What do Australians hate about Ganguly

[Pratters]

Right.

Can't say I agree with you as a general proposition, but I have no problem agreeing that there have been instances of Aussie players behaving badly on the field.

A lot of times, I cannot separate individual and team. For instance, if Sreesanth behaved like an idiot in a game or two, I would blame him. However, if he keeps getting picked and shows no improvement in behaviour, I would say that the captain is not too fussed about how Sreesanth behaves and I would blame the captain, selectors.

 

[Sanz]

He was fined by the ACB for his involvement with A bookie. Singular.

Interesting that you pluralised the sentence "Waugh introduced players (including his team mate Warne) to Bookies". Aside from Warne, who else did he introduce?

Unless you have some information that I am not aware of, his "contact" with Malik was that he was offered US$200,000 to split between the Waughs, May and Warne in return for them throwing a match- an offer that was rejected out of hand, and disclosed to team management at the time. I've looked around, and I can't find any other link between the two.

Mark Waugh was mentioned in five places in the CBI report. One was in Gupte's statement, one was in Prabhakar's, one was in the section of conclusions relating to Prabhakar, one was in the section of conclusions relating to the Australian team, the last being in the list of final conclusions. All of them contained the same single accusation- that being that Prabhakar introduced Waugh to Gupte, and Gupte stated that he paid Waugh US$20,000 in return for information regarding "pitch, weather, team strategy, morale etc". Out of a very long report, there was a total of five sections that mentioned Waugh at all, and all of those were in reference to that single accusation. In response to that accusation, Waugh has maintained that he only provided pitch and weather information, and has compared it to the information that he (and other players) gave during media interviews.

Aside from the rejected offer from Malik, I haven't been able to find a single other credible accusation against Waugh. Certainly nothing that suggests he fixed a match, which concurs with the findings of the O'Regan inquiry.

(That said- Waugh and Warne were both extraordinarily foolish, and the ACB was just as culpable for trying to conceal it. Both were punished, and I agree that their punishment was far too light.)

Interestingly, the CBI report that you quoted listed as "match fixing" BOTH providing information to bookmakers and influencing curators to provide a favourable pitch, among other things. That would seem to support my original point, that the two comparisons are similar- the author of the report would probably suggest that they are similarly valid (or invalid, as the case may be.).

O'Regan inquiry was a sham, and I have no reason to believe Mark Waugh either.

CB inquiry was investigating Indian Cricketers and that's why there wasn't much details of Waugh's involvement. You can continue to believe what you want about Mark Waugh, To me he is a match fixer along with the likes of Warne, Jadeja, Prabhakar etc.

 

[Burgey]

O'Regan inquiry was a sham, and I have no reason to believe Mark Waugh either.

CB inquiry was investigating Indian Cricketers and that's why there wasn't much details of Waugh's involvement. You can continue to believe what you want about Mark Waugh, To me he is a match fixer along with the likes of Warne, Jadeja, Prabhakar etc.

Why did you leave out Azhar?

Nice work mate. Reverse the onus of proof.

Rather than make people prove their allegations, let's just have those who are accused have to disprove them, eh? So anyone can say anything they like about someone, and the accused stands condemned unless they disprove it. No matter about secondary matter like, well, evidence and other such silly things.

 

[Son Of Coco]

There's a bit of arrogance there...but then that could be said about a number of players from any of the countries.

 

[Bracken]

O'Regan inquiry was a sham, and I have no reason to believe Mark Waugh either.

By what measure was the O'Regan inquiry a "sham"? Was it that his qualifications (as a respected, experienced QC) were lacking or his professional reputation was easily compromised? Was it that the almost open terms of reference were too narrow? Was it the fact that despite the dedicated resistance from some players to appear and be deposed, the ACB used the biggest bullets available to them to protect the integrity of the inquiry (the threat of withdrawing the players contracts, and sidelining them from state and national representation) in order to compel players to co-operate? Or was it just that the findings didn't fit with your own little agenda?

