Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[morgieb]

tbf to AN, if Asif is found not guilty, then it could be good grounds for appeal....and I'm not sure whether the ICC trial was a fair one.

 

[zaremba]

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).

Asif was hardly a "new kid in the team". And does anyone really believe he would bowl a no ball out of unthinking and unquestioning loyalty to his captain without suspecting that there was something up? I'd have thought if Butt did that, there'd have been a conversation between the two - with Asif basically asking WTF skipper? - that would've been obvious to the TV cameras.

 

[morgieb]

Asif was hardly a "new kid in the team". And does anyone really believe he would bowl a no ball out of unthinking and unquestioning loyalty to his captain without suspecting that there was something up? I'd have thought if Butt did that, there'd have been a conversation between the two - with Asif basically asking WTF skipper? - that would've been obvious to the TV cameras.

Yeah I agree.

Having said that, how much evidence was there that Asif was bowling a deliberate no-ball?

 

[Prince EWS]

tbf to AN, if Asif is found not guilty, then it could be good grounds for appeal

I'm sure he'll try to appeal it; I really don't personally feel it should be grounds though, and I really don't think it'd get anwyay. It's not like Asif is going to be found innocent by a court of law; if found not guilty all it will show is that a different system with a different standard of proof and different laws of evidence could not prove his guilt. Unless there is new evidence, the decisions made in the ICC hearing are still completely valid.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Asif was hardly a "new kid in the team". And does anyone really believe he would bowl a no ball out of unthinking and unquestioning loyalty to his captain without suspecting that there was something up? I'd have thought if Butt did that, there'd have been a conversation between the two - with Asif basically asking WTF skipper? - that would've been obvious to the TV cameras.

It's not about believing, showing emotions on the cricket field or questioning the skipper right there and then. It's about knowing that he did it because he was involved in the matter rather than him being used by his captain.

Regarding the new kid, I was just using an example to say that it could happen to anyone.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

I'm sure he'll try to appeal it; I really don't personally feel it should be grounds though, and I really don't think it'd get anwyay. It's not like Asif is going to be found innocent by a court of law; if found not guilty all it will show is that a different system with a different standard of proof and different laws of evidence could not prove his guilt. Unless there is new evidence, the decisions made in the ICC hearing are still completely valid.

I am not a legal expert but won't the CAS have to consider the court case.

I f I was on the panel of the CAS appeal and I watched the trial in the UK and noticed that Asif had been banned on the basis of the video alone (again I use my point that what if he was being used), I would seriously consider overturning the ban.

 

[Furball]

It's not about believing, showing emotions on the cricket field or questioning the skipper right there and then. It's about knowing that he did it because he was involved in the matter rather than him being used by his captain.

Regarding the new kid, I was just using an example to say that it could happen to anyone.

You'd seriously have to consider the intelligence of anyone (yes, even a fast bowler) who deliberately bowls no-balls just because his captain asks him to.

 

[Fusion]

IIRC (which I probably don't), wasn't Asif's defense that he was asked to bowl a short one to intimidate the batsman and merely overstepped? Or was that something they said to Waqar when he inquired about the no-ball at the end of play that day?

 

[Furball]

I am not a legal expert but won't the CAS have to consider the court case.

Why?

 

[Furball]

IIRC (which I probably don't), wasn't Asif's defense that he was asked to bowl a short one to intimidate the batsman and merely overstepped? Or was that something they said to Waqar when he inquired about the no-ball at the end of play that day?

Wasn't that Amir's defence?

 

[Agent Nationaux]

IIRC (which I probably don't), wasn't Asif's defense that he was asked to bowl a short one to intimidate the batsman and merely overstepped? Or was that something they said to Waqar when he inquired about the no-ball at the end of play that day?

Another interesting point. Asif's defence is that he overstepped by accident. It's interesting because why didn't he blame it on Butt.

 

[zaremba]

It's not about believing, showing emotions on the cricket field or questioning the skipper right there and then. It's about knowing that he did it because he was involved in the matter rather than him being used by him.

No, it's about having a grip on reality. In reality, no-one would ever behave like that. Not the bowler. And not Butt. Is Butt really going to accept money to arrange for a no ball to be bowled without first having the bowler on board, and then execute his plan in the full gaze of HD television cameras by asking a bowler, whose reaction he cannot predict, to do such an incomprehensible thing as to bowl a no ball?

 

[Prince EWS]

I am not a legal expert but won't the CAS have to consider the court case.

Not really.

 

[morgieb]

Wasn't that Amir's defence?

Nah I vaguely remember that being Asif's defence...

Does the CAS have to have as much proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' as a court of law?

 

[morgieb]

I think that Asif definitely bowled the no-ball intentionally, but I'm not sure whether it had links to match-fixing, either.....

 

[Agent Nationaux]

You'd seriously have to consider the intelligence of anyone (yes, even a fast bowler) who deliberately bowls no-balls just because his captain asks him to.

Or he could be using stupidity to get out of the fact that he did actually cheat.

Why?

Read the part below that. But I don't know myself because as i said I am not an expert. Maybe Fred can explain.

Wasn't that Amir's defence?

Yes it was. (He thinks of Butt as an older brother so would never blame it on him )

 

[Agent Nationaux]

No, it's about having a grip on reality. In reality, no-one would ever behave like that. Not the bowler. And not Butt. Is Butt really going to accept money to arrange for a no ball to be bowled without first having the bowler on board, and then execute his plan in the full gaze of HD television cameras by asking a bowler, whose reaction he cannot predict, to do such an incomprehensible thing as to bowl a no ball?

Didn't Dilshan do that to deny Sehwag his century. IIRC, the bowler obeyed. No reaction there on live TV.

 

[Furball]

Another interesting point. Asif's defence is that he overstepped by accident. It's interesting because why didn't he blame it on Butt.

Do I really need to spell that one out?

 

[morgieb]

Or he could be using stupidity to get out of the fact that he did actually cheat.



Read the part below that. But I don't know myself because as i said I am not an expert. Maybe Fred can explain.



Yes it was. (He thinks of Butt as an older brother so would never blame it on him )

Well I'm pretty sure (though maybe not) that Asif has a brain bigger than the size of a peanut, so that seems pretty stupid.

 

[Furball]

Didn't Dilshan do that to deny Sehwag his century. IIRC, the bowler obeyed. No reaction there on live TV.

That's because Randiv and Dilshan are dicks. FWIW, I'd have banned both men for that incident as well.