Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Burgey]

Yeah, another good opportunity for the Indian players to injure themselves before the Australian tour.

Tbf though, won't mind if Harbhajan is actually injured. Need to stick a fork in him.

I think they'll bring him here just to get Ponting out. Last time he came here I think he got very few wickets save for Ricky.

 

[Burgey]

It's not that simple at all. Gambling is legal and regulated in the United States, but there is a HUGE illegal gambling market here. Some estimate that for every $100 bet on sports, $99 are wagered illegally. Even if you could eliminate the illegal industry, you can't eliminate human nature to make money by cutting corners. For example, one of the most famous legendary baseball player, Pete Rose, was suspended from baseball for life for betting (using legal channels) on his own team! As long as there is money to be made, people will break the rules. It has nothing to do with the country in question or the legality of gambling, it has everything to do with greed.

Depends what you can bet on though, I suppose, and who can do it. There have been some instances here of AFL and NRL players placing bets on matches, but they were for things like first point scorers and the like (which I suppose is the equivalent of spot fixing in cricket).

There's an NRL player up before the courts here now over it. Melbourne being Melbourne, the AFL players got a small fine and of course won't be charged.

 

[Cevno]

Just gets back to the fact India should be banned from world cricket til it cleans up the cancer that is it's illegal bookmaking industry.

Should Ban England too then,since this incident happened there in a match played there? And the guy doing it has been born and bred in the UK and there authorities failed to prevent it. It would be toughest to do this sort of thing in India and with Indian players right now.

And It's not like India only has a bookmaking industry which operates illegaly or where illegal practices happen. Infact, i am not sure in this instance there would have been much interest in India on betting on a test match between Pakistan and England and that too on No balls and Spot betting.

Probably happened for the Middle east and Pakistan markets, i would think. Also there have been instances of Bookmaking/Matchfixing in other sports including Tennis and Football recently. Infact 2 Turkish football teams have just been kicked out of the European cup few days ago and so were Tennis players who were betting on themselves or having their friends do it in a legal market. Then there has been payment to referees in Europe.
Pretty convenient to bring up India every time, when it is a problem which is prevalent in lot of places including where betting is legalised and organised. Though, that would be a good step in India, it is easier said than done and it won't solve all the problems as you are putting it.I would doubt, it would have even have stopped any incident in the past in Cricket even.

 

[Burgey]

Yes, I would ban England too. Together with SA and SL.

I think that would get us to number one again

 

[centurymaker]

I think they'll bring him here just to get Ponting out. Last time he came here I think he got very few wickets save for Ricky.

and Ponting will hit him for sixes!!!

 

[The_Bunny]

It's not that simple at all. Gambling is legal and regulated in the United States, but there is a HUGE illegal gambling market here. Some estimate that for every $100 bet on sports, $99 are wagered illegally. Even if you could eliminate the illegal industry, you can't eliminate human nature to make money by cutting corners. For example, one of the most famous legendary baseball player, Pete Rose, was suspended from baseball for life for betting (using legal channels) on his own team! As long as there is money to be made, people will break the rules. It has nothing to do with the country in question or the legality of gambling, it has everything to do with greed.

Pretty sure that would include workplace and amongs friends bets like betting a carton on the grand final, illeagal bookies would be a very small percentage of that

 

[Fusion]

Pretty sure that would include workplace and amongs friends bets like betting a carton on the grand final, illeagal bookies would be a very small percentage of that

I’m sure betting amongst “friends” accounts for a large percentage of that number. However, illegal gambling in the form of online betting takes up a huge chunk as well. This 2003 article estimates that the government and the “legal” gambling industry loses $3 billion from illegal online gambling. That number surely has gone up in the subsequent 7 years. Also, to expand on my point that merely “regulating” the gambling will not cure sports from gambling scandals, here are some studies presented from the same article above:

• In 1998, a University of Michigan study found 35% of 758 student-athletes surveyed had gambled on sports and that 5% of the males had either provided inside information for gambling purposes, bet on their own games or accepted money to play poorly.

• In 2000 a University of Cincinnati study found 25.5% of the 648 Division I basketball and football players surveyed had gambled on college sports events, 3.7% on their games, and 0.5% had accepted money to play poorly.

 

[Athlai]

There was an interesting news story on the RWC on teams having bets that would cover their possible winnings if they won the WC, so if they lost and X team won, they'd still get paid the same.