So, you cherry-pick couple of paragraphs from a multi-page report (that were, in effect, no more than a witness statement), assign them absolutely no context, and then try to magnify those allegations by pluralising some singular events. Then, when I expand on those points by applying the relevant context and ask you to back up that exaggeration your only recourse is to do the literary equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "lalalalalalalalalalamatchfixerslalalalalalalalala".

And I'M the one who is lacking in "credibility on this issue"?

CB inquiry was investigating Indian Cricketers and that's why there wasn't much details of Waugh's involvement. You can continue to believe what you want about Mark Waugh, To me he is a match fixer along with the likes of Warne, Jadeja, Prabhakar etc.

Nonsense. As stated by the report itself, "the enquiry was open-ended without setting for itself any specific time-frame for which the probe was to be conducted or specific allegations or names which had to be looked into or specific areas which and to be enquired into. In this connection, it was decided that first of all, a broad enquiry was to be made to ascertain whether match-fixing and other malpractises connected with the game of cricket existed."

Nowhere did it limit itself to Indian cricketers, Indian citizens, nor even offences committed within India. It was admirably broad in its scope.

Waugh and Warne were far from the only foreign players that were mentioned in the report. Aside from the cherry-picked few that you have mentioned, Aravinda De Silva, Martin Crowe, Arjuna Ranatunga, Brian Lara, Hansie Cronje, Waqar Younis, Inzamam-ul-Haq, and Saeed Anwar were all mentioned in the EXACT same way (or worse) in the report, and were included by the exact same standard of proof. If we're going to take the stupidly slanderous line of calling a few of the mentioned players "match-fixers", let's lay all of the cards on the table.

Of course, it is entirely probable that the witnesses (Gupte and other bookies) either exaggerated or fabricated all or part of their evidence in regard to some or all of these players- just as it is certainly possible that the evidence that Waugh provided more information than simple pitch and weather reports was exaggerated or fabricated. The allegations contained in the report were not tested in court, therefore the veracity of those claims haven't been proved.

If one was to draw a distinction between the Australian players and those of other countries, it would be that Waugh and Warne were the only two to have disclosed the payments to their boards years prior to the CBI inquiry.

And for the record, my thoughts on Mark Waugh are that he was an idiot for doing what he did, and that he (and Warne) should have been suspended for a time for what they did, and that his contract should have been withdrawn for a time.

The fact (and yes, it is an absolute fact) remains though, that here has never been a single credible accusation, let alone any evidence, that he or Warne accepted money in return for throwing a game. Thus, calling them match fixers is a ridiculous (and, for that matter, defamatory) exaggeration, and is directly comparable to linking match fixing with the act of asking a curator to prepare a friendly pitch.

 

[Jono]

Regarding Mark Waugh, the man is pure scum. One of the biggest dickheads in cricket. If you listen to his opinions (especially on Inside Cricket on Foxtel) you'd realise he's the most elitist Australian there is. He also doesn't have a clue about the international game.

Today he asked John Buchanan if any of the teams other than Australia have actually improved in Buchanan's time as coach. What an idiot! India used to not be able to win a test match overseas let alone a series. Now they've drew in Australia, and won in West Indies and England. Not to mention England obviously being better, and Sri Lanka too.

 

[Richard]

Haha, cripes.

Think I'm now glad he never said much in his playing days.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

Today he asked John Buchanan if any of the teams other than Australia have actually improved in Buchanan's time as coach. What an idiot! India used to not be able to win a test match overseas let alone a series. Now they've drew in Australia, and won in West Indies and England. Not to mention England obviously being better, and Sri Lanka too.

It was a pretty fair question IMO. You look at where World Cricket stands now and not a whole lot of teams have improved as test outfits since 2001. England have and so have Sri Lanka - but outside of that most teams have remained relatively stagnant.

I don't really like him much, though.

 

[Sanz]

Why did you leave out Azhar?

