Players guilty of matchfixing must be banned for life

Vinay,can we attach any credibility to what Pakistan and India say about this current saga? You have mentioned the involvement of criminals in India and I can think of Miandad and his family,s alliance with Dawood Ibrahim. How deep is this malaise and is there any resolve to eradicate this corruption?

Thats pretty weak IMO karlos, every sport has its problems, we all (well most) live in a adult world, i wont see any less kids at the cricket nets tomorrow because of some greedy bookies. I will still take my kids to the nets and bowl them some lollies, so they can attempt to hit the cover off the ball, or play a straight bat and pretend they are serious.

To think I now hate the game I used to love. Thanks Pakistan.

Interesting that the Indians effectively banned Pakistani's from the last IPL comp, by refusing to pick any up in the player auction. Looks a pretty good move,now.

MattS, The ICC, in its current form, is an anachronistic organization. Unless restructured, from ground up, expect more of the same. Now the multi million dollar question is, is the ICC willing or able to restructure from within?. And who has the will, and capacity to drive this change? For mine, everyone is happy with the status quo, give or take the few times when there is serious conflict of interest. No one wants to rock the boat, so its more of the same old same old. Alliances are formed and maintained and votes are cast along party lines. And this is not a new phenomenon either.. As long as I can remember this has been the case. As regards Mr Biswas, his opinion on India and Indians is among a multitude of such opinions. It will be a brave man who can straight jacket 1.1 bilion people speaking 2000 odd dialects and 22 (officially recognized) languages into a rigid stereotype. Cheers,

Homer, you views on the Indian people are interesting and I am enjoying a book by Anil K Biswas, 'Two Petals of a Flower' which states "The Indians loved to believe and tell they were a spiritual race in order to mask their grossest material greed. They usually resorted to vilest form of flattery and dirtiest treasury in pursuit of their vulgar ambitions". Biswas is not a big fan of Ghandhi and blames him for the mess that is India today. I think the ICC is in big trouble in its current hands and this scandal should start a rethink into the way cricket is governed today.

Bayman, It is interesting that you quote Sherlock Holmes. So here is my counter quote - "It is of the first importance not to allow your judgment to be biased by personal qualities. A client is to me a mere unit, a factor in a problem. The emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning. I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellent man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor." -- "one of the fascinating things about Indian cricket fans is their lemming-like desire to defend the BCCI with all sorts of argument." - and I grant you that. I also grant you that Australians may or may not be onboard with everything the CA does. But there is, without exception, a visceral hatred for everything BCCI, often rooted in innuendo and hearsay than fact. Couple that with the with a sense of righteousness and a belief that your world view is the only world view out there, it is not hard to see why the twain will never meet. Argue with me on fact and I will have all day for you. Argue with me on conjecture and there is no argument to be had. Fact of the matter is that there is no Board or entity out there that is clean. So what gives one entity the moral right to preach to the other? You play the game your way, we play it our way. So why the tut-tutting if we appeal too much if you expect us to be all hunky dory with sledging? -- "how much is India’s fascination with anything 20/20 to do with winning the first 20/20 World Cup? Finally a version of the game you were good at – let’s get IPL going" - The BCCI was the one Board that voted against the T20 World Cup in 2007. The win in the World Cup definitely helped in creating a market, but let us also understand that, like in the UK and Oz, the T20 format fits snugly with modern lifestyles in India. And we have a far higher cricket viewership than most other cricket countries combined. It will also behoove you to know that in the 80s and 90s, when we were pretty much ordinary, we still had s significant cricket viewership. Color TV and satellite brought in greater numbers to the game. So yeah, T20 is just another format of the game that happens to fit our lifestyles better than most. That does not mean there is no viewership for Tests or ODIs - we do not have a culture of watching Test matches in the ground. For a better benchmark on Test match viewing, look at the TRP and ad revenue numbers. Cheers,

