Cricket Tragic Posted March 9, 2012 Posted March 9, 2012 According to Beer, the hotel meeting that resulted in Cairns having his ICL contract cancelled in October 2008 had involved a discussion about allegations of corruption between Cairns and the former England captain and TV pundit Tony Greig. Greig, an ICL executive director, also allegedly told Cairns that "signed affidavits" had been collected from players, accusing him of involvement in fixing. Beer said that he was not shown the affidavits and he had concluded at that stage that there was insufficient evidence to accuse Cairns - though he did not say so at the meeting. According to Beer, Greig went on to draw a comparison between Cairns and disgraced former South Africa captain, Hansie Cronje, who received a life ban from cricket in 2000. The court heard that Greig said: "Don't take this the wrong way, Cairnsy, but nobody would have thought that Hansie Cronje was involved in match-fixing."
Crookbond Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Gaurav Gupta, Karanveer Singh and Rajesh Sharma, three of Cairns' former Chandigarh Lions team-mates who have made separate accusations against him, appeared via a video link-up from Delhi. Gupta, a batsman who played first-class cricket for Punjab, has alleged that Cairns told him to score "no more than five runs" during a match between Chandigarh and Mumbai Champs. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/557098.html
Stuge Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 ^ If you take the wording of those three players ,Cairns is almost trapped plumb here.
Needforspeed Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 I dont know what the verdict of the court is going to be..but Cairns has come out with more dirt on his face after suing Modi. Most of the public who were not even aware of this now are convinced that Cairns is a fixer.
Mariyam Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 I dont know what the verdict of the court is going to be..but Cairns has come out with more dirt on his face after suing Modi. Most of the public who were not even aware of this now are convinced that Cairns is a fixer. Even if Cairns were a fixer, the question here is if Modi can malign a player based on hearsay from others. No court indicted Cairns of any wrong doing. No ICC tribunal made that charge either. However, Modi declared Cairns a persona non grata and debared him from the IPL auctions on his whims and fancies, contra to the terms an agreements of the IPL auctions, Two distinct issues.
Crookbond Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 ^ If you take the wording of those three players ,Cairns is almost trapped plumb here. It won't happen. It's one's word against another. Circumstantial evidence is missing apart from suspicious ad activity.
Crookbond Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Judge refuses late witness for Modi "Mr Sandhu's opinion is neither here nor there. The interview effectively adds nothing to what he said in 2008," Bean said. "Once you have stripped out Mr Sandhu's opinion on tactics and the evidence of Monday there is nothing further to it, and I have rejected it." http://es.pn/wwG6aa
Ultimate_Game Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 It won't happen. It's one's word against another. Circumstantial evidence is missing apart from suspicious ad activity. The key is that it's not one person's word against another. There are multiple people who have claimed Cairns is a fixer and provided evidence. One person can be brushed aside but when plenty of people make the accusation, along with your own team members then it's more than just hearsay. To me Cairns is a bigger loser than Modi and has come out worse from the trial.
Crookbond Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 The key is that it's not one person's word against another. There are multiple people who have claimed Cairns is a fixer and provided evidence. One person can be brushed aside but when plenty of people make the accusation' date=' along with your own team members then it's more than just hearsay. To me Cairns is a bigger loser than Modi and has come out worse from the trial.[/quote'] He may have "morally" lost more than Modi but legally it becomes difficult to prove so. The issue here is - Modi is no one to declare a person a cheat. It has to be proven in court of law. So, Modi may well be under the radar for contempt of court.
Ultimate_Game Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 He may have "morally" lost more than Modi but legally it becomes difficult to prove so. The issue here is - Modi is no one to declare a person a cheat. It has to be proven in court of law. So' date=' Modi may well be under the radar for contempt of court.[/quote'] But contempt of court is in case a person does something contrary to court's ruling post judgement. Modi did what he did 2-3 years back and since IPL is a private body I doubt anything can be proven against Modi. IMO Modi will not be found guily and it will be Cairns who would have come off 2nd best in this courtroom drama.
Crookbond Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 But contempt of court is in case a person does something contrary to court's ruling post judgement. Modi did what he did 2-3 years back and since IPL is a private body I doubt anything can be proven against Modi. IMO Modi will not be found guily and it will be Cairns who would have come off 2nd best in this courtroom drama. Remember this is a libel case. Therefore, if Cairns isn't proven guilty Modi will have to pay for defamation. If not, Cairns may be asked to go through another trial. The problem is that "word of mouth" doesn't count much as evidence in court. It's soft evidence which needs backing by hard evidence. Unfortunately, I don't see that Modi is going to present hard evidence. In this case, there has to be some phone records etc. Just word of mouth (even by 100 players) isn't going to get Modi anywhere.
Cricket Tragic Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 Cairns wins libel case against Modi http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/current/story/558806.html
Crookbond Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 The judge said Modi had "singularly failed" to provide any reliable evidence that Cairns was involved in match-fixing or spot-fixing, or even strong grounds for suspicion of cheating. "It is obvious that an allegation that a professional cricketer is a match-fixer goes to the core attributes of his personality and, if true, entirely destroys his reputation for integrity," Justice Bean said. "The allegation is not as serious as one of involvement in terrorism or sexual offences (to take two examples from recent cases). But it is otherwise as serious an allegation as anyone could make against a professional sportsman."
Crookbond Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 As I said earlier, it was Modi's prerogative to provide "hard" evidence. It didn't happen and Modi has to pay. Modi can appeal against the damages (amount to be paid) but not on the liability(decision).
1983-2011 Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 Sir Chris Cairns - I Salute You took modi to a british court and won the libel case against him:hatsoff: "It is obvious that an allegation that a professional cricketer is a match-fixer goes to the core attributes of his personality and, if true, entirely destroys his reputation for integrity," Justice Bean said. "The allegation is not as serious as one of involvement in terrorism or sexual offences (to take two examples from recent cases). But it is otherwise as serious an allegation as anyone could make against a professional sportsman." http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/558806.html
1983-2011 Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 in this type of cases it has to be 50:50 when it comes to evidence and modi couldnt even do that:P
devla Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 Just so I get this right: - the testimony given by the 3 Indian players that Cairns offered them money to under-perform was not credible - the testimony by Andrew Hall, who he never approached or tried to bribe and testified for Cairns was credible - the testimony of the Australian investigator, who tried to investigate Cairns but wasn't allowed to (possibly because of ICL trying to keep it under wraps) was credible Is there a pattern here?
Crookbond Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 Just so I get this right: - the testimony given by the 3 Indian players that Cairns offered them money to under-perform was not credible - the testimony by Andrew Hall, who he never approached or tried to bribe and testified for Cairns was credible - the testimony of the Australian investigator, who tried to investigate Cairns but wasn't allowed to (possibly because of ICL trying to keep it under wraps) was credible Is there a pattern here? NO, you need 'hard' evidence in court. Not 100 people calling you 'cheat'. It may raise suspicions but one can't claim that one is a fixer. Match fixing is a serious allegation and unless you have hard proof better not open your mouth or on this case your phone (blackberry twitter client).
Tendulkar_Bhai Posted March 26, 2012 Posted March 26, 2012 90k plus 1.5 million pounds in costs...ouch! Is Modi able to afford this, what other business does he have? He will probably appeal and reduce this amount
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now