Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Fusion]

They are completely different cases in my books (excuse the pun). One altered performance while another provided information that was publicly available anyway

Why did the bookies pay Waugh/Warne for publicly available information though? It’s all about influence isn’t it? That’s the argument I’m specifically discussing. When Amir’s defenders claim the no balls didn’t have an impact on the outcome of the game and hence his crime is not as bad as match fixing, the counter argument brought up is that he was in the bookie’s pockets and it’s reasonable to assume he would have done worse if asked. Of course we don’t know that for sure, but people argue that it’s a reasonable assumption. Well in that case, the same logic should be applied to Waugh/Warne. They took money from a bookie for something that doesn’t affect the outcome of the match, but if they were willing to take money from a bookie, then you can’t rule out something worse.

I want to make it clear that I don’t buy into the above argument. I just want Amir, and any other player, to be punished for what they actually did and not for something they might have done.

 

[Prince EWS]

When Amir’s defenders claim the no balls didn’t have an impact on the outcome of the game and hence his crime is not as bad as match fixing, the counter argument brought up is that he was in the bookie’s pockets and it’s reasonable to assume he would have done worse if asked.

That's not my counter argument though. To me it's not really about influence at all. My counter to that would be that the no-balls could well have had an impact on the outcome of the game - butterfly effect and all - and that his competitiveness was bought off, even just for that one ball. The game was a farce because both sides weren't doing everything in their power to win (or not lose) at all times; in the Warne/Waugh cause, that didn't happen. It doesn't mean they should go unpunished but it does mean, to me anyway, that what Amir/Asif did was a million times worse in a cricketing sense.

 

[Bun]

That's not my counter argument though. To me it's not really about influence at all. My counter to that would be that the no-balls could well have had an impact on the outcome of the game - butterfly effect and all - and that his competitiveness was bought off, even just for that one ball. The game was a farce because both sides weren't doing everything in their power to win (or not lose) at all times; in the Warne/Waugh cause, that didn't happen. It doesn't mean they should go unpunished but it does mean, to me anyway, that what Amir/Asif did was a million times worse in a cricketing sense.

Randiv bowled a noball to deny Sehwag a century in some random ODI. Does that mean Randiv should've been banned?

 

[four_or_six]

The no-balls definitely could have had an impact... didn't one get Trott in a tangle and nearly get him out? If that had been out and yet was a no-ball... we're talking giving the 9th best batsman of all time a life here. Also, given the pressure being applied by Amir and Asif through the series the runs from the no-balls may well have provided a release.

I wish there had been a wicket on one of the no-balls, it would stop people saying that bowling no-balls doesn't have an impact.

 

[fredfertang]

Randiv bowled a noball to deny Sehwag a century in some random ODI. Does that mean Randiv should've been banned?

If he took money to do it yes - if he did it just to be a **** then no, unsporting and reprehensible as that is in many ways

 

[Bun]

If he took money to do it yes - if he did it just to be a **** then no, unsporting and reprehensible as that is in many ways

Excellent, that settles the Warne/Waugh/TV debate then.

 

[fredfertang]

Excellent, that settles the Warne/Waugh/TV debate then.

Can't see how but hey ho if you're happy it does then so be it

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Why is everyone talking about Warne and Waugh. It happened a while ago, they got away with it just like Akram and other possible offenders. Their incident should not be used to decide whether Amir is guilty or not. He has been appropriately punished, and now our concern should be whether or not he goes to jail for it (hoping he doesn't).

 

[BoyBrumby]

I am not obligated to respond to this just because you think it is trolling.

I am merely pointing out that asif too was just damn too greedy and damn too foolish just like warn or waugh were.

We are just making up our definitions and compartmentalisations as we go on, aren't we? I mean it's pretty obvious what warne and waugh did and what amir did all fall in the same broad category, which is being dishonest and greedy and aiding in illegal bookmaking and taking a cut off the gains.

One assumes you're using the royal "we" there.

I'll just repeat what I said before, that there's no suggestion either Australian player ever underperformed as a result of taking money from a "bookmaker" for their ideas about the pitch/playing conditions. One could idly speculate as to why a bookmaker would pay so handsomely for such innocuous information, but it should be clear to any reasonably impartial observer that such a transgression is several shades milder than bowling no-balls to order.

