also losing cricketers, there's too much gone wrong under this man. There are plenty of other officials who are corrupt but still stay high and mighty. Why not ban them for life?

 

[Furball]

I'm all for rubbing match- and spot-fixers out of the game but I reckon that's pretty harsh if it's all there was to it.

How is banning a player who took money from a bookmaker a harsh course of action?