Although Azhar remains one of my alltime favorite plate, I didn't leave him becaue of that. I left Azhar out of that list Because he doesn't fit that category of match fixers. Azhar ran the ring along with the likes of Malik and Cronje.

Nice work mate. Reverse the onus of proof.

Rather than make people prove their allegations, let's just have those who are accused have to disprove them, eh? So anyone can say anything they like about someone, and the accused stands condemned unless they disprove it. No matter about secondary matter like, well, evidence and other such silly things.

Prove Allegations for what ? Mark Waugh was fined for his contact with bookies and regardless of what CA says, I would chose to believe an CBI investigation over a statement of Mark Waugh or ACB who have no credibility on the matter. CBI is not anything and match fixing allegations are not silly things. The very fact that Mark Waugh's name has come out in slmost all investigations and the late revelation that CA had indeed find him are ample proof to suggest his deep involvement in match fixing for most of the 90s.

 

[Sanz]

By what measure was the O'Regan inquiry a "sham"? Was it that his qualifications (as a respected, experienced QC) were lacking or his professional reputation was easily compromised? Was it that the almost open terms of reference were too narrow? Was it the fact that despite the dedicated resistance from some players to appear and be deposed, the ACB used the biggest bullets available to them to protect the integrity of the inquiry (the threat of withdrawing the players contracts, and sidelining them from state and national representation) in order to compel players to co-operate? Or was it just that the findings didn't fit with your own little agenda?

I couldn't care less about O'Regan's qualifications or his professional reputation. Why dont you tell me what powers did Mr. O'Regan have to conduct his inquiry. Who were his witnesses and how many of them made statements under oath ? How about ZERO ? What investigations he did besides speaking to 60 people, most of which were Aussies and were not even related to match fixing.

TBH O'Regan inquiry has as much credibility as the Chandrachud Comission.

As far as my agenda is concerned, I think you should worry about your own agenda because you seem to clearly have a double standard here on this issue and like a true aussie continue to defend match fixers. Anyone who calls mark waugh's match fixing involvement as stupidity is, on this issue, basically biased to the core.

One thing I can say for sure is that even the most biased Indian fan will not defend the match fixers from his country.

 

[Sanz]

So, you cherry-pick couple of paragraphs from a multi-page report (that were, in effect, no more than a witness statement), assign them absolutely no context, and then try to magnify those allegations by pluralising some singular events. Then, when I expand on those points by applying the relevant context and ask you to back up that exaggeration your only recourse is to do the literary equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying, "lalalalalalalalalalamatchfixerslalalalalalalalala".

And I'M the one who is lacking in "credibility on this issue"?

Yes you are the one who is completely lacking any credibility on the issue.

Of all the names named by Mukesh Gupta (not Gupte), only Waugh was the one who was fined by his board. Waugh's is also the case that has been supported by Prabhakar, the link between cricketers and Bookies.

7) Mark Waugh: MK was introduced to Mark Waugh by Prabhakar during a six-a-side tournament in Hong Kong. Prabhakar has accepted this in his statement.

 

[Sanz]

Nonsense. As stated by the report itself, "the enquiry was open-ended without setting for itself any specific time-frame for which the probe was to be conducted or specific allegations or names which had to be looked into or specific areas which and to be enquired into. In this connection, it was decided that first of all, a broad enquiry was to be made to ascertain whether match-fixing and other malpractises connected with the game of cricket existed."

Nowhere did it limit itself to Indian cricketers, Indian citizens, nor even offences committed within India. It was admirably broad in its scope.

