We shouldn't be shocked by Shakib Al-Hasan's scandal

The fact that we, Australia with India and England guzzle most of the ICC money? How do you not see a problem with that? More money should be going to the smaller nations especially SA and Sri Lanka and others to develop them.

Cronje and Azhurradin were on healthy money when they accepted bribes. It's one thing to attempt to get a no name to bowl a no ball, but to set up systemic match fixing needs the best players and or Captain who are more likely to influence match outcomes. It's different to high profile doping as those individuals justify to themselves they have to do it to repay themselves for the hard work and finite career against other dopers. Cheats like Cronje are simply giving into their greed, where too much is never enough.

Same could be said for the ECB and their additional income from tv rights hidden behind a pay wall for so long that cricket has disappeared from primary school playgrounds. They’ll point to pathways and other trendy words, but the simple fact is that the game isn’t growing from the massive ECB income streams. CA is heading down the same ‘path’ with two thirds of the international sport behind a pay wall and CA trumpeting buzzwords, while the players are dictated to on getting a central contract…….. Anyway, I was pointing out in this thread that the author was mounting an argument for fixing based on lack of income compared to the big three players. That doesn’t wash, as it won’t for Rashid, Naib and Pollard. They have additional revenue streams with T20 and endorsements and that favours them with massive incomes comparable to their own countrymen, which as far as I’m concerned is the only logical comparison. It is also flawed in that to my knowledge, Shakib was suspended for not reporting approaches and that he hasn’t been accused or charged with any type of fixing.

Very, very, weak engagement.

I think it would be a lot clearer if we knew what the bookies wanted him to do. If it was simply to bowl a no ball or wide at a certain time then they could have targeted any of the bowlers but as their most important player he's the one who is probably in the best position to influence the actual outcome of a match. Without knowing what they wanted to achieve its hard to know why they had him in their sights. .. As for the ICC's duty of care, we may never know until it gets tested. I honestly can't see what they are expected to do about it. I doubt they've got the resources to put affected players into some sort of witness protection. It's way outside their brief anyway. It seems to me that this is more in the domain of the national boards but they might dispute that. .. god damn, its murky alright.

I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt like we did with Shane Warne and Mark Waugh. Don't forget that Shane Warne used a diuretic while coming back from a shoulder injury just weeks out from the 2003 World Cup. The same diuretic kind of diuretic used to mask steroid use. As we know, steroids aren't just for strength but important for recovery. Does the excuse his mum gave it to him to get rid of his double chin pass the pub test?

There endeth the lesson.

Pious? Why be insulting and condescending because I pulled you up on a factual error relating to you calling someone greedy? Why not just say something along the lines of you weren't across the facts and now acknowledge that your statement should be changed in light of that? Seriously, Justin?

It's a pertinent point you raise DB. The ICC has penalties, but what is (where is) their duty of care re protecting players and officials when conforming to their anti bribery and corruption policies? I suspect - and it's only supposition on my part - that this is why we never quite see the whole story behind these issues. They're raised to a point for public consumption, to provide assurances that the issue is being addressed, but I think there is a whole lot more that is known behind the scenes. It's what makes me "curious" (for wont of a better term) re the Shakib issue. I have a feeling that somehow the ICC investigation, of which Shakib is the face of, may go deeper into the Bangladesh team. Was the player strike relating to be "disguntled" with the BCB (arranged by Shakib at short notice and in the final stages of the ICC investigation - when all parties would have been well aware of the investigation given interviews would have been conducted) somehow related to this? Because it just doesn't make sense why Shakib of all players (notwithstanding his leadership role) would have been approached three times when bookies would have had to know that they couldn't pay him enough to put at jeopardy his lucrative earnings. Has Shakib taken one for the team, knowing he can financially wear a ban, whereas others could not? A lot of it is stacking up form at the moment.