 

[centurymaker]

There was an interesting news story on the RWC on teams having bets that would cover their possible winnings if they won the WC, so if they lost and X team won, they'd still get paid the same.

that should be illegal

 

[Prince EWS]

There was an interesting news story on the RWC on teams having bets that would cover their possible winnings if they won the WC, so if they lost and X team won, they'd still get paid the same.

Arbitraging prize money

It's definitely a bit dodgy, but I don't really have a big problem with it as the match itself would still be pure, as such.

 

[Jono]

Nah that's ****ed.

 

[centurymaker]

Nah that's ****ed.

agree.

imagine people's response, if the pakistani players did that.

 

[Burgey]

Arbitraging prize money

It's definitely a bit dodgy, but I don't really have a big problem with it as the match itself would still be pure, as such.

Can't agree wtih you there mate.

 

[Jono]

Yeah its woeful. Especially since you have no idea if they are actually putting that bet themself, and then getting their family members to put similar bets so they actually come out on top if they lose.

The fact is the only way to make sure there isn't anything dodgy going on is to have a blanket ban on betting on the sport, whether for your team or against, or whether matches involving your team or not.

 

[Burgey]

Yeah its woeful. Especially since you have no idea if they are actually putting that bet themself, and then getting their family members to put similar bets so they actually come out on top if they lose.

The fact is the only way to make sure there isn't anything dodgy going on is to have a blanket ban on betting on the sport, whether for your team or against, or whether matches involving your team or not.

Well, certainly in the context of a tournament like this one, where potentially all the matches impact on the standing of every other team, and who will play whom in the knockout stages, for sure.

But if, say, Australia is playing SA in a test at Cape Town, I don't see the problem if a Pommie cricketer walks into a betting shop in London and bangs a hundred on one side or the other. I can get why others might, but I don't see it as a problem myself.

 

[Furball]

Well, certainly in the context of a tournament like this one, where potentially all the matches impact on the standing of every other team, and who will play whom in the knockout stages, for sure.

But if, say, Australia is playing SA in a test at Cape Town, I don't see the problem if a Pommie cricketer walks into a betting shop in London and bangs a hundred on one side or the other. I can get why others might, but I don't see it as a problem myself.

Where do you draw the line though?

 

[Jono]

But if, say, Australia is playing SA in a test at Cape Town, I don't see the problem if a Pommie cricketer walks into a betting shop in London and bangs a hundred on one side or the other. I can get why others might, but I don't see it as a problem myself.

What if that Pommie cricketer happened to play IPL or Big Bash T20 cricket with an Aussie player a few weeks before the upcoming test match, and has learned that Watson is definitely not playing the test, even though this hasn't been revealed yet to everyone outside the Australian team? He then has inside information.

Too dodgy. Just blanket ban keeps it simple and the players aren't able to plead ignorance.

 

[Burgey]

What if that Pommie cricketer happened to play IPL or Big Bash T20 cricket with an Aussie player a few weeks before the upcoming test match, and has learned that Watson is definitely not playing the test, even though this hasn't been revealed yet to everyone outside the Australian team? He then has inside information.

Too dodgy. Just blanket ban keeps it simple and the players aren't able to plead ignorance.

Then he takes the bookie's cash I suppose. It becomes a question about remoteness I think. See, what if Lee Furlong walks into the TAB and puts the same bet on? (apart from there being a few VERY happy punters at that TAB)?

I see where you're coming from, mind you.

On the other point, I definitely think the legalisation of betting for the average punter is the way to go, in countries where it isn't happening. I remember my grandfather used to bet with SP bookies all the time, til the TAB came in in force. In fact, when he was awarded an OAM in 1985 for "services to sport and the community" in the Queens Birthday honours, I walked into his house to congratulate him and he was on the phone to his SP bookie at the time! So it was very wide spread, and I don't hink he saw the irony in that at all.

This is not something which got a mention at the investiture at Government House, I should say. But it was something to which a blind eye was very much turned. If you want further evidence, I commend Bill Deane's excellent address to the NSW Racehorse Owner's Association dinner in 1996 as further evidence.

One of the great Australian speeches too.

 

[Jono]

*insert joke about Burgey's age and phones*

 

[Burgey]

*insert phone in Jono's arse*