Homer, one of the fascinating things about Indian cricket fans is their lemming-like desire to defend the BCCI with all sorts of argument. As the late Julius Sumner Miller used to ask, "Why is it so?" Or, as Will Shakepeare once suggested, "That's a lot of protesting, mate!" It's as if long held inferiority complexes are attempting to be shed by listing a series of virtues of the BCCI while at the same time reminding us lords that we aren't perfect. There's a bloody surprise! A lot of Australian fans would more likely be critical of CA and it's running of the game. Essentially a bunch of accountants and lawyers with no idea. Indians, however, and almost without exception, seem to want to defend the BCCI (and its love child the ICC) with their lives. It is a constant fascination to me. Maybe you're just more patriotic or maybe those old memories of colonial rule have burned too deep and you're trying to flex your muscles and prove you're just as good as an Englishman - and just as capable of bias. Personally, I don't give a hoot about who said or did what on the drug policy. Nor do I care who plays for which team in the Champions League. And I'm not sure we "fast-tracked" too many players after their "rebel tour" adventures. Most of those guys had either run their race with the Test team or were never going to get there which is why they went to South Africa. Possibly only Trevor Hohns had a reasonable - if relatively short - run in Test cricket after 1985/86. Rackemann may have played a Test or two but, rightly or wrongly, he was never really a first choice selection. As for "throwing human rights at you" I'm not sure I even picked it up, let alone threw it. Human rights, after all, is a relatively modern idea. We humans have been pretty savage over the years and I'm not sure we've totally adopted the concept even now. Yes, Australia did tour South Africa under apartheid but then we also toured India despite the way the "untouchables" have been treated over the centuries. I guess it's just us, we like to give everyone a fair go - sort of. For all that, I'm impressed by how much you know of cricket politics especially where India is involved. However, my question is, "Why do you see the need to attempt to justify every decision made by India and the BCCI. Or, indeed, the ICC in it's current form. You say, "where interests match, alliances are formed". I ask how much of that is matching interests and how much of it is India reminding its subservient neighbours they had better toe the line, or else. Because that's a major concern of cricket lovers outside the sub-continent. An alliance - or a dictatorship. They're not quite the same thing. As for Britney Spears and global flatulence I confess, until you mentioned it, I had no idea the BCCI was responsible. However, I'm not surprised. As for India being a land of criminals I didn't know that either but I can only imagine what it must have been like before partition when the country included all those corrupt Pakistanis! It's a wonder anyone survived. I do accept that India provided the origins of the game of chess, if not the current configuration of the game. Pretty good game too if you ask me. I don't think I was aware, previously, that India invented the decimal system though I assume that was because no bugger could count to twelve! Now to kill two birds with one rock (as the Russians are wont to say). While I agree, in principle, of the concept of absolute proof there will be times with the Pakistanis that the proof you desire is not available. However, the evidence may still be rather damning, even if just circumstantial. You remember what the great Indian detective Sherlock Holmes used to say, "Once you've eliminated all possibilities then what you are left with, no matter how unlikely, is the truth of what happened". Or words to that effect. Same with Pakistan. How many times must there be match saving partnerships (I'm thinking Hussey/Siddle, I'm thinking Broad/Trott) followed by a Pakistani collapse. How many times must the field be set in extraordinary fashion to allow said partnerships to flourish. Perhaps the poor old Pakistanis have just been unlucky. In these professional times people agonise over player sanctions and penalties. In the days of the amateur (relatively speaking) they just got dropped and disappeared and nobody batted an eye. Because cricket is all these people know is no reason to keep them in the game when the doubts are so strong and, it must be said, reinforced so frequently. Absolutely, I would not hang them on any circumstantial evidence. I would, however, leave them out of the team to disappear without trace. Hard on the individual, certainly, but ultimately good for the game and the game is far more important than any individual however talented he may be. Every player leaves the game at some point and oddly enough the game survives. So if a couple of wayward Pakistanis leave ten years earlier than first thought, so what? If Azza gets flicked on 99 Tests, so what? The game moves on, as it should. Just a thought, Homer, how much is India's fascination with anything 20/20 to do with winning the first 20/20 World Cup? Finally a version of the game you were good at - let's get IPL going. A cynical view, I know, but that's just me.

