Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Agent Nationaux]

What I am trying to say is that in this trial so far, the prosecution's opening statement and defence has all been about Amir, Majeed and Butt. The only mention of Asif has been that he was in the video and that Majeed claims he is a fixer. So if this is all that they have then Asif (if found not guilty because of it) can appeal to the CAS (obviously they have the power to retract his 5 years) and say Butt told me to bowl a no-ball because he is the captain, then how can the CAS reject this. I realise they don't need as much proof as the crown court but it's not enough that he is only in the video or that Majeed claims that he is a fixer.

It's basically his word against Majeed's.

 

[Prince EWS]

What I am trying to say is that in this trial so far, the prosecution's opening statement and defence has all been about Amir, Majeed and Butt. The only mention of Asif has been that he was in the video and that Majeed claims he is a fixer. So if this is all that they have then Asif (if found not guilty because of it) can appeal to the CAS (obviously they have the power to retract his 5 years) and say Butt told me to bowl a no-ball because he is the captain, then how can the CAS reject this. I realise they don't need as much proof as the crown court but it's not enough that he is only in the video or that Majeed claims that he is a fixer.

It's basically his word against Majeed's.

Nah mate. They've already made a decision on that. Whatever evidence was provided at the ICC hearing was deemed enough to ban him. Unless there's new evidence, which as far as I can tell there isn't (lack of evidence at another hearing certainly isn't new evidence), then it won't be re-visited. They've already gone through the process and they've made their decision on it - maybe there was evidence brought forward in that hearing that, for one reason or another, has been deemed inadmissable in court, or maybe they just happened to disagree with you entirely. There's no way they're going to have another ICC hearing or a CAS reversal or whatever the **** you're talking about just because they couldn't be proven guilty in an entirely system with an entirely different standard of proof and entirely different laws of evidence. Nothing has changed; they would've gone through all that at the original hearing, and they came to their decision.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I guess we will only know if there was more evidence against Asif when the trial concludes.

 

[Furball]

What I am trying to say is that in this trial so far, the prosecution's opening statement and defence has all been about Amir, Majeed and Butt. The only mention of Asif has been that he was in the video and that Majeed claims he is a fixer. So if this is all that they have then Asif (if found not guilty because of it) can appeal to the CAS (obviously they have the power to retract his 5 years) and say Butt told me to bowl a no-ball because he is the captain, then how can the CAS reject this. I realise they don't need as much proof as the crown court but it's not enough that he is only in the video or that Majeed claims that he is a fixer.

It's basically his word against Majeed's.

They're not standing trial for spot-fixing though; the fact that Asif bowled a no-ball when Majeed said he would IMO is enough proof to ban him for spot fixing.

The lack of any of the NOTW's money making its way into Asif's pockets (I'm talking literally here) might cast doubt as to whether he was in on this grand conspiracy to defraud bookmakers and might see him get a not guilty verdict, but that doesn't exonerate him in the slightest from the spot-fixing issue; Majeed said he would bowl a no-ball and named the specific delivery when this no-ball would be delivered and Asif obliged. That's enough evidence IMO for the ICC to decide to get rid of him from the game.

 

[Prince EWS]

I guess we will only know if there was more evidence against Asif when the trial concludes.

It doesn't matter though, from an ICC banning perspective.

The only way it'll be re-visited, as I said, is if there's actually new evidence that proves he wasn't involved. You not thinking there's enough evidence introduced in a proceeding where the laws of evidence and standard of proof are entirely different really doesn't matter at all.

That's not to say they won't try to appeal it if found not guilty, but unless something new comes up (and again, I must stress that something not coming up isn't something new) they'll have no real grounds for it and get nowhere.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

They're not standing trial for spot-fixing though; the fact that Asif bowled a no-ball when Majeed said he would IMO is enough proof to ban him for spot fixing.

The lack of any of the NOTW's money making its way into Asif's pockets (I'm talking literally here) might cast doubt as to whether he was in on this grand conspiracy to defraud bookmakers and might see him get a not guilty verdict, but that doesn't exonerate him in the slightest from the spot-fixing issue; Majeed said he would bowl a no-ball and named the specific delivery when this no-ball would be delivered and Asif obliged. That's enough evidence IMO for the ICC to decide to get rid of him from the game.

But why? There is a legitimate reason to explain this. Butt tells Asif to bowl a no-ball because he is captain and Asif says, yes sir. If no further evidence, and if you were the judge at the hearing, would you seriously hand over a 5 year ban for this.

