Mohammed Amir cleared to return with immediate effect

[morgieb]

Also in terms of getting off lightly shane warne and mark waugh never really should have been let off that easily either.

IIRC in that case I think they self-reported which may have helped lighten the penalty.

Although yes they should've gotten bans. Probably not life though as it wasn't fixing.

 

[Prince EWS]

I will add though that I feel that jail time may be a more effective deterrant than a life ban. Though given Amir's age, that might not necessary apply to him....

Yeah but the criminal justice system isn't really an appropriate means to deter people from doing things sporting authorities don't like. May work better; doesn't mean it should be used.

I think you could make an argument for it being fraudulent in some way, but you need to decide whether it should be criminal or not before the question of whether imprisonment would be the best deterrent or not is even relevant.

 

[GIMH]

Last night I was reading random wiki articles and read one about the XFL, Vince McMahon's ill-fated spree into American Football. One of the criticism of it was that because of the pro-wrestling connection, people were suspicious of close finishes etc.

This is kinda how I feel about Amir and any matches he's played. I'm fine with him having served his ban but don't think I could take any match he played in seriously.

 

[hendrix]

Hardly an excuse. Indian and Pakistani kids know more about the dangers of match fixing than anyone else. The 99 scandal is so ingrained into our memories that those lectures just aren't necessary, nor should they be.

I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I think there are reasons to believe that Stuart Broad, a middle class, educated, high earning cricketer who's spent his whole life playing the game might be a touch more familiar with what constitutes cheating, and moreover might be more aware of the consequences of cheating.

It's also a mitigating factor that his ****ing captain and leading bowler brought him in on it. I mean it's easy to say it's only a phone call away but a) he wasn't being asked to throw the match, he was being asked to bowl a couple of no balls (i.e. he might not have even thought about the consequences) and b) the pressure in that scenario as a junior cricketer would have been immense.

I will add though that I feel that jail time may be a more effective deterrant than a life ban. Though given Amir's age, that might not necessary apply to him....

He's already served jail time in England.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Sreesnath and all that.

God I remember when Asif and Amir were busted, Sreesanth commented that they should be punished for betraying their country. Amazing.

 

[cnerd123]

Obviously not. My point is he shouldn't get any sympathy for apparently "not knowing the pitfalls" of fixing. That's BS.

The PCB obviously didn't (and probably still don't) have the same level of education and training as the ECB on the sins of fixing, first of all.

And even if they did - Amir was playing in a team where several players were actively getting away with fixing . It doesn't matter what presentations or lectures you give to a player, because it won't mean much when he can see people in his team actively indulging in fixing successfully with no repercussion.

He was also playing for Pakistan - a country in which huge numbers of individuals in all walks of life, at all levels, consistently get away with corruption and dishonesty on a daily basis. Former criminals run the country. The most powerful people in Pakistan are also the most dishonest. The PCB is perhaps the most corrupt cricket board there is.
Much of the corruption in Pakistan is far more important than the act of bowling a deliberate no ball in a Test to keep a bookie happy.

As for the pitfalls of fixing/corruption - many are never caught. And many of those who are caught and punished are only found out because they upset the wrong person, who would go on to tell on them. Many who are caught are only caught once their careers (in whatever field they were in) was essentially over.

Corruption is a part of the fabric of life in the subcontinent.

Aamir also never volunteered to be a fixer. He didn't ask to fix matches. He was bullied into it. His captain threatened him that his career would be over if he didn't comply. A senior bowler who he must have idolised was telling him the same thing. Butt and Asif were two of the most influential men in Pakistani cricket at that time. And they were telling him to comply or his career would be done.

Aamir is from a poor background, and knows no other way to make a career in this world outside of cricket. He can't quit the sport. He needs the money. And he also and has dreams of being a great Test bowler.

And all they asked him to do was a small thing. Just one no-ball. Bowlers bowl no-balls all the time. He wasn't being asked to throw the game, or to bowl rubbish on purpose, or even to deliberately put down catches. Just overstep this one ball, then you can go back to being you.

But if you disagree, your career is over.

You get this threat from your captain and a bowler you idolise, two of the most powerful men in Pakistani cricket.

In a country where corruption is rampant and no one has ever done anything to stop it.

As a poor 19 year old with no other career options and a family to support.

Sure people were banned for fixing in the past, but they were losing games. And they were careless. This is a small thing. The PCB is probably in on it if these guys are in on it. And if you don't do it, your career is over. If you do it, you can keep playing. Perhaps no one will ever find out. Perhaps your career will be over if they do.

....

Seriously, comparing Amir to Broad is just ****ed up on so many levels.

I honestly am glad Amir gets a second chance. I don't think it's ridiculous to offer Amir sympathy for his situation.

I don't think exceptions should be made for his talent, and on that I agree with andyc and PEWS. But I do think that and exemption should have been made for Amir's situation, and I am glade it was.

 

[morgieb]

I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I think there are reasons to believe that Stuart Broad, a middle class, educated, high earning cricketer who's spent his whole life playing the game might be a touch more familiar with what constitutes cheating, and moreover might be more aware of the consequences of cheating.

It's also a mitigating factor that his ****ing captain and leading bowler brought him in on it. I mean it's easy to say it's only a phone call away but a) he wasn't being asked to throw the match, he was being asked to bowl a couple of no balls (i.e. he might not have even thought about the consequences) and b) the pressure in that scenario as a junior cricketer would have been immense.




He's already served jail time in England.

Kinda my point

 

[hendrix]

Yeah but the criminal justice system isn't really an appropriate means to deter people from doing things sporting authorities don't like. May work better; doesn't mean it should be used.

I think you could make an argument for it being fraudulent in some way, but you need to decide whether it should be criminal or not before the question of whether imprisonment would be the best deterrent or not is even relevant.

