*Gibbs Reveal More Names*

[Sanz]

If everyone was banned because of "what they know" rather than what they have actually done, I don't think we'd have many cricketers left playing cricket..

So Gibbs was banned because of what he did, right ?

 

[FRAZ]

Apparently not, Langevelt and his friends would still like us to believe that Gibbs is innocent. On the other hand Tooextracool would continue to believe that Sunny Gavaskar is the Kingpin of match fixing despite no evidence has been found against him.

They need to talk and a lot ..

 

[Slow Love™]

Very true. People still tarnish the India/Pakistan with the match fixing brush but seem to forget that these two countries actually took proper action rather than sweeping the whole thing under the carpet. A lot better than some other cricket authorities...

In terms of Australia, yes, they literally swept allegations under the carpet, concealing the incident from the rest of the world for some time.

But South Africa DID take action. The King inquiry may have been lenient on Gibbs, and people can debate whether they should have, but the feeling was that he was exploited by his captain - also, the fact that he promptly went out and scored 70-odd when he was "supposed" to be dismissed for under 20 played it's part.

India also did, but I think Pakistan's Quayyum report had a few fishy occurrences concerning a certain Wasim Akram (and others - there were numerous allegations made, some plausible, some not so much). So I'd be cautious about elevating particular countries above others when it comes to this issue.

As to what's happening now, I guess I'll wait and see what comes of it. Gibbs said he'd be repeating what he testified to the King inquiry - India police want him to elaborate further. I don't know completely what the context of these three "new names" is yet. The fact that he's now talking to the police probably increases the scope of what can be investigated, I don't know.

 

[FRAZ]

Very true. People still tarnish the India/Pakistan with the match fixing brush but seem to forget that these two countries actually took proper action rather than sweeping the whole thing under the carpet. A lot better than some other cricket authorities...

Absolutely wonderful Dasa.If any evidence has ever been found against any player then he has been charged and thats a fact.
The theory "They are all like it " , is extremely rubbish , barbaric , stupid and has brought nothing but the practical jokers like Hair !

 

[FRAZ]

I think Pakistan's Quayyum report had a few fishy occurrences concerning a certain Wasim Akram. So I'd be cautious about elevating particular countries above others when it comes to this issue.

For Example???
Now thats the whole judicial system being limelighted here ..

 

[Slow Love™]

For Example???
Now thats the whole judicial system being limelighted here ..

There was actually a lot of evidence tendered against Akram's conduct - by fellow players, journalists and physiotherapists. In the end it appeared the case against him fell through because of the last minute change of testimony from Ata-ur-Rehman, who originally claimed that Akram had paid him to bowl poorly (his testimony also affected the findings on Ijaz Ahmad).

The Commission found his initial testimony inadmissable against Akram, but then they operated on the premise that that very testimony was to be believed, and recommended he (Ata) be given a life ban, while Akram walked scot-free. I'm not alleging that it was dirty (and I wouldn't allege that the King report was either), but you could criticise some of the findings of either, IMO.

 

[Sanz]

But South Africa DID take action. The King inquiry may have been lenient on Gibbs, and people can debate whether they should have, but the feeling was that he was exploited by his captain - also, the fact that he promptly went out and scored 70-odd when he was "supposed" to be dismissed for under 20 played it's part.

Actually my main beef is not with the fact that Gibbs got only 6 months ban but with the fact that Saffies like Langevelt come here and claim that Gibbs was innocent and that the Indian Police was unfairly targetting him etc etc.

Gibbs himself has admitted that he was part of match-fixing and did accept money to score less. Whether he had a change of heart afterwards doesn't matter. Also I have no reason to believe him esp when he was involved in two runout and 74 isn't a huge score after he was dropped twice.

 

[Slow Love™]

Actually my main beef is not with the fact that Gibbs got only 6 months ban but with the fact that Saffies like Langevelt come here and claim that Gibbs was innocent and that the Indian Police was unfairly targetting him etc etc.