You are clearly misinformed or probably pretending to be one by leabing the next part of the quote which clearly specified the scope of the investigations. Let me quote the whole thing :-

"...
b) Parameters: After registering the PE, CBI undertook an exercise to fix certain parameters, since the enquiry was open-ended without setting for itself any specific time-frame for which the probe was to be conducted or specific allegations or names which had to be looked into or specific areas which ahd to be enquired into. In this connection, it was decided that first of all, a broad enquiry was to be made to ascertain whether match-fixing and other malpractises connected with the game of cricket existed. Accordingly, the following corner-stones were fixed as focal points of this enquiry:

1) To identify the betting syndicates operating in India and examine their activities;

2) To unravel the linkages of cricket players or their intermediaries with these syndicates and their roles in the alleged malpractises; and

3) To examine the role and functions of the BCCI so as to evaluate whether it could have prevented the alleged malpractises.

Waugh and Warne were far from the only foreign players that were mentioned in the report. Aside from the cherry-picked few that you have mentioned, Aravinda De Silva, Martin Crowe, Arjuna Ranatunga, Brian Lara, Hansie Cronje, Waqar Younis, Inzamam-ul-Haq, and Saeed Anwar were all mentioned in the EXACT same way (or worse) in the report, and were included by the exact same standard of proof. If we're going to take the stupidly slanderous line of calling a few of the mentioned players "match-fixers", let's lay all of the cards on the table.

Waugh and Warne were the only ones to be fined by their boards for their involvement with the bookies. As for Cronje, SA fans denied his involvement as long as they could. Waqar, Inzi, Crow, Deano, Arjuna, Lara etc were never implicated by anyone else, never fined either and if you can show me anything that says otherwise, I will accept that they were involved too.

The fact (and yes, it is an absolute fact) remains though, that here has never been a single credible accusation, let alone any evidence, that he or Warne accepted money in return for throwing a game. Thus, calling them match fixers is a ridiculous (and, for that matter, defamatory) exaggeration, and is directly comparable to linking match fixing with the act of asking a curator to prepare a friendly pitch.

There is no evidence to suggest that Azhar, Jadeja etc threw any game either.

 

[SJS]

As another Australis Vs India series approaches and another thread has shown us down here in Aus Ganguly is not very popular.

I thought it would be interesting to see why people thought Australians did not like him or from my fellow Australians why they don’t like him.

I know he rubbed a few people up the wrong way last tour but he is not paid to make the opposition happy but to make his own team competitive. For this he lead a competitive side out here and became unpopular and I for one am not entirely sure why he is so hated in Aus.

I find Ganguly in his come back is much more relaxed and his smile is genuinely friendly. We might find a new and more positive equation between him and the Aussies this time.

 

[Burgey]

Regarding Mark Waugh, the man is pure scum. One of the biggest dickheads in cricket. If you listen to his opinions (especially on Inside Cricket on Foxtel) you'd realise he's the most elitist Australian there is. He also doesn't have a clue about the international game.

Today he asked John Buchanan if any of the teams other than Australia have actually improved in Buchanan's time as coach. What an idiot! India used to not be able to win a test match overseas let alone a series. Now they've drew in Australia, and won in West Indies and England. Not to mention England obviously being better, and Sri Lanka too.

What an appalling comment. In the time honoured tradition of playing the post and not the poster, I will not call you a dribbling fool whose idea of disagreeing with questions posed by someone on TV is to call them scum. Nor will I describe you as someone who has no perspective or someone patently lacking in basic human courtesy, or for that matter intelligence. I will do this despite the great temptation to do so and the overhwelming evidence which supports such thoughts. Disagree all you like mate, but to call someone scum based on the issues you raise in your post is completely OTT. I would expect it from someone with the mind of a 4 year old, not from someone like your good self who, imo generally has pretty damn good thoughts and ideas on the game. Dire.

Although Azhar remains one of my alltime favorite plate, I didn't leave him becaue of that. I left Azhar out of that list Because he doesn't fit that category of match fixers. Azhar ran the ring along with the likes of Malik and Cronje.

Prove Allegations for what ? The very fact that Mark Waugh's name has come out in slmost all investigations and the late revelation that CA had indeed find him are ample proof to suggest his deep involvement in match fixing for most of the 90s.