You're completely mixed up.

Spot fixing is far bigger a criminal crime than it is a sporting crime. The sporting consequence is 3 dot balls.

The criminal consequence is millions and millions of dollars of fraud through various betting agencies.

 

[hendrix]

Unless you consider sport a means for gambling, which you might do given your current profession but it's certainly not something I agree with.

 

[Prince EWS]

You're completely mixed up.

Spot fixing is far bigger a criminal crime than it is a sporting crime. The sporting consequence is 3 dot balls.

The criminal consequence is millions and millions of dollars of fraud through various betting agencies.

.. and that's said argument

I think you could make an argument for it being fraudulent in some way

I may just be misinterpreting morgieb's post but it seemed to me as if he was suggesting that it would be a better deterrent from a cricketing perspective for him to serve jail, as if the wishes of cricket authorities should some how be enforced by the criminal justice system.

I tend to think most if not all the criminal fault should lie with the blokes actually fixing the matches rather than the players, but I see the argument against that. You have to first actually make the argument though, which morgieb didn't do. I don't think he was really implying it either, but I may be wrong.

I certainly disagree that the sporting consequence is simply "3 dot balls" though; that's far too simplistic. The moment non-cricketing factors start playing into the intentions of the players, the moment the whole integrity of the game is destroyed.

 

[Xuhaib]

anned Pakistan paceman Mohammad Amir vowed on Thursday to prove himself as a "better player and better human being" after his spot-fixing ban was relaxed by the International Cricket Council (ICC). Amir, 22, can return to domestic matches with immediate effect after the world cricket body ended his five-year suspension from all forms of the game some eight months early.

Amir, who was banned for his part in a scandal in which he arranged no-balls to order in a 2010 Test against England, said he was overwhelmed by the ICC announcement. "It's the biggest news of my life," he told AFP on Thursday. "It was the most difficult phase of my life but I am sure it's over now and I am keen to return to international grounds."

Amir was banned along with his captain Salman Butt and new ball partner Mohammad Asif for spot-fixing. Cricket, and Pakistani cricket in particular, has struggled with the scourge of corruption in recent years and there has been some disquiet about Amir's return to the game.

Some former professionals have said he should not be allowed back into international cricket, while Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) chairman Shaharyar Khan last year revealed some current players were against Amir's return and did not want to share a dressing room with him.

Amir, however, is determined to win over the naysayers with his bowling -- and promised to behave from now on. "If anyone has any problems with my return I am sure he will change his views with my character and good performances," said Amir. "My job is to play and do well and I am sure that I will return to international cricket as a better player and better human being and that's my aim."

The decision to relax his ban came after two years of efforts by the PCB. The ICC last year approved a provision in its players' code of conduct under which all banned players who complete their rehabilitation will be allowed to play domestic cricket a few months before their bans expire.

Amir said he never thought of giving up cricket. "Cricket is my life and I never thought of leaving it. I have not forgotten how to bowl but now my focus on cricket will be more than before as I have to prove myself again," he said.

Amir: Biggest news of my life - Cricbuzz

 

[Prince EWS]

Unless you consider sport a means for gambling, which you might do given your current profession but it's certainly not something I agree with.

Nah definitely not. If anything this would make me more likely to support jail time for fixing players tbh.

 

[Jono]

What are people's views on Herschelle Gibbs?

 

[Spikey]

Bit old, looks a bit skin heady for me

 

[Jono]

If you're going to make that joke you make an orgy joke from his autobiography. Not a ****ing bald joke.

 

[Kirkut]

Yeah, best post.

I'm a big believer in second chances, but I don't see why Amir's second chance has to be in cricket. He's burnt his bridge there and should try to do something else with his life. I'd honestly be much more comfortable with a murderer who had done his time coming back to the game, for Amir's crimes were actually against cricket.
The libertarian in me wants to say that the ICC should let him play but that I'd hope no professional cricket teams would hire him.. but honestly if there's a role for the ICC in handing down suspensions at all, it's for incidents like this where the entire game is slighted. I have no sympathy at all from a cricket perspective for match- or spot-fixers. Let them explore other pursuits in life freely, but not cricket.

I do appreciate your seriousness as a sports fan, but that's over the top.

 

[Prince EWS]

I do appreciate your seriousness as a sports fan, but that's over the top.

Nah I think you're just missing my compartmentalistion.

Obviously murder is an infinitely bigger deal than spot-fixing, but that's not what I was saying. I don't think the ICC should be making moral character judgments for incidents outside of cricket, but if it has a role at all in banning players, it should be for this, and it should be for life.

 

[Jono]

Nah I think you're just missing my compartmentalistion.

Obviously murder is an infinitely bigger deal than spot-fixing, but that's not what I was saying. I don't think the ICC should be making moral character judgments for incidents outside of cricket, but if it has a role at all in banning players, it should be for this, and it should be for life.

How long would you have banned Gibbs for if he did what he did in this current environment. If he did it in 2015.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I hope he is as good as he was before his ban.

 

[Prince EWS]

How long would you have banned Gibbs for if he did what he did in this current environment. If he did it in 2015.

I don't really know a lot about the Gibbs thing; match fixing history is not my strong suit. Was his go taking money and then not following through with it? If so, a light suspension -- six months maybe. If he went through with anything, life.

Basically my position is that if you do engage in any sort of fixing that actually has an affect on the game, then you've committed the worst possible crime against the game and you've burnt your bridges. If you abuse your position to give bookies inside info, or take money and then back out of the deal, or don't report an approach or something like that then I'm willing to be much more lenient, but if you deliberately under-perform or manufacture some sort of outcome because you've been paid to, that should be it.