To equate the two is to make the category you speak of so broad as to be meaningless. The sins have the same equivalence as a slap to the cheek does to a cricket bat swung with full force to the cranium; superficially in the same area but one patently more damaging.

I am surprised that people make light of what Waugh and Warne did (relatively speaking) to other “fixing” scandals. When Amir’s defenders try to put forth the argument that he only bowled a few no balls that didn’t affect the outcome of the game (an argument that I don’t agree with btw), the other side always counters that it was just a demonstration of the influence the bookie had over him. They argue that if Amir can be bought to bowl no balls, he could also be bought to do actual match fixing. Why is that argument not applied to Waugh/Warne? If they could be bought to provide inside match information (assuming that’s all they did), then the bookie now has influence over them. Just like it’s possible that Amir would’ve done more sinister things for money had he not been caught, couldn’t we say the same for Waugh/Warne?

Speaking only for myself I didn't mean to make light of their transgression; I only used them as an example of a governing board's leniency towards more useful players to compare to the RFL's largesse towards Martin Gleeson and Sean Long.

I wouldn't have had a problem with bans for either; taking money from criminals (which is what all bookmakers in India are, by definition) isn't a good look for anyone & the hushing up of the affair was also regrettable.

However, by deliberately bowling no-balls Aamer was already dishonestly influencing the outcome of a game, which makes his crime graver than Waugh's & Warne's.

 

[Sanz]

I am surprised that people make light of what Waugh and Warne did (relatively speaking) to other “fixing” scandals. When Amir’s defenders try to put forth the argument that he only bowled a few no balls that didn’t affect the outcome of the game (an argument that I don’t agree with btw), the other side always counters that it was just a demonstration of the influence the bookie had over him. They argue that if Amir can be bought to bowl no balls, he could also be bought to do actual match fixing. Why is that argument not applied to Waugh/Warne? If they could be bought to provide inside match information (assuming that’s all they did), then the bookie now has influence over them. Just like it’s possible that Amir would’ve done more sinister things for money had he not been caught, couldn’t we say the same for Waugh/Warne?

They didn’t express the views to the TV pundit though, they expressed it to a bookie. It’s a massive distinction. The bookie stands to make millions from that information, and will pay Waugh/Warne for the info. They thought it was harmless to provide that information, just like Amir could argue it was harmless to bowl the no balls. In each case, the player did something against the rules for money and we can safely argue that the bookie had influence over them.

Why did the bookies pay Waugh/Warne for publicly available information though? It’s all about influence isn’t it? That’s the argument I’m specifically discussing. When Amir’s defenders claim the no balls didn’t have an impact on the outcome of the game and hence his crime is not as bad as match fixing, the counter argument brought up is that he was in the bookie’s pockets and it’s reasonable to assume he would have done worse if asked. Of course we don’t know that for sure, but people argue that it’s a reasonable assumption. Well in that case, the same logic should be applied to Waugh/Warne. They took money from a bookie for something that doesn’t affect the outcome of the match, but if they were willing to take money from a bookie, then you can’t rule out something worse.

I want to make it clear that I don’t buy into the above argument. I just want Amir, and any other player, to be punished for what they actually did and not for something they might have done.

Pretty much sums up my feeling on the Warne/Waugh issue and the double standards applied.

 

[Jarquis]

The no-balls definitely could have had an impact... didn't one get Trott in a tangle and nearly get him out? If that had been out and yet was a no-ball... we're talking giving the 9th best batsman of all time a life here. Also, given the pressure being applied by Amir and Asif through the series the runs from the no-balls may well have provided a release.

I wish there had been a wicket on one of the no-balls, it would stop people saying that bowling no-balls doesn't have an impact.

Tbf the fact it was delivered from 2 yards closer to him than normal might have had something to do with why it rushed him. Just because he gets out to a no-ball doesn't mean he'd have gotten out to the same delivery if it was bowled legally because then it wouldn't be the same ball.
It's like when you play pool and miss your shot and the cue ball ends up in the perfect position. It wouldn't have ended up there if you'd potted the ball because everything would've been different.