So that's all Azhar did? Just set up the match fixing rings. Okay, no drama.
As for the emboldened part of your post, please refer to my comments to Jono above.
What pure piffle. To suggest M Waugh was "deeply involved in match fixing" is, apart from slanderous, baseless. It's the equivalent to saying that because you get fined for jay walking you are invloved in a drug syndicate. You have to be able to PROVE these things mate to make them stick. I find it incredible that, absent proof, you can just throw these things out there with impunity. Do you believe that, if Mark Waugh was involved in match fixing the ACB (as it then was) wouldn't have banned him? Don't you think they had about 5 blokes who could have walked into the side and taken his place as a middle order player? Either put up some evidence that goes beyond that for which he was censured, or frankly shut up.

As far as my agenda is concerned, I think you should worry about your own agenda because you seem to clearly have a double standard here on this issue and like a true aussie continue to defend match fixers. Anyone who calls mark waugh's match fixing involvement as stupidity is, on this issue, basically biased to the core.

One thing I can say for sure is that even the most biased Indian fan will not defend the match fixers from his country.

FFS mate, you just dont get it do you? Give us some evidence - not innuendo, not rumour, some damn evidence of match fixing carried out by these people. And just so you can drill it into that fragile mind of yours, being spoken to, spoken about, written about in a report is not evidence of match fixing. Coome on now - give us an example of a match which Mark Waugh was involved in throwing? Gicew us an example of him being paid to fix a match. Given your certainty on this issue, I look forward to a PDF attachment of about 600 pages of solid, hard evidence. While you're compiling that dossier, just think about this - so complicit was Mark Waugh in match fixing, that he reported the approach by Malik to his board. Now there's the act of a co-conspitator - not.

Yes you are the one who is completely lacking any credibility on the issue.

Of all the names named by Mukesh Gupta (not Gupte), only Waugh was the one who was fined by his board. Waugh's is also the case that has been supported by Prabhakar, the link between cricketers and Bookies.
7) Mark Waugh: MK was introduced to Mark Waugh by Prabhakar during a six-a-side tournament in Hong Kong. Prabhakar has accepted this in his statement.

Yeah he was fined - what about the blokes who got banned for life? Again we have this curious omission on your part mate.
"Supported by Prabakhar" - now there's a good source - you describe him as the link man between players and bookies - sounds a really reliable source. Did Prabakhar say Waugh was paid to fix a match, any match? If so, was he found to have so fixed it? And if not, why shouldn't Mark Waugh sue your sorry ass for defamation and gain custody of whatever possessions you have managed to cobble together in your time on this earth? You can't just bandy these things about mate. It's a slur. If the bloke had been found to have fixed a match, have at him all you want. But he hasn't been. The only person who's suggested he's thrown a match seems to be your good self. So once again, prove what you're saying, take it to the authorities. But unless you can come up with some e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e then you can't just keep bandying this stuff about.

Waugh and Warne were the only ones to be fined by their boards for their involvement with the bookies. As for Cronje, SA fans denied his involvement as long as they could. Waqar, Inzi, Crow, Deano, Arjuna, Lara etc were never implicated by anyone else, never fined either and if you can show me anything that says otherwise, I will accept that they were involved too.

There is no evidence to suggest that Azhar, Jadeja etc threw any game either.

Which is different to fixing a match/ throwing a game ffs. It's not a very subtle distinction, but it is one which you seem to have a great deal of trouble getting your melon around.
Enlighten me then as to why Azhar and Jadeja were banned? Azhar was reported to have confessed that he threw 3 ODIs, before recanting that confession (as is his right). Are you saying they should not have been banned because of a lack of evidence? If you are, then it's odd - no bizarre- that you do not apply the same standards to Waugh.

 

[Bracken]

I couldn't care less about O'Regan's qualifications or his professional reputation. Why dont you tell me what powers did Mr. O'Regan have to conduct his inquiry. Who were his witnesses and how many of them made statements under oath ? How about ZERO ? What investigations he did besides speaking to 60 people, most of which were Aussies and were not even related to match fixing.

TBH O'Regan inquiry has as much credibility as the Chandrachud Comission.

As far as my agenda is concerned, I think you should worry about your own agenda because you seem to clearly have a double standard here on this issue and like a true aussie continue to defend match fixers. Anyone who calls mark waugh's match fixing involvement as stupidity is, on this issue, basically biased to the core.

One thing I can say for sure is that even the most biased Indian fan will not defend the match fixers from his country.

See, the problem with dealing with people with such ingrained nationalistic prejudices is that they rarely understand that others may have a capability that they have failed to master- that it is possible to consider an issue without bringing in silly nationalistic slurs. It is no coincidence that those who identify themselves as racists often see their view that "well, they hate me as well" as a sort of misguided justification for their tainted views.

I am Australian by naturalisation, British by birth, and Indian by heritage. My national pride and patriotic allegiances resides with all three countries.

Where have I "defended" Mark Waugh? I have agreed that what he did was wrong, and that he should have been punished far more severely than he was. I have also made it clear that the ACB was decidedly wrong in trying to conceal the issue. I would suggest that my "defence" of Waugh has been, at worst, comparable to yours of Azharrudin above.

I have maintained that there is a stark difference between the crime you attribute to him and the offence he was confirmed to have committed. No more, no less.

And exactly what double standard have I expressed? That everyone should be judged on what they actually did, rather than what someone assumes (which, in reality, is all you acutally have) them to have done?

Again, try and understand that not everyone has your limitations. I can form an opinion on a case without simply projecting my own prejudices, and back up my opinions with facts rather than wild accusations. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll get there some day- you just have to let the hate go.

I have faith in you.

Yes you are the one who is completely lacking any credibility on the issue.

Of all the names named by Mukesh Gupta (not Gupte), only Waugh was the one who was fined by his board. Waugh's is also the case that has been supported by Prabhakar, the link between cricketers and Bookies.

7) Mark Waugh: MK was introduced to Mark Waugh by Prabhakar during a six-a-side tournament in Hong Kong. Prabhakar has accepted this in his statement.

I have seen his name spelt both ways. Either is sufficient to get my point across.

Yes, I believe I mentioned ALL of the places in that report where Mark Waugh's name was mentioned. There was a single accusation that encompassed all five- that being that Prabhakar introduced him to Gupte (heh), and that Gupte paid him in return for information. The ONLY dispute between the conclusions of the report and Waugh's admissions is the extent of the information provided- specifically whether the information provided included "team strategy [and] morale etc".

That report didn't make any mention of even the slightest suggestion that Mark Waugh threw a game, nor did it make even a remote indication that it occurred "for most of the 90s". Those accusations are no more than your own unfounded assumptions.

You are clearly misinformed or probably pretending to be one by leabing the next part of the quote which clearly specified the scope of the investigations. Let me quote the whole thing :-

I am not misinformed, and I would hope that if I was pretending to be I would be failing miserably.

Yes, the investigation had "focal points". There is a massive (and obvious) difference between a focus and a limitation. The investigation was unlimited, and spread to any person or organisation that the investigation uncovered.

Waugh and Warne were the only ones to be fined by their boards for their involvement with the bookies. As for Cronje, SA fans denied his involvement as long as they could. Waqar, Inzi, Crow, Deano, Arjuna, Lara etc were never implicated by anyone else, never fined either and if you can show me anything that says otherwise, I will accept that they were involved too.

Yep. Although Waugh and Warne both went to their board independently before any allegation, and long before the CBI investigation convened.

Answer this hypothetical- if Warne and Waugh hadn't gone to the ACB to report the matter, would the accusations against them currently hold any more weight than those made against the other players?

They confessed to their offence (BEFORE there was any suggestion that any investigation would be considered, let alone convened), and submitted themselves for the punishment of their board. How does this add any weight to your baseless exaggerations?

