Mohammed Amir cleared to return with immediate effect

[sledger]

You said there is reason to suggest that his imprisonment was based on false pretences. Nothing Atherton has said suggests this in the slightest.

 

[hendrix]

You said there is reason to suggest that his imprisonment was based on false pretences. Nothing Atherton has said suggests this in the slightest.

You yourself bolded the Atherton quote that you took issue with.

 

[sledger]

Ah, I thought that was you paraphrasing, and not a direct quote. My apologies.

I maintain it is a ridiculous thing to argue.

 

[cnerd123]

But he got himself in a position to be pressured because he dealt with unsavory characters. That is, of course, if you even believe his version of the events in the first place.

Heh. I don't think Amir had much of a choice when it came to dealing with Butt and Asif...

 

[hendrix]

Heh. I don't think Amir had much of a choice when it came to dealing with Butt and Asif...

He didn't deal with Asif at all.

It was Butt, 100%.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Last two posts read much better if you substitute "lube" for Asif.

Works for the entire thread too, tbh.

 

[Bahnz]

An interesting question is whether the seriousness of Amir's offence matters at all as a mitigating factor for his sentencing. I agree that regardless of whether or not he was intimidated into acting, his actions were not as serious as Butt's (in organising the fix) or any other match fixing behaviour that I can think of in the recent past (such as Cairns or Vincent). Nonetheless, it can be argued that a couple of deliberate no-balls is as damaging as a series of match-fixes around the world in terms of its ability to erode public confidence in the legitimacy of the game.

 

[hendrix]

An interesting question is whether the seriousness of Amir's offence matters at all as a mitigating factor for his sentencing. I agree that regardless of whether or not he was intimidated into acting, his actions were not as serious as Butt's (in organising the fix) or any other match fixing behaviour that I can think of in the recent past (such as Cairns or Vincent). Nonetheless, it can be argued that a couple of deliberate no-balls is as damaging as a series of match-fixes around the world in terms of its ability to erode public confidence in the legitimacy of the game.

Yes, agreed, but in terms of the court decision that's a crime against cricket, not a betting crime (part of Atherton's point).

Bowling no-balls in reality is not a means of spot fixing or at the very least was not in this particular case, a fact that has been consistently overlooked by journalists.

 

[sledger]

Yes, agreed, but in terms of the court decision that's a crime against cricket, not a betting crime (part of Atherton's point).

Bowling no-balls in reality is not a means of spot fixing or at the very least was not in this particular case, a fact that has been consistently overlooked by journalists.

What on earth is actually meant by this? Are you implying that Amir's conduct was in no way criminal?

 

[hendrix]

I'm saying that his actions would not have defrauded bookmakers.

 

[hendrix]

Bringing the game into disrepute (what Bahnz is describing) in and of itself is not criminal.

 

[Bahnz]

I'm saying that his actions would not have defrauded bookmakers.

They potentially could have. Many betting organisations offer options on whether or not runs will be scored off the next ball. A bettor aware of the fix could've bet on runs being scored on the delineated balls.

 

[sledger]

I'm saying that his actions would not have defrauded bookmakers.

Well, that's all well and good, but the criminal charges that were levelled against him had nothing to do with defrauding bookmakers.

 

[hendrix]

If it's part of a block, maybe (I.e. 4 from the over) but don't no balls not count as a delivery? Delivery 3.3 will have x runs scored off it...if there's a no ball before that it's still delivery 3.3.

It's pretty clear from the communication that the agent himself did not believe you could place bets on it, and was organising it to gain the trust of the journalist.

 

[Bahnz]

Yeah, I'm not sure about the specific betting rules and can't be arsed looking it up now, so you might be right.

 

[Tom Halsey]

I'm saying that his actions would not have defrauded bookmakers.

There is absolutely no way that he knew this for certain.

 

[hendrix]

Well, that's all well and good, but the criminal charges that were levelled against him had nothing to do with defrauding bookmakers.

conspiracy to cheat at gambling and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments.

I'd say that conspiracy to cheat at gambling has a lot to do with whether the no balls in question could have actually resulted in cheating at gambling...

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

It was Butt, 100%.

Somebody make a joke out of this because I'm tired.

 

[sledger]

conspiracy to cheat at gambling and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments.

I'd say that conspiracy to cheat at gambling has a lot to do with whether the no balls in question could have actually resulted in cheating at gambling...

Yes, but this has nothing to do with defrauding anyone. Cheating is an offence in and of itself, whether it could have led to someone being defrauded is irrelevant.

 

[hendrix]

Yes, but this has nothing to do with defrauding anyone. Cheating is an offence in and of itself, whether it could have led to someone being defrauded is irrelevant.

ok well let me re-phrase: bowling those no balls would not be a means of cheating at gambling.