-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Mohammed Amir cleared to return with immediate effect
- Thread starter cnerd123
- Start date
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
because, as mentioned about 3 times, and as detailed in the Atherton article, no bookmaker accepts bets on when no balls will be delivered. The agent himself wasn't aware that you could place bets on no balls.
You cannot win money by fixing no balls, unless it's part of a block of runs scored - which it very clearly wasn't.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Yeah, but you, like Atherton, are using the dictionary definition of gambling.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
what definition should I be using?
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Given you are questioning the validity of of Amir's conviction, I'd suggest the legal definition.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
can you provide the legal definition?
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Indeed.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
Who could have thought that a guy named Butt was corrupt?
If there's ever a cricketer named Arse, watch out.
If there's ever a cricketer named Arse, watch out.
GIMH
Norwood's on Fire
Like there's any other type
OverratedSanity
Request Your Custom Title Now!
See now this is crap. I can sympathise a tad with amir that he was pressurized by Butt and Asif. But he always had a choice. Regardless of outside pressure, Amir at the end of the day made his own decision. If Amir himself believes he "had no choice" then it simply shows that his moral compass was ****ed up.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
I agree.
Amir hasn't said that though. If you read the Atherton article all his quotes represent profound disappointment in himself.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
Right, so first off...
S.3 of the Gambling Act 2005 states that "gambling" means "gaming", "betting" or "participating in a lottery".
S.9 then defines betting as "making or accepting a bet on—
(a)the outcome of a race, competition or other event or process,
(b)the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring, or
(c)whether anything is or is not true"
It is further made clear that "A transaction that relates to the likelihood of anything occurring or not occurring" will satisfy the definition of "betting".
S.42 of the Gambling Act then specifies that an individual will be guilty of a criminal offence if he cheats at gambling, or does anything which enables or assists another person to cheat at gambling.
So then, if one attempts to do something which unfairly influences something which can be described in the manner above, they will be guilty of the offence of cheating.
Now, significantly, of course, Amir and Co were convicted of conspiracy to cheat, not cheating itself. Generally speaking, a person will be guilty of conspiring to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime he: purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be. On 19th August Mazhir Mahmood, Mazhar Majeed and Salman Butt met at a restaurant in London, exchanged £10,000 for the delivery of two no balls, and agreed that on the next day information would be given about a bracket on which a bet could be made on the day after. This clearly evidences the intention of Amir and co to cheat. You have mentioned several times that the fact that in your opinion conspiracy to cheat at gambling has a lot to do with whether the no balls in question could actually have resulted in cheating at gambling, but I am afraid the law takes an entirely different view of things. The fact that arguably no cheating at gambling could have occurred is completely irrelevant. Amir and co clearly intended to cheat and break the law, and that is all that is required in order to constitute the offence. Impossibility is no defence to conspiracy where the conditions creating said impossibility are unknown to the actor. His conviction is absolutely sound as a pound, and the renowned legal eagle Michael Atherton wading in with his trite comments are totally unhelpful.