Butt/Amir/Asif - Spot Fixing Trial

[Burgey]

Don't mean to be a **** but its a ****ty system which can take away someone's right to earn a living.

Why is it? The onus of proof still lies on the party who wants to assert something - so if I sue you and say you were negligent and caused me harm, as an example, I have to prove it, you don't need to utter a thing except put me to proof of my claim - because (s)he who asserts must prove. It's just that in a civil case I have to prove it to the equivalent of a set of scales being tipped in my favour. In a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove it to the point where (for want of a better analogy) the scales are almost tipping over because the evidence is weighted so far its way.

 

[smash84]

I had the option of taking up Law as a career.

After going through this thread,i'm Glad i chose Banking.

Show me the money bitches!

Isn't that why they are in court to begin with?

As per PEWS's (excellent) it may be more helpful to think of the "standard of proof" rather than "burden of proof".

In a disciplinary tribunal the burden of proof is still on the "prosecution" just as in a criminal case. However the burden in a criminal case is to prove the case so that the jury is sure (or if you prefer "beyond reasonable doubt") whereas in many disciplinary tribunals the burden is to prove the case on the balance of probabilities - ie a much lower hurdle than that faced by the prosecution in a criminal trial.

To take a ridiculously oversimplified example, imagine if the evidence showed that there was a 75% probability that a player was guilty of a particular act, which was both a criminal offence and a breach of the disciplinary rules applicable to a particular sport, and the player was put through both a disciplinary procedure and a criminal trial. The jury in the criminal trial would be duty bound to acquit, whereas the tribunal in the disciplinary case would be bound to find the player guilty.

In a nutshell, this is one of the reasons why an acquittal for Butt and Asif should not lead the ICC to reconsider its verdict. The other reasons are explained by PEWS.

Awesome post yet again.

Zaremba at home turf

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Why is it? The onus of proof still lies on the party who wants to assert something - so if I sue you and say you were negligent and caused me harm, as an example, I have to prove it, you don't need to utter a thing except put me to proof of my claim - because (s)he who asserts must prove. It's just that in a civil case I have to prove it to the equivalent of a set of scales being tipped in my favour. In a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove it to the point where (for want of a better analogy) the scales are almost tipping over because the evidence is weighted so far its way.

Faisal is right in that it can lead the ruin of a career. Let's use my example of Asif being innocent and Butt conspiring with Majeed for the no-ball. Majeed then proceeds to 'sell the fix' to the fake NOTW journalist who now has it on tape that Asif will bowl a no-ball in the second over. Butt on the other end pressurises Asif that to bowl the no-ball in the second over. In this situation using the civil case example, the video evidence is enough to tip the scales and therefore an innocent guy loses his right to earn from cricket.

This example can potentially happen.

 

[hang on]

Faisal is right in that it can lead the ruin of a career. Let's use my example of Asif being innocent and Butt conspiring with Majeed for the no-ball. Majeed then proceeds to 'sell the fix' to the fake NOTW journalist who now has it on tape that Asif will bowl a no-ball in the second over. Butt on the other end pressurises Asif that to bowl the no-ball in the second over. In this situation using the civil case example, the video evidence is enough to tip the scales and therefore an innocent guy loses his right to earn from cricket.

This example can potentially happen.

wouldn't the key be in this ie the bolded bit? surely a bowler would think that something weird was going on if his captain is purposely asking him to bowl a noball. though, perhaps, it is possible if the captain wanted to deny an opposing batsman the opportunity to reach a 100 or something along those lines.

then the defence would have to indicate that that is what happened. or that it was a coincidence. however, given asif's previous, that line of argumentation from the defence would need to accompanied by the salt flats of utah, i presume.

 

[Burgey]

Faisal is right in that it can lead the ruin of a career. Let's use my example of Asif being innocent and Butt conspiring with Majeed for the no-ball. Majeed then proceeds to 'sell the fix' to the fake NOTW journalist who now has it on tape that Asif will bowl a no-ball in the second over. Butt on the other end pressurises Asif that to bowl the no-ball in the second over. In this situation using the civil case example, the video evidence is enough to tip the scales and therefore an innocent guy loses his right to earn from cricket.

This example can potentially happen.

Yes it can, but if that's the case then it's open to his lawyer to defend him on the basis he didn't know a fix was in. If he doesn't come up to the mark, he loses. That's the case in any hearing anywhere. It's the same in one of the cases I have tomorrow. It was the same in the St Sachin of the Selective Deafness case out here on India's last tour. One side will win, the other won't.

The second thing it raises, as has been noted in this thread any number of times, is why a captain would instruct him to bowl a no ball deliberately. In that sitaution, at a disciplinary hearing, wouldn't the ICC have a right to ask the bloke why he didn't ask for a quiet word in the umpire's shell-like to tell him what his captain was doing?