Products come in and out of fashion. Products, no matter how successful, need to be marketed and updated constantly, otherwise the competition comes in and, ZAM BAM, you’re gone. Markets vary in how they are measured: a business can compare themselves against other businesses; a sector can compare itself against another sector. The sports market is, as I see it, shrinking, in that the popular media sports get more and more dollars and other sports survive on government handouts. igh Jumping is an example of a sport almost surviving on government handouts. However, all sports and business need to create a certain ambiance to grow, maintain existing clients, and so on. When I look at cricket today, I wonder aloud where it is heading. No sport has done more to adjust to the modern world with ODIs and now Twenty20. But, also, no sport has done more to harm its image. From Hansie in South Africa, to the Pakistan team today, there are concerns over results even before a ball is bowled. The pitches are in the main prepared for batsman. The miss-match between the weak and strong nations is a chasm way too far. The seemingly win-at-all-cost attitude today. The huge amount of international matches played is mind-numbing. What does this do to cricket in Australia? I think cricket is, or has been, on a slow decline for a few years now. The domestic competition is hardly watched and draws a very small crowd. My guess is that cricket in Australia is much more in the older demographic. The younger demographic may be drawn to Twenty20, but this game is still in its early days. Oder Australian cricket fans will not take to Twenty20 with the same vigour as they do other forms of cricket. Whether is the over-playing, the batsmen prepared wickets, the constant winning by Australia, the decline in quality of the West Indies and England, or whatever, I wonder if cricket can reverse the south heading trend lines.

Rugby has always been my first love. I moved over to cricket in the summer months. However, with the local rugby season starting in February with the Super 15 and ending at the end of November with the NH tours, it is rather nice to take a break from arm-chair watching and get outside on weekends. The latest betting revelations have made the decision to walk away from cricket that much easier. I will always keep an ear open for news of tests between SA and both Aus and England, as this seems to be cricket at its best for me. The laughable number of T20 and one day 'world cups' has made my decision that much easier. Goodbye cricket, good luck, I think you are going to need it.

All in all it's a damn shame - Pakistan have always produced extremely talented and entertaining cricketers. This scandal has the potential to wipe them from the cricket world.

Exactly - the game is run by countries which are inherently corrupt. India only looks moderately clean because the company they keep (pakistan, bangladesh, sri lanka) are worse

Bayman, Circumstantial evidence has sent innocent people to the gallows. Unless Scotland Yard can prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, no punishment, however token, should be meted out. If the charges are proven, all of the accused should be banned for life, without exception. But until that time, "innocent until proven guilty" has to be the rule that should be in force. Cheers,

Bayman, I have no issues with how the BCCI handled the Azharuddin affair. In fact, the speed with which they acted was laudable. And I believe the thinking that the BCCI is trying to get even is also flawed. Remember that it was not us that wanted to split World Cricket - Project Snow was the ACB, ECB, NZC and the West Indies' baby. As I have stated before on this forum, the ICC, in its current avatar, is all about horse trading. Where interests match, alliances are formed. Isnt that the reason why the ECB was all ready to rescind on the Oval 2006 decision in order to split the "Asian bloc" and get Pakistan on side? Isn't that the reason why there was a push to get Zimbabwe out of the ICC . And please don't throw human rights at me - England and Australia were more than happy to tour South Africa under apartheid. And more than happy to fast track players who featured in rebel tours. The problem is, whenever and whatever the "Asian bloc" asks for, is seen as a huge concession by the non Asian bloc.Also there always seems to be undue haste in painting anything and everything Indian in the darkest shades of black. Take WADA. Remember the hue and cry when the BCCI expressed its reservations about the whereabouts clause? Everyone and his uncle accused the BCCI of trying to prevent its players from being tested and/or trying to cover up alleged drug use. Examples were cited of the IPL where ostensibly recreational drugs were the norm rather than the exception. Lot of noise was made about India's "clout" and its supposed "arm twisting tactics". Turns out that even the CA and the ECB had reservations over the whereabouts clause - the fact that they are government funded precluded them from saying anything negative about the WADA in its current form. Turns out that the solution the ICC evolved because of the BCCI's "arm twisting" if a far fairer and more pragmatic solution than the one originally proposed. Remember the hue and cry every year at the start of the Champions League.." Oh look, the big bad Indians are poaching all the best players. 200,000 is not adequate compensation etc etc". Well, turns out that CA is entrusted with the responsibility of making the rules. And for those players who are not contractually obliged to represent their IPL teams first ( Jacques Kallis) are then given the choice of the team they want to play. In the case where they choose to play for a team that is not their home team, the team they choose to play for ( not necessarily their IPL team) has to compensate the home team. But when did that factoid prevent people from blaming the BCCI's "clout" ? Slow news days, global flatulence, the War on Terror, global hunger, Britney Spears latest screw up - everything finds its origins with the BCCI. As Vinay and Viscount point out, we are 1.1 billion people who cannot think for ourselves. Never mind the fact that we are a 5000 year old civilization or that we gave the world chess and the decimal system. We are a land of criminals, snake charmers, fixers, devious, cunning, without a moral compass, having no idea whats right or wrong for us . ( Feel free to insert your stereotype here) - in short people who need redemption that can only happen because of the white man And if we protest, we are whingers, sooks and basically emotionally retarded people. Cheers,

