tnameh Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Can you post a neutral source which says that ICC doesnt want to reveal details of the case because the evidence against the trio was flimsy? Obviously the evidence would have been shared with the trio. If they felt that there was no evidence, why not file a case against ICC in a civil court for unfair treatment. You are playing both sides of the field here. On one hand you accuse Indian fans of ignoring evidence because of their inability to accept fault with their idols and on the other hand are defending three sportsmen who were caught with a smoking gun with enough visual and audio evidence combined with huge no balls to ban them for 5-10 years. Is Cricinfo neutral enough for you? http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/499871.html
Karan114 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Is Cricinfo neutral enough for you? http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/499871.html This relates to the ICC proceedings being barred in the UK only because of the CPS case being conducted side by side, not in the rest of the world.
Sachin=GOD Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 ICC has said that they will look into the matter if SI can provide proofs to substantiate their claims.
Cricket Tragic Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 The ICC published the evidence on its site long back. It was available for everyone outside the UK.
ganeshran Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Is Cricinfo neutral enough for you? http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/content/story/499871.html You stated that ICC isnt revealing evidence because it wont stand up in a real court. This article states that the evidence cannot be made public in UK because Scotland yard is conducting its own investigation into the matter because the jury could be prejudiced by the results of the investigation being conducted by another body on the same case. The evidence was made public everywhere except the UK and people all over the world read it.
tnameh Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 OK. Let me ask you guys a question. According to you, what constitutes solid proof in match fixing? Also, I'd like to point out that unlike the Delhi police taping Cronje, there's no such "smoking gun" in SI's case.
hitman1980 Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 So they talked to some bookie and he told them tht he has talked to this and this cricketer blah blah abt fixing matches .. No wonder this story didn't even got any significance ... How can u blame cricketer just cos a 3rd person said tht he is in contact with tