Mohammed Amir cleared to return with immediate effect

[OverratedSanity]

D Lo

 

[smash84]

So Sir Flannigan has bought into the "grooming for corruption act"

ACSU chief Ronnie Flanagan defends Amir's early return | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Agent Nationaux]

None of whom, as I understand it, have said you can **** off if you don't like it. Nor have they forecast the onset of world war three.

Truth be told you've surpassed yourself in this one.

Where have I forecasted WW3?

I said there could be a diplomatic mess if Pakistan pushes for his Visa and the UK refuses. But most likely they will come to an agreement and Amir will be cleared to play.

Surpassed myself? What does that mean.

 

[sledger]

lol

 

[Furball]

Where have I forecasted WW3?

I said there could be a diplomatic mess if Pakistan pushes for his Visa and the UK refuses. But most likely they will come to an agreement and Amir will be cleared to play.

Surpassed myself? What does that mean.

Why would the UK government allow a convicted criminal back into the country to work at the same thing he was doing when he was convicted?

 

[Flem274*]

Mohammad amir being the next franz ferdinand is a first. I guess AN will get his wish for those of us who disagree with amirs return to **** off after we get a whiff of mustard gas in the ensuing global war for freedom*



*tto fix cricket matches

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Mohammad amir being the next franz ferdinand is a first. I guess AN will get his wish for those of us who disagree with amirs return to **** off after we get a whiff of mustard gas in the ensuing global war for freedom*



*tto fix cricket matches

Don't be so dramatic

 

[Flem274*]

Im not the one predicting an international scandal if amir is barred from ebtering england

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Im not the one predicting an international scandal if amir is barred from ebtering england

Mustard Gas and assassinations? You are really morbid and over the top.

You must have been really shocked when Ijaz Butt caused a mess last time. The PCB is very much capable of doing something stupid and their patron is the prime minister of Pakistan who is a bigger idiot than Ijaz Butt. I didn't say it will happen but there is a chance someone will do something stupid.

 

[marc71178]

In that case the British Government should just turn round to the Pakstani Government and say "he's banned because of our laws and if you disagree you can just **** off" then. Surely you'd agree with that course of action?

 

[hendrix]

Michael Atherton's piece in 2012. It is very sympathetic to Amir, but it also details most of the cold hard facts that many wouldn't know about. You can read about them there.

Anyway, some opinion quotes:
"Me? I thank God that I did not, at seventeen years of age, find myself in the kind of dressing room that Amir walked into."

"It seems to me that there are only two interpretations that follow on from Amir’s version of events. Either you believe him, which doesn’t in any way exonerate him from the guilt of the no-balls at Lord’s, but does provide some context and understanding of the hole he found himself in and the pressure he was under- context that suggests that much of the basis upon which he was imprisoned and banned from the game was false. Or you don’t believe him."

 

[Agent Nationaux]

In that case the British Government should just turn round to the Pakstani Government and say "he's banned because of our laws and if you disagree you can just **** off" then. Surely you'd agree with that course of action?

Yeah

 

[sledger]

Michael Atherton's piece in 2012. It is very sympathetic to Amir, but it also details most of the cold hard facts that many wouldn't know about. You can read about them there.

Anyway, some opinion quotes:
"Me? I thank God that I did not, at seventeen years of age, find myself in the kind of dressing room that Amir walked into."

"It seems to me that there are only two interpretations that follow on from Amir’s version of events. Either you believe him, which doesn’t in any way exonerate him from the guilt of the no-balls at Lord’s, but does provide some context and understanding of the hole he found himself in and the pressure he was under- context that suggests that much of the basis upon which he was imprisoned and banned from the game was false. Or you don’t believe him."

No, I'm sorry but this is nonsense. The reason he was imprisoned and banned was because he cheated, this is not in dispute. The context might provide provide some mitigation for what he did, which seems to be what you are alluding to, but to suggest these sanctions were/are premised on dubious grounds is hogwash.

 

[hendrix]

No, I'm sorry but this is nonsense. The reason he was imprisoned and banned was because he cheated, this is not in dispute. The context might provide provide some mitigation for what he did, which seems to be what you are alluding to, but to suggest these sanctions were/are premised on dubious grounds is hogwash.

you need to read the rest of the article to understand why he's making that point.

My knowledge of gambling and markets (I had written a book about gambling a few years before) led me to believe that it was not easy to place a bet on the timing of a specific no-ball. Majeed’s evident surprise in his conversation with the journalist on the night of the 26th August (‘so you can place on no-balls then?’) suggested that suspicion was accurate. After all, if you were a bookie, and a punter asked for a bet on a specific ball of a specific over, alarm bells would certainly start to ring.

The evidence of the meetings between the journalist and the fixer suggests the initial impetus for the no-balls came from the journalist. Given that fixing is notoriously difficult to prove, a no-ball would be a most obvious proof of manipulation. When, earlier, Majeed was quoted on the evening of the 25th (the eve of the Lord’s Test) promising the no balls, this was the culmination of many days of pressure from the journalist.

The justification for the scoop was that it shone a light on corrupt practices within the Pakistan team.

The NOTW spent £150,000 on procuring three no-balls to prove that three Pakistan cricketers were corruptible but, contrary to Justice Cooke’s remarks at trial, it is likely that no bets on these could have been made. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice, in his summing up after Amir’s and Butt’s appeal, fell into this trap when he called it a ‘betting scam.’ It was no such thing. Justice Cooke awarded no costs to the newspaper, saying it had got what it bargained for. It was £150,000 essentially to prove that three men had their price.

 

[hendrix]

No, I'm sorry but this is nonsense. The reason he was imprisoned and banned was because he cheated, this is not in dispute. The context might provide provide some mitigation for what he did, which seems to be what you are alluding to, but to suggest these sanctions were/are premised on dubious grounds is hogwash.

you need to read the rest of the article to understand why he's making that point. Some of the sanctions were on dubious grounds, but yeah I agree that sentence is a bit over the top.

My knowledge of gambling and markets (I had written a book about gambling a few years before) led me to believe that it was not easy to place a bet on the timing of a specific no-ball. Majeed’s evident surprise in his conversation with the journalist on the night of the 26th August (‘so you can place on no-balls then?’) suggested that suspicion was accurate. After all, if you were a bookie, and a punter asked for a bet on a specific ball of a specific over, alarm bells would certainly start to ring.

The evidence of the meetings between the journalist and the fixer suggests the initial impetus for the no-balls came from the journalist. Given that fixing is notoriously difficult to prove, a no-ball would be a most obvious proof of manipulation. When, earlier, Majeed was quoted on the evening of the 25th (the eve of the Lord’s Test) promising the no balls, this was the culmination of many days of pressure from the journalist.

The justification for the scoop was that it shone a light on corrupt practices within the Pakistan team.

The NOTW spent £150,000 on procuring three no-balls to prove that three Pakistan cricketers were corruptible but, contrary to Justice Cooke’s remarks at trial, it is likely that no bets on these could have been made. Indeed, the Lord Chief Justice, in his summing up after Amir’s and Butt’s appeal, fell into this trap when he called it a ‘betting scam.’ It was no such thing. Justice Cooke awarded no costs to the newspaper, saying it had got what it bargained for. It was £150,000 essentially to prove that three men had their price.

 

[sledger]

I don't see anything written here that suggests in any way that Amir's conviction was unsafe.

 

[hendrix]

I don't see anything written here that suggests in any way that Amir's conviction was unsafe.

The aim of the sting was to prove that Amir was corrupt, not that he was corruptible. They failed.

There's damning phone evidence to prove that Butt was corrupt before the sting, but there was not evidence to prove that Amir was.

Furthermore, while Butt was very clearly taking part to prove his loyalty for future fixes and therefore was doing it for financial gain, Amir wasn't.

 

[Fusion]

The aim of the sting was to prove that Amir was corrupt, not that he was corruptible. They failed.

There's damning phone evidence to prove that Butt was corrupt before the sting, but there was not evidence to prove that Amir was.

Furthermore, while Butt was very clearly taking part to prove his loyalty for future fixes and therefore was doing it for financial gain, Amir wasn't.

But he got himself in a position to be pressured because he dealt with unsavory characters. That is, of course, if you even believe his version of the events in the first place. I think his imprisonment was deserved. He made the wrong choice, no matter what the circumstances, and hence needed to be punished. To me though, the circumstances do come into play in determining the length of the punishment and his return to cricket. That's why I'm in favor of him being allowed back.

 

[sledger]

Are you honestly trying to argue that 3 of the highest-ranking judges in the UK were wrong on a question of law on the basis of the word of Michael Atherton?

Edit: @ Hendrix

 

[hendrix]

I said that I don't go so far as Atherton suggests, I was merely explaining his point.