 

[Prince EWS]

But why? There is a legitimate reason to explain this. Butt tells Asif to bowl a no-ball because he is captain and Asif says, yes sir. If no further evidence, and if you were the judge at the hearing, would you seriously hand over a 5 year ban for this.

Well they did. And you not liking the outcome isn't grounds for appeal.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It doesn't matter though, from an ICC banning perspective.

The only way it'll be re-visited, as I said, is if there's actually new evidence that proves he wasn't involved. You not thinking there's enough evidence introduced in a proceeding where the laws of evidence and standard of proof are entirely different really doesn't matter at all.

That's not to say they won't try to appeal it if found not guilty, but unless something new comes up (and again, I must stress that something not coming up isn't something new) they'll have no real grounds for it and get nowhere.

You misunderstood. All I meant was that at this stage we know nothing about what other evidence there is and that we will only know when the trial concludes. I wasn't talking about the ICC perspective at all.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Well they did. And you not liking the outcome isn't grounds for appeal.

I didn't say that I am not liking it (Asif is an ass, and he probably did it), I am just saying that it's outrageous.

 

[Prince EWS]

I didn't say that I am not liking it (Asif is an ass, and he probably did it), I am just saying that it's outrageous.

You thinking it's outrageous isn't grounds for appeal either.

Whether or not there's actually enough evidence to ban him is completely irrelevant at this point, I'm afraid to say, because they've already had a hearing to determine that and decided to ban him. Unless there is compelling new evidence, the matter has been decided.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

But it certainly is outrageous.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

That's why I think there is more evidence which the prosecution hasn't mentioned yet. They are only just getting started.

 

[four_or_six]

I think it's pretty fair to say there'll be some amount of uproar in the cricketing world if one of them is found not guilty. Not saying that it matters for the suspension, obviously it doesn't, but politically it would be a very tricky situation.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

You thinking it's outrageous isn't grounds for appeal either.

Whether or not there's actually enough evidence to ban him is completely irrelevant at this point, I'm afraid to say, because they've already had a hearing to determine that and decided to ban him. Unless there is compelling new evidence, the matter has been decided.

So he could appeal on the basis of a sham ICC hearing or something along those lines, or he could sue (provided that it was the only evidence against him).

 

[Prince EWS]

So he could appeal on the basis of a sham ICC hearing or something along those lines, or he could sue (provided that it was the only evidence against him).

Again - disagreeing with the outcome is not grounds for appeal.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

It could happen to anyone. New kid in the team, Captain tells him to bowl a no-ball and then he finds out that the Captain had conspired with bookie for spot fixing. He claims innocence (and he really is) but he is vilified. ICC has a hearing and they decide he is guilty based on the fact that bookie had predicted when he was going to bowl the no-ball.

I will be absolutely disgusted if it turns out that this is the only evidence that they have against Asif. That is why I think there must be more which they haven't presented yet (remember that they are using the same evidence from the ICC hearing, because they had it hushed up in the UK).

 

[Furball]

But why? There is a legitimate reason to explain this. Butt tells Asif to bowl a no-ball because he is captain and Asif says, yes sir. If no further evidence, and if you were the judge at the hearing, would you seriously hand over a 5 year ban for this.

Of course an innocent bowler would oblige with a no-ball when his captain asks him to bowl one. It's a genius tactic.

 

[four_or_six]

But why? There is a legitimate reason to explain this. Butt tells Asif to bowl a no-ball because he is captain and Asif says, yes sir. If no further evidence, and if you were the judge at the hearing, would you seriously hand over a 5 year ban for this.

Maybe not if this was the truth, and they'd pleaded guilty at the ICC hearing and dropped Butt in it. But the fact neither of them did makes you think they were both in deeper than this.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Of course an innocent bowler would oblige with a no-ball when his captain asks him to bowl one. It's a genius tactic.

Yes in Pakistan cricket they would. Plus bowling a deliberate no-ball isn't a crime. It's only a crime if the person is involved in fixing.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Maybe not if this was the truth, and they'd pleaded guilty at the ICC hearing and dropped Butt in it. But the fact neither of them did makes you think they were both in deeper than this.

That is an interesting point. I think they failed to capitalise on that. I am sure they know what evidence the ICC had against them and if this was all that they had then they should have put it all on Butt (I would have).