Fair enough.

Gibbs himself has admitted that he was part of match-fixing and did accept money to score less. Whether he had a change of heart afterwards doesn't matter. Also I have no reason to believe him esp when he was involved in two runout and 74 isn't a huge score after he was dropped twice.

Well, a change of heart probably does matter to me - not in terms of it making him innocent (it doesn't), but in terms of scale of penalty. And the relationship and authority Cronje had with junior players, as I said, played it's part, too. But yeah, you don't have to believe the guy - though in terms of the runouts, I'd have thought it wouldn't have been too hard for Gibbs to make sure he was the guy to go. I'd have to watch the innings though.

 

[Sanz]

For Example???
Now thats the whole judicial system being limelighted here ..

I really love Wasim as a player but....well lets not go there else you will again start from 1947.

 

[Slow Love™]

BTW, if they were going to find against Gibbs, six months probably was too lenient. I'd have given him a couple of years at least. My point is I can see why he's treated leniently in comparison to bigger fish.

 

[FRAZ]

The Commission found his initial testimony inadmissable against Akram, but then they operated on the premise that that very testimony was to be believed, and recommended he (Ata) be given a life ban, while Akram walked scot-free. I'm not alleging that it was dirty (and I wouldn't allege that the King report was either), but you could criticise some of the findings of either, IMO.

But that is quite a common practice to dismiss a case which lacks enough "evidence" . Findings proved Ata of lieng and was convicted efficiently . Akram came out of this "Qayyum report" because law could not see the enough "evidence" . I think that was a great example set but the honorable court by not wrongfully convicting Mr Akram. I think now from the Judicial system the momentum of this discussion may divert itself to wards accusing the "invetigation procedures" . I would like to know "What was the perfect action that should have been taken under those circumstances" ?
IMHO that was just wonderful i.e. "Qayyum report" . Flawless !!

 

[FRAZ]

I really love Wasim as a player but....well lets not go there else you will again start from 1947.

1947 ?
I accuse you of generalizing me .
I am just talking about the judicial system here . The gentleman felt un-easy because of the findings of "Qayyum," . I may accuse Akram too and I think it was me who told a joke here that once a friend of mine was talking to an Aussie friend and Aussie friend was saying that "Our Warne makes at least a couple of million every year and your players make nothing much " And my friend replied "Our Akram makes 10 millions by losing only one match a year .
I was explaining some thing else. May be Akram has done something wrong but I want him to be punished effectively only if some thing has been found (evidence) . Judicial system did its best . It was just "lack of sufficient evidence " which led to the best decision under those circumstances.
OK let me be easy " I was referring to the generalizing issue " !!!!!

 

[Sanz]

IMHO that was just wonderful i.e. "Qayyum report" . Flawless !!

Wasim was fined 300,000 Rs. and the Qayyum commission recommended the he should never lead Pakistan again. Oh by the way Justice Qayyum is on record :-

"For Wasim I had some soft corner for him. He was a very great player, a very great bowler and I was his fan, and therefore that thing did weigh with me. Two things - one, I didn't want that the cricket should be deprived of his participation, and the other was that I didn't want that towards the end of his career... he should be banned or something like that. My idea was not to find people guilty and then punish them. It was more of a case where I had to do something to put an end to the practice in future. What had happened had happened. You couldn't turn the clock back but you had to make sure they wouldn't repeat what they were doing."

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakvind/content/story/232548.html

 

[FRAZ]

Wasim was fined 300,000 Rs. and the Qayyum commission recommended the he should never lead Pakistan again. Oh by the way Justice Qayyum is on record :-

"For Wasim I had some soft corner for him. He was a very great player, a very great bowler and I was his fan, and therefore that thing did weigh with me. Two things - one, I didn't want that the cricket should be deprived of his participation, and the other was that I didn't want that towards the end of his career... he should be banned or something like that. My idea was not to find people guilty and then punish them. It was more of a case where I had to do something to put an end to the practice in future. What had happened had happened. You couldn't turn the clock back but you had to make sure they wouldn't repeat what they were doing."