There is no evidence to suggest that Azhar, Jadeja etc threw any game either.

No question. That's why I'm not accusing them of anything of the sort. It's called natural justice.

Note that even though the same report that you have used to condemn Waugh stated, "the evidence against Azharuddin, which is discussed next, clearly establishes that he took money from bookies/punters to fix cricket matches", I STILL haven't used it as a justification to accuse Azharuddin of fixing a match. In my view, the evidence provided is still too vague and inconclusive to provide a base for such an untested accusation.

It is also called consistency- something that obviously eludes you.

 

[Sanz]

No question. That's why I'm not accusing them of anything of the sort. It's called natural justice.

Note that even though the same report that you have used to condemn Waugh stated, "the evidence against Azharuddin, which is discussed next, clearly establishes that he took money from bookies/punters to fix cricket matches", I STILL haven't used it as a justification to accuse Azharuddin of fixing a match. In my view, the evidence provided is still too vague and inconclusive to provide a base for such an untested accusation.

It is also called consistency- something that obviously eludes you.

I dont get it. So now what are you saying that Azhar, Malik, Cronje etc didn't fix matches ?

 

[Sanz]

Yep. Although Waugh and Warne both went to their board independently before any allegation, and long before the CBI investigation convened.

Answer this hypothetical- if Warne and Waugh hadn't gone to the ACB to report the matter, would the accusations against them currently hold any more weight than those made against the other players?

They confessed to their offence (BEFORE there was any suggestion that any investigation would be considered, let alone convened), and submitted themselves for the punishment of their board. How does this add any weight to your baseless exaggerations?

You want me to believe that Waugh and Warne went to the board on their own and said that they took money from the bookies to fix games or provide information ?

I am done here, I just cant argue with someone so misguided on this issue. You can believe whatever you want to.

 

[Burgey]

You want me to believe that Waugh and Warne went to the board on their own and said that they took money from the bookies to fix games or provide information ?

I am done here, I just cant argue with someone so misguided on this issue. You can believe whatever you want to.

They DID go to the board and tell them they'd provided information.

No one's asking you to believe that they went and told them they fixed a match, because there's nothing to suggest they did fix a match.

 

[Sanz]

So that's all Azhar did? Just set up the match fixing rings. Okay, no drama.

Azhar is not being discussed here and I have never defended him accept saying that he was/is/will always be one of my fav. player. Besides he is banned for life,so I dont know what else you expect to be done to him, may be a death penalty for fixing games ?

To suggest M Waugh was "deeply involved in match fixing" is, apart from slanderous, baseless. It's the equivalent to saying that because you get fined for jay walking you are invloved in a drug syndicate. You have to be able to PROVE these things mate to make them stick. I find it incredible that, absent proof, you can just throw these things out there with impunity. Do you believe that, if Mark Waugh was involved in match fixing the ACB (as it then was) wouldn't have banned him? Don't you think they had about 5 blokes who could have walked into the side and taken his place as a middle order player? Either put up some evidence that goes beyond that for which he was censured, or frankly shut up.

I will try one last time - Waugh was fined by his own board, he was named in pretty much every investigation. And no ACB has no credibility on the issue after all they were the ones that covered it up. And no one would have been able to replace Waugh and Warne. I hope you are not suggesting otherwise.

Rest of your post is again same old bull**** being repeate again and again and I am not going to oblige you with repeated replies. I have had it enough, believe what you want to.

 

[Sanz]

They DID go to the board and tell them they'd provided information.

You clearly are misinformed. They didn't go to the board on their own, Mark waugh in his own words :-

"In early 1995, the Australian Cricket Board asked me if I had ever provided information to a bookmaker and I replied I had done so the previous year."

No marks for guessing why ACB asked Waugh and not others. It is really shameful to see how some folks continue to defend Mark Waugh and believe that he was not part of match fixing. Match fixing isn't limited to throwing matches and under performing.