Mohammed Amir cleared to return with immediate effect

[sledger]

if he wasn't "really good" he wouldn't be playing international cricket at age 18 and no-one would care if he bowled deliberate no-balls or not

For your next trick, perhaps you can tell me the colour of the sky.

 

[hendrix]

That's not the point I am making. Obviously circumstance is important when determining the level of punishment. What I was claiming is that us talking about all these things is by the by. What is undisputable in my mind, is that, as I say, were it not for the fact that he is/was really really good, he'd have been banned for life. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

Salman Butt was not banned for life, and he wasn't the most talented player.

 

[sledger]

Salman Butt was not banned for life, and he wasn't the most talented player.

Had Amir not been caught up in the whole thing he would have been.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Rubbish

 

[sledger]

Rubbish

Let's hear more about how refusing Amir a visa would cause a diplomatic incident.

 

[Top_Cat]

Should Amir himself not have had some perspective? The guy supposedly grew up in squallor but had risen to the highest ranks in international sport, and would have been living an extremely luxurious lifestyle (relatively speaking at least) at the time of his cheating. One would have hoped that this would have given him some sense of perspective.

I challenge you to find an example of a maxi-talented kid in any field who had extreme success young/quickly who could be said to have 'perspective'.

 

[Sporty1079]

He is just a waste of talent.

 

[sledger]

I challenge you to find an example of a maxi-talented kid in any field who had extreme success young/quickly who could be said to have 'perspective'.

Myself.

 

[duffer]

Heh, very good.

 

[Jono]

nah **** him.

lou vincent came out and admitted what he was, cooperated fully, and he can't even watch his kids play because he has a life ban. oh, and while he was a fixer he was going through depression and a divorce.

then you have amir, who acted like a brat through the entire saga (breaking the no cricket rule, playing the woe is me card) who is fully functional mentally and had recently been educated about how to deal with fixing and that fixing is wrong, but because he's uber-talented he gets a free ride and the sympathy of millions.

if amir had been anything except an exceptional talent nobody would give a **** about him. if he was your average 17 year old (lol "17") FC bowler or a 25 year old averaging 35 in test cricket instead of less than 30 everyone would want to throw the book at him. look at asif. he's exceptional too but everyone agrees he can **** off.

amir deserves a second chance, but it shouldn't be in cricket. he was a stupid, greedy, entitled kid who took playing for his country for granted and his punishment was to go to prison for a little while, get released early then allowed to return to the game he tried to ruin. **** him, i hope steyn or johnson breaks his arm or he receives a warner/mccullum special.

For some reason mid-way through this post you just countered your own argument with that Asif statement. Odd.

 

[Jono]

I'd prefer not to see Amir in cricket ever again. There are instances in life where you aren't allowed to go back to a certain profession, or are banned from ever taking up an occupation, due to certain acts you commit which breach the law or regulations etc. Thinking bans from directorships, working with children, working as a lawyer or doctor etc.

There is easily an argument that the same should apply to Amir here. Saying he shouldn't be allowed in cricket again isn't the equivalent to saying he should never be forgiven or he should be punished further. Most people are not saying Amir should be jailed. No one is saying Amir should never be allowed to travel to England again etc. But he shouldn't be allowed to play cricket again imo. And also, it hasn't been that long itbt.

 

[marc71178]

And you say that he has a second chance in life in something other than cricket. I would like to know what other opportunities are there for an uneducated Pakistani criminal from a poor family?

Who cares?

 

[Daemon]

I'd prefer not to see Amir in cricket ever again. There are instances in life where you aren't allowed to go back to a certain profession, or are banned from ever taking up an occupation, due to certain acts you commit which breach the law or regulations etc. Thinking bans from directorships, working with children, working as a lawyer or doctor etc.

There is easily an argument that the same should apply to Amir here. Saying he shouldn't be allowed in cricket again isn't the equivalent to saying he should never be forgiven or punished further. Most people are not saying Amir should be jailed. No one is saying Amir should never be allowed to travel to England again etc. But he shouldn't be allowed to play cricket again imo. And also, it hasn't been that long itbt.

