Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Essentially the exact same case that Cairns has just been through - that he lied in court in order to benefit himself financially. I'm not a lawyer, but fraud maybe?
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Chris Cairns' Perjury Trial
- Thread starter fredfertang
- Start date
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
nah IIRC Modi's case was dependent on the outcome of this trial.
Which essentially means that not only has Cairns got free here, he's also pretty likely to have gotten away with $1 million of Modi's money.
Zinzan
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Interesting my old man who knows *** all about cricket called this verdict several weeks ago based on the two direct witnesses being a confessed cheat and his drunk wife. As others have mentioned, perjury cases are rarely decided on probability, but almost 100% proof.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
I don't think that's particularly fair
Modi was found to have defamed Cairns and paid the penalty
Anyway, I think that most people are assuming that where there's smoke, etc
However, the thing that I have never been able to come to terms with is that if Cairns is guilty, then why would he risk exposure by taking legal action?
Makes no sense to me
Last edited:
Athlai
Not Terrible
Because he knew they didn't have the evidence otherwise they'd have actually used it?
I mean that applies guilty or innocent.
social
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not buying it
He would have been told that they were going to rip his life apart, it would be absolute hell whilst it lasted and the outcome was, at best, uncertain
Then again, I believe that anyone (innocent or guilty) that willingly engages in legal action is naïve/deranged unless it is a matter of life or death and the absolute last resort
_Ed_
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yeah, pretty much my view too.
Skyliner
State Captain
Mark Reason: Brendon McCullum's statements during Chris Cairns case should be questioned | Stuff.co.nz
McCullum has set himself up in recent times as the upholder of fair play and the spirit of cricket. You can make up your own minds whether this is a clever piece of branding in a virtual sporting void or a genuine moral conviction. But there are certainly discrepancies in McCullum's three pieces of evidence that David White, the chairman of New Zealand cricket, should want resolved.
In February, 2011, McCullum told the ICC, three years after the fact, that he had been approached by Cairns, because it was "sitting uneasily with me." He said he was "really shocked" by Cairns's approach but was apparently interested enough in the process to ask how the money was taken back into New Zealand.
In November, 2013, he told the ICC, "I'm sure he mentioned some names to me, but I really cannot remember those names now." Four months later Daryl Tuffey and Lou Vincent were cited by the Metropolitan Police and McCullum said, "I can confirm that Chris Cairns definitely mentioned those names to me."
The question that White has to ask McCullum is why he was prepared to offer the ICC Chris Cairns, but apparently protect Vincent and Tuffey. Not even a schoolboy would accept memory lapse as a reasonable defence. And how come the ICC corruption officer John Rhodes lost his diary, in this age of electronic storage, covering the McCullum period? And why was McCullum's evidence not handed by the ICC to Lalit Modi's team during the original trial?
Haha - imagine David White doing anything to McCullum, other than showering him with praise. I'm pretty sure everyone including Uncle Tom Cobbley knew in 2008 that you had to report approaches, moreover you had a moral duty to do so. And don't wait 3 years to do so. Why did he need Dan Vettori to tell him what the right thing to do was? You have to question his judgement , as it's clearly extremely poor. Fancy seeing Modi going down in flames in court and you keep quiet and turn a blind eye when you know something. If he'd done the right thing, how much of what's gone since would have never happened. Probably a helluva lot of it.
McCullum has set himself up in recent times as the upholder of fair play and the spirit of cricket. You can make up your own minds whether this is a clever piece of branding in a virtual sporting void or a genuine moral conviction. But there are certainly discrepancies in McCullum's three pieces of evidence that David White, the chairman of New Zealand cricket, should want resolved.
In February, 2011, McCullum told the ICC, three years after the fact, that he had been approached by Cairns, because it was "sitting uneasily with me." He said he was "really shocked" by Cairns's approach but was apparently interested enough in the process to ask how the money was taken back into New Zealand.
In November, 2013, he told the ICC, "I'm sure he mentioned some names to me, but I really cannot remember those names now." Four months later Daryl Tuffey and Lou Vincent were cited by the Metropolitan Police and McCullum said, "I can confirm that Chris Cairns definitely mentioned those names to me."
The question that White has to ask McCullum is why he was prepared to offer the ICC Chris Cairns, but apparently protect Vincent and Tuffey. Not even a schoolboy would accept memory lapse as a reasonable defence. And how come the ICC corruption officer John Rhodes lost his diary, in this age of electronic storage, covering the McCullum period? And why was McCullum's evidence not handed by the ICC to Lalit Modi's team during the original trial?
Haha - imagine David White doing anything to McCullum, other than showering him with praise. I'm pretty sure everyone including Uncle Tom Cobbley knew in 2008 that you had to report approaches, moreover you had a moral duty to do so. And don't wait 3 years to do so. Why did he need Dan Vettori to tell him what the right thing to do was? You have to question his judgement , as it's clearly extremely poor. Fancy seeing Modi going down in flames in court and you keep quiet and turn a blind eye when you know something. If he'd done the right thing, how much of what's gone since would have never happened. Probably a helluva lot of it.
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Haha, Mark Reason publishes another McCullum hatchet job. Quelle surpise. Especially love how he has the bare-faced balls to say “There is not the slightest implication of any wrongdoing here” before galloping off through about 500 words of character assasination. Wac.
Skyliner
State Captain
Sure, but you've skipped over the points he's making. Saying that McCullum waited 3 years to report the approach is a statement of fact. He waited until the next day - slept on it - to phone Cairns in England on the 2nd alledged approach. He was shocked but not shocked enough to tell him right then and there at the table that there was no way he wanted any part of it. Why was Cairns alledgedly approaching him a second time if he'd made it clear to him the first time around that he didn't want a bar of it, that he'd been categorical?
Then 3 years goes by as the trail goes cold. He hadn't heard of the Mark Waugh / Shane Waugh stuff? Hanse Cronje? Pretty sure that was all pre-2008. What was his conscience saying? Unfortunately he will also be dogged by this now; probably should have just lived with his secret after 3 years, as there would now have to be some doubt around his testimony & there's been no conviction gained.
Last edited:
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
I'm sure McCullum regrets not speaking out when the approach was made, and I'm not going to try and justify his stupid decision not to come forward. However Reason has had it out for McCullum for years now, the guy's got an almost pathological hatred of him. If this article had just been slagging off McCullum for taking too long to report the approach then that would be one thing. But Reason once again turns it up to 11, when he starts makes snide insuations about the likelihood of McCullum being bought by Indian interests to provide false testimony (just vague enough to avoid being sued of course).
Last edited:
Skyliner
State Captain
Yeah, I agree that McCullum's left himself open to these inferences due to how this transpired and I do see these kind of things being said on-line. What a mess and no-one involved has come out looking good from this whole saga.
I hear on the radio dumb talk-back hosts making out he acted in an exemplary fashion and this will now discourage players from coming forward in future. This is just willful blindness to the actual facts & the way the wait of 3 years has had bad consequences.
Skyliner
State Captain
Cricket: McCullum tried to exploit IPL 'loophole' - Sport - NZ Herald News
And has this fact also been forgotten?
"McCullum was trying to become a free agent (threatening not to sign an NZC central contract), he wanted to play in the entire IPL and there was a loophole there, but that loophole was closed during our meeting on September 2 when we introduced a new amendment for players who don't have a national contract," Modi told the Sydney Morning Herald.
He would have been on his bike, but the loophole closed. Now you'd say that you cut him and he bleeds NZ Cricket. So I don't know what to think or what really motivates the guy.
And has this fact also been forgotten?
"McCullum was trying to become a free agent (threatening not to sign an NZC central contract), he wanted to play in the entire IPL and there was a loophole there, but that loophole was closed during our meeting on September 2 when we introduced a new amendment for players who don't have a national contract," Modi told the Sydney Morning Herald.
He would have been on his bike, but the loophole closed. Now you'd say that you cut him and he bleeds NZ Cricket. So I don't know what to think or what really motivates the guy.
kiwiviktor81
International Debutant
McCullum is from South Dunedin. It's part of the culture there not to narc a guy into the authorities. It would have been bloody hard for him to narc on Cairns, duty or otherwise.
Skyliner
State Captain
Yeah, not only was it bloody hard but it was a bloody bridge too far. Then 3 years later he actually did *narc* after all.
The consequences of not narcing is that you know someone could be going round trying to get people involved in match-fixing, and the outcomes aren't great for anyone ensnared. Lou Vincent got caught up in match fixing, he was a vulnerable guy, and the outcomes weren't great for him. I think there's a real obligation to do something straight away, rather than turn the old blind eye and hope it all works out for the best.
Say some old team-mate approaches you and you turn them down: now that person knows you know they are involved, and you are outside their circle of trust. You are a threat to them. I'd be running to the authorities sooner rather than later, to protect myself and my family. Fixing is a high-stakes criminal enterprise and I wouldn't be so blasé about my personal safety. The threat is not just from your old team-mate, it's the threat from the ruthless criminals the old team-mate associates with, who have a vested interest in ensuring no witnesses pop up at an inconvenient future date.