Bayman - Yes, I remember Mr Ed very fondly. Never far from my thoughts as I type these few responses!!!

Sheek, surely you must remember "Mr Ed", a dodgy character if ever I saw one! Curiously, that "dear old dad" I wrote of is now long gone but, in his day, was well known for providing select jockeys with a jigger - a small electrical device which allowed the jocket to stimulate poor old neddy in an effort to get him to the post before the other guy. I'm not a racing man so I'm not sure what happened if two jockeys in the same race each had the afore-mentioned electrical assistance. Perhaps it was like the theory a few years ago that you should always take a bomb with you on an aeroplane. The logic stated that the chances of there being two bombs on the same plane.....well, you get the picture! Kersi, I agree that the BCCI is not responsible for the shambles that is Pakistan - but the ICC, which is essentially influenced by India, could play more of a role in ensuring some measure of stability. Especially given that without India the PCB would be in some difficulty. India has wanted the power and the money but with it comes some responsibility, particularly in regards its neighbours who seem to be pretty subservient to India. Just like Australia should have been better in their treatment of New Zealand in earlier days. Second XI teams was all very well but it was a tad patronising. Homer, I'm sure you know more about India's machinations than I do - and you obviously care more than I do. I do hope though that because Azza was on 99 Tests you don't think he should have been treated better. In regards to Warne and Waugh, CA knew of the allegations and, as you say, for some time did nothing. While the evidence does not suggest there was any match fixing involved, just the transfer of seemingly innocuous information - weather, pitch conditions etc. - the handling by CA reflected poorly on their judgement. Clearly this type of involvement would eventually have been escalated had nothing been said at all by the two Ws. From memory, theproblem with Azza was that the allegations involved what actually went on out on the ground. This was not so with Warne/Waugh although their actions were deplorable. This was also why Azza's penalty was so severe. No doubt CA's knowledge of the Ws saga prevented more illegal follow-up but the perception that there was more to it had to be the realisation of CA by keeping their silence. That CA misread the situation is, I think, in no doubt and they made the situation worse by their on-going silence. The problem didn't just go away as they hoped. Instead, there was Azza and Hansie et al and the Warne/Waugh saga was always going to find the light of day - and be seen in a very bad light indeed. At best CA was hopelessly optimistic. At worst, they were complicit. In any case they were niave and ill-considered in their judgement. As for the financial state of world cricket there's no doubt that the Indian influence has generated a lot of money. The problem is that the desire for even more money, and the power that goes with it, seems to dominate Indian thinking. They use that financial clout to influence the poorer ICC members in their region, not to mention Zimbabwe, to maintain their political hold on the game. It matters not that they may think they are just getting even for decades of power being in the hands of England and Australia. There's no doubt both England and Australia treated the sub-continent poorly. In 1959/60 the manager of Australia's first full tour of the region was told that under no circumstances was he to suggest to Pakistan that a tour of Australia was possible. No chance in hell. Even then, money was talking. I might add he was also told that in India the Tests would not take place unless the guaranteed amount of money was already in the bank. One Test was so threatened and only proceeded at the last minute when India finally agreed to deposit the cash, after realising the manager was deadly serious. So the interesting thing now will be the ICC response to Pakistan. Something must be done but what will it be? While I fully support the burden of proof being required for a murder trial I'm not so particular when it comes to sporting events. Where there's smoke there's fire. Enough evidence, circumstantial though it may be, is surely enough to sow the seeds of doubt regarding the behaviour of certain players. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, chances are it's a bloody duck! Same with Azza! I know what I saw in Sydney last year. I cannot prove anything but I know what I saw. That game was thrown by Pakistan, simple as that. I await the outcome of recent events with some interest.