Yeah, can agree with this too.

What I can't understand is people's refusal to acknowledge that certain factors beyond his control might have influenced him into making the stupid decision(s). Yeah he probably received talks and anti corruption messages over his short career, but when that **** pervades every corner of the society where you grew up and the supposedly horrid team environment you've found yourself in, are the messages really going to get through to you? It's not an excuse at all, but how does it not make his crime that little bit more understandable?

Personally think he should have been given a life ban because to me it would set a precedent, but I don't think the crime itself deserved a life ban if that makes any sense. 5 years is just too soon though.

 

[Jono]

Yep daemon people that are saying age doesn't matter are wrong, because that is taken into account in sentencing of all sorts, as is influence from elders and having less power etc.

But some people here are taking that into account but deeming that nevertheless a life ban or longer ban still is appropriate. I fall in that camp. I think at least minimum 10 year ban would have been appropriate.

Did these guys on top of legal ramifications pay fines to ICC?

 

[Daemon]

Yep daemon people that are saying age doesn't matter are wrong, because that is taken into account in sentencing of all sorts, as is influence from elders and having less power etc.

But some people here are taking that into account but deeming that nevertheless a life ban or longer ban still is appropriate. I fall in that camp. I think at least minimum 10 year ban would have been appropriate.

Did these guys on top of legal ramifications pay fines to ICC?

Yeah I feel the same way.

Unless I've misinterpreted something a few feel that the external factors are just bull**** though.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Regardless of his age, I think Amir should've got a far longer ban... Especially beause Amir repeatedly lied in court before finally owning up.

The ICC missed a huge opportunity to set a precedent by being ruthless after it had been proven beyond doubt that Amir was guilty. If a few years later a 20 year old gets caught in a similar scandal, what happens? If the ICC gives him, say, a 10 year ban, , there'll be idiots who will cry about it saying why 10 years for him when Amir only got 5. This is why sentences in such cases are so damn important.... they are landmark judgements which will be referenced repatedly. People are talking about Amir's age, and I get that.... it's a valid point. But in the interest of the greater good (ie) the game of cricket, Amir should've been dealt a far heavier punishment.

 

[Antihippy]

Why would the 20 year old get a 10 year ban anyway when a precedent was set with amir?

Honestly, depends entirely on how you want to view the punishment. A 10 year ban honestly might as well be a life ban, because no one is going to come back after that long. A 5 year ban is already on the edge of a life ban depending on what age they were banned at (for example I very much doubt that asif would return to have a meaningful career), but for younger players, if the goal is to rehabilitate them it is just about the right time frame.

Also 5 years is a long time anyway. Especially if there are doubts if your prior convictions would grant you another opportunity to play the game professionally. I'd say most people would move on to another career at that point unless they're really dedicated.

If the goal is not rehabilitation but retribution you might as well just hand out life bans.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why would the 20 year old get a 10 year ban anyway when a precedent was set with amir?

Which is precisely the problem

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Who cares?

Posters like Flem and PEWS have said that they would like to see Amir get a second chance outside of cricket.

But a lot of people would care, even if you don't.

 

[cnerd123]

The ICC missed a huge opportunity to set a precedent by being ruthless after it had been proven beyond doubt that Amir was guilty. If a few years later a 20 year old gets caught in a similar scandal, what happens? If the ICC gives him, say, a 10 year ban, , there'll be idiots who will cry about it saying why 10 years for him when Amir only got 5. This is why sentences in such cases are so damn important.... they are landmark judgements which will be referenced repatedly. People are talking about Amir's age, and I get that.... it's a valid point. But in the interest of the greater good (ie) the game of cricket, Amir should've been dealt a far heavier punishment.

I see your point, but I hope the ICC will treat each case and each player's situation on its merit, instead of going on past precedents.

The precedent that needed to be set was to make it clear that contacting any ICC official when approached to fix would guarantee a player's safety.

Hopefully the next kid in Amir's situation will look back on this case, see how Amir was taken care of during the procedure, and feel safe and confident enough to approach the ICC despite any threats to his career or his life