Anyway, I suppose we wait and see

 

[zaremba]

I am not a lawyer, but did take a couple of criminal law courses in University. I never knew that their were 2 aspects to the burden of proof (my lack of knowledge)....To me burden of proof only refers to the fact that the prosecution has to prove the guilt and the defendant doesn't have to prove the innocence mind you in terror cases this has been reversed, especially in Canada by way of Bill C36. And as far as standard of proof is concerned its different from Burden of Proof, as far as my knowledge was it is always decided before the case whether the proof or evidence on hand makes legitimate grounds for invoking criminal charges or whether the prosecution believes that they have reasonable grounds to press charges and win a conviction. So this is a first for me that Burden of Proof also implies standard of proof.

I'm sure you're right but I wasn't seeking to set out strict legal definitions but rather to explain the sense in which the term "burden of proof" was used by GF and others. Neither GF nor anyone else was suggesting that it was for the players to establish their innocence in the ICC proceedings.

 

[smash84]

Yes it can, but if that's the case then it's open to his lawyer to defend him on the basis he didn't know a fix was in. If he doesn't come up to the mark, he loses. That's the case in any hearing anywhere. It's the same in one of the cases I have tomorrow. It was the same in the St Sachin of the Selective Deafness case out here on India's last tour. One side will win, the other won't.

The second thing it raises, as has been noted in this thread any number of times, is why a captain would instruct him to bowl a no ball deliberately. In that sitaution, at a disciplinary hearing, wouldn't the ICC have a right to ask the bloke why he didn't ask for a quiet word in the umpire's shell-like to tell him what his captain was doing?

Anyway, I suppose we wait and see

 

[Furball]

Why?

Because they're still massively guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Yes it can, but if that's the case then it's open to his lawyer to defend him on the basis he didn't know a fix was in. If he doesn't come up to the mark, he loses. That's the case in any hearing anywhere. It's the same in one of the cases I have tomorrow. It was the same in the St Sachin of the Selective Deafness case out here on India's last tour. One side will win, the other won't.

The second thing it raises, as has been noted in this thread any number of times, is why a captain would instruct him to bowl a no ball deliberately. In that sitaution, at a disciplinary hearing, wouldn't the ICC have a right to ask the bloke why he didn't ask for a quiet word in the umpire's shell-like to tell him what his captain was doing?

Anyway, I suppose we wait and see

No, I was just giving an example where a person like Asif could be innocent. We know Asif didn't use the defence that Butt told him to bowl a no-ball and if he had he would be very unconvincing.

But yeah it would be odd for Asif to bowl a no-ball without question/argument if Butt asked him unless he himself thought that his speed would increase significantly, which for Asif we know isn't true.

 

[Faisal1985]

Because they're still massively guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.

That's a conviction of a biased mind without a fair trial.

 

[Faisal1985]

Why is it? The onus of proof still lies on the party who wants to assert something - so if I sue you and say you were negligent and caused me harm, as an example, I have to prove it, you don't need to utter a thing except put me to proof of my claim - because (s)he who asserts must prove. It's just that in a civil case I have to prove it to the equivalent of a set of scales being tipped in my favour. In a criminal case, the prosecution needs to prove it to the point where (for want of a better analogy) the scales are almost tipping over because the evidence is weighted so far its way.

That is exactly what I am saying. But someone's post here implied otherwise and that is why I said its a pretty **** system then....someone mentioned burden of proof and standard of proof are different at the ICC.

I know unless its a terror case the burden of proof lies with the prosecution however, standard of proof also should have some merit. In fact for issuing such harsh penalties, proof has to be dead on with out any doubts.

 

[Burgey]

Jury has retired apparently.

 

[four_or_six]

Let's hope it's guilty. They so blatantly did it.

 

[steds]

Jury has retired apparently.

But it's only been 3 weeks. The pension must be amazing.

 

[Burgey]

But it's only been 3 weeks. The pension must be amazing.

Stedderssssssssssss.........

If they come back with their verdict after exactly 4 hours, 15 minutes, 23 seconds deliberating I'll make a fortune

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yessss, steds.

FTR, do you live in St. Helens? That place is gloomy.

 

[steds]

Yessss, steds.

FTR, do you live in St. Helens? That place is gloomy.

I do indeed. It's terrible isn't it. It doesn't help that the latest attempt to make it more appealing is a big statue of a head that, from a distance, just looks like a giant penis. I take it you've been lately? Whatever possessed you to do that?

 

[vic_orthdox]

I do indeed. It's terrible isn't it. It doesn't help that the latest attempt to make it more appealing is a big statue of a head that, from a distance, just looks like a giant penis. I take it you've been lately? Whatever possessed you to do that?

Went there to place some bets while I was in England. Fair while ago now, probs around June.

Just hung out near the Coral up top most of the day, next to the bus stop where those park benches were.

 

[Burgey]

Saw the best of it then?

 

[Burgey]

Judge told the jury 20 minutes ago he will now accept a majority decision.