Good point about the threats and coercion. I guess most people would do what they're told if it meant the difference between their family being safe or not. The ICC can't protect these players or their families. It's not a police force after all. Even if it was the heavy duty villains would find a way to carry out their threats anyway.

Agreed. The players would certainly know about their obligations to report now. Probably what we don't know is when those approaches are made, are there also threats made to players and their families if the players disclose that the approach has been made? It's a seedy and murky underworld and there is a powerful organised criminal structure throughout the subcontinent. Kidnappings and extortion for various reasons are not uncommon, even in India; certainly in Pakistan.

Thanks my pious friend. Still can’t see what England Australia and India have to do with it. Failing to report in 2019 is inexcusable by the way.

I don't know for sure but I'd be surprised if there was any official obligation on the players to report these things back then. There certainly is a rule about that now though and all the players should know about it.

Related to your comment re the amount of money comparatively earned by Eng/Aus, versus what is distributed them, there also has to be consideration as to whether the Bangladesh Cricket Board is appropriately managing the game. Shakib recently led a player strike based on issues re wealth-distribution by the BCB (though the timing was curious to say the least given Shakib knew he was under ICC investigation and likely facing a ban); point being, there are plenty of people available to watch cricket in Bangladesh so is the BCB doing what it needs to be doing to grow the game, increase interest, subsequently attract revenue and consequently improve player payments?

What a skewed argument. There's definitely disparity between the top three and the rest, but by that reasoning the English and Australians should fixing to improve their lot because the ICC revenue is three times less than India. If Shakib is earning 78 grand a year that is about 36 times higher than the minimum wage in Bangladesh. Surely that's the relevant comparison? Of course Shakib is playing T20 around the world, so he's earning considerably more than that. Fixing is about greed and power, not a result of ICC revenue distribution.

hi Adam,I certainly agree with your sentiment about the pay disparity across world cricket, but to suggest this is the heart of the al-Hasan suspension is not correct IMO. This player was suspended for failing to report contacts made by bookies. End of story. He didn't receive any money from them,at least according to reports I've read, so I'm not sure how you can suggest his underwhelming wages, if true, are the root cause of this "scandal". The real scandal came about because the highest profile cricketer Bangladesh has in world cricket, a man who MUST have been warned about this in team meetings and ICC briefings, chose not to do what he knew was right & report these contacts - then had the nerve to say how dead against corruption he was, AFTER he was caught!! There's only word for that IMO - hypocrisy.

"allowed his greed to get in the way of good judgement?" Let's get the facts right before we start making accusations like that Justin. He has been banned for not reporting the bookmaker approaches. He has not been charged with taking any payments.

"an AFP report in 2017 stated the top earners in Bangladesh – including the likes of Shakib Al-Hassan – earn $6,500 (AUD) a month for their efforts" I think the sentiment of your article re disparity in professional earnings between nations is correct Adam and certainly we have learned that was a root cause of the issues that dogged Pakistan repeatedly. Average wages in Bangladesh are especially low in a global context, but even in comparison to most countries in South Asia/South East Asia. But, you are way off the mark in drawing together the principle of players from poorer-paying cricket countries being tempted by bribes of $20k or similar and Shakib Al-Hasan. From a variety of earnings sources, he receives about USD4.5m a year. These include cricket salary, endorsements, sponsors as well as substantial business investments. He has a net worth of USD35m. Agreed there is a temptation by south Asian bookmakers to target lower paid players, but why Shakib? What would be the point? I suspect there is a lot more behind this than what we have been told.

"well why a ban compared to no ban for Warne and Mark Waugh for the same thing." They're 20 years apart. At the time of the Warne/Waugh issue, especially pre-Cronje. the understanding/recognition of the influence of match fixing was nowhere near what it became afterwards so the structures weren't in place (anti-bribery and corruption programs, or penalties).

Ahh so it’s England Australia and India’s Fault that a Bangladeshi player allowed his greed to get in the way of good judgement? Deary me!