 

[Furball]

However, by deliberately bowling no-balls Aamer was already dishonestly influencing the outcome of a game, which makes his crime graver than Waugh's & Warne's.

I can't believe this actually needed to be pointed out.

 

[four_or_six]

Tbf the fact it was delivered from 2 yards closer to him than normal might have had something to do with why it rushed him. Just because he gets out to a no-ball doesn't mean he'd have gotten out to the same delivery if it was bowled legally because then it wouldn't be the same ball.
It's like when you play pool and miss your shot and the cue ball ends up in the perfect position. It wouldn't have ended up there if you'd potted the ball because everything would've been different.

Yeah, I know. Just would have added an argument against people who say bowling no balls isn't really underperforming.

 

[jan]

Have 18 pages of this thread changed anybody's mind on the topic?

I read the whole thread to get some other points of view and pondered for a while...and the guy is still disgraceful **** and imho deserved a lifetime ban.


I would like to know Imran Khan's immediate opinion though...

 

[r3alist]

the rules are not that clear cut, there is wiggle room, lets try and apply some fair judgement?

to my mind intent is important - i think amir more likely got caught up in this rather than planned and connived to benefit from spot fixing - salman butt is the main culprit for that as captain.


asif, as a repeat offender has no legs to stand on, and it pains my to say that because i thought he was set to be the bowler of his generation (just look at his record!!)

i am satisfied with a 5 year ban, it leaves amir with a 50/50 chance of making it back as a pro, there is a fair chance he might be a **** bowler in a few years time by missing key years for development, but if he keeps his head down then he still has a bit of a chance.

and thats about right, a punishment should be a deterrent but it should also be fair.

would it really feel right to totally destroy amir, or would you rather go after salman butt?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

@ Realist

Now that Amir has come clean, it means that nobody was pressurising him to constantly lie, because if they had been (threats) then he would have still continued to defend himself as not guilty. It was his own stupid decision to support Butt and was also most likely involved in the whole thing rather than being coerced into it by Buttocks.

 

[Furball]

the rules are not that clear cut, there is wiggle room, lets try and apply some fair judgement?

to my mind intent is important - i think amir more likely got caught up in this rather than planned and connived to benefit from spot fixing - salman butt is the main culprit for that as captain.


asif, as a repeat offender has no legs to stand on, and it pains my to say that because i thought he was set to be the bowler of his generation (just look at his record!!)

i am satisfied with a 5 year ban, it leaves amir with a 50/50 chance of making it back as a pro, there is a fair chance he might be a **** bowler in a few years time by missing key years for development, but if he keeps his head down then he still has a bit of a chance.

and thats about right, a punishment should be a deterrent but it should also be fair.

would it really feel right to totally destroy amir, or would you rather go after salman butt?

Asif's previous indiscretions for being a dick should have no bearing on this particular instance of him being a dick, because they're nothing to do with the offence committed.

 

[r3alist]

@ Realist

Now that Amir has come clean, it means that nobody was pressurising him to constantly lie, because if they had been (threats) then he would have still continued to defend himself as not guilty. It was his own stupid decision to support Butt and was also most likely involved in the whole thing rather than being coerced into it by Buttocks.

this is really flawed.


the truth is that amir would be reading from a script and going on the advice he is given, his legal team probably thought it best for him to come clean.

what i can be certain of is that amir is not directing his defence, others are.

Asif's previous indiscretions for being a dick should have no bearing on this particular instance of him being a dick, because they're nothing to do with the offence committed.

if failing drug tests is just being a dick then you have a funny reading of the laws.

joking aside i am not going for a hard and fast following of the law, but in terms of my reading of the situation asif has proven he is a bad egg too many times, as far as i know he is just as guilty as amir, if not more.

 

[four_or_six]

So is this actually true then, that he's pleaded guilty? I still haven't seen anything on the BBC or cricinfo.

 

[Burgey]

@ Realist

Now that Amir has come clean, it means that nobody was pressurising him to constantly lie, because if they had been (threats) then he would have still continued to defend himself as not guilty. It was his own stupid decision to support Butt and was also most likely involved in the whole thing rather than being coerced into it by Buttocks.

People plead guilty to things for various reasons mate. And it happens all the time.