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakvind/content/story/232548.html

So whats the point here . I like players too like any judge . Qayyum was just part of the judicial system . And I was referring to the "Report" . And this quote is from what Qayyum said after 5 years . I have no problems with the report itself .. Qayyum report doesn't mean that it is "Qayyum's own report" . Its the judicial rely and Qayyum was just a face to make a flawless verdict in the end .
There is also this paragraph in that page
About Malik's ban, however, Justice Qayyum was unequivocal, saying he wouldn't have banned him unless he was "100% sure" of his guilt. "Saleem Malik was one of the favorite players," he continued, "and if I wasn't 100% sure, I wouldn't have punished him. Even now I have very good relations with him. In fact he has been coming to me for advice and what should I do. He went to the court and challenged my report and his case was dismissed. I can't say much at this stage because the case is still in the Supreme Court."
What seems to be the problem . Newton's law is universal and its not what "Newton assumed personally .
SOOO liking disliking , being a fan doesn't mean any thing ... If I were the judge and Ata was going to change his "sayings" then I was definitely going to let Wasim out and put Ata behind bars . So something similar happened but pity is that Wasim Beechara had to pay a huge fine too (The only 'may be or may not be' debatable so called flaw)...

 

[Sanz]

Qayyum report doesn't mean that it is "Qayyum's own report" . Its the judicial rely and Qayyum was just a face to make a flawless verdict in the end .

It was a one man judicial commission, so it is Qayyuum's own report. Anyways, you can believe whatever you want, I have no intention of getting into this debate.

 

[Slow Love™]

But that is quite a common practice to dismiss a case which lacks enough "evidence" . Findings proved Ata of lieng and was convicted efficiently . Akram came out of this "Qayyum report" because law could not see the enough "evidence" . I think that was a great example set but the honorable court by not wrongfully convicting Mr Akram. I think now from the Judicial system the momentum of this discussion may divert itself to wards accusing the "invetigation procedures" . I would like to know "What was the perfect action that should have been taken under those circumstances" ?
IMHO that was just wonderful i.e. "Qayyum report" . Flawless !!

But if the testimony given by Ata is not admissable because he later contradicted it, why is it treated as true for the purposes of turning around and recommending he be banned for life? Granted, he obviously perjured himself (either with the first testimony or the second) and needs to be punished, but it seems strange to me that his initial testimony would be used as evidence to convict him of involvement in match-fixing! It smacks a little of scapegoating Ata for Akram.

And when a life ban is dished out so easily as in Ata's case, the Justice's comments about his personal like and admiration for Wasim as a player, and wanting merely to stop the practice, rather than "punishing" seem demonstratively over-lenient to me.

EDIT: demonstrably, even.

 

[Slow Love™]

Anyhow, sorry, Sanz is right and we probably shouldn't hijack the thread with this - back to Gibbs.

 

[FRAZ]

But if the testimony given by Ata is not admissable because he later contradicted it, why is it treated as true for the purposes of turning around and recommending he be banned for life? Granted, he obviously perjured himself (either with the first testimony or the second) and needs to be punished, but it seems strange to me that his initial testimony would be used as evidence to convict him of involvement in match-fixing! It smacks a little of scapegoating Ata for Akram.

And when a life ban is dished out so easily as in Ata's case, the Justice's comments about his personal like and admiration for Wasim as a player, and wanting merely to stop the practice, rather than "punishing" seem demonstratively over-lenient to me.

EDIT: demonstrably, even.

I think you mean "Wasim was a big fish" .

 

[Slow Love™]

I think you mean "Wasim was a big fish" .

That got away - it's quite possible.

 

[C_C]

I accuse you of generalizing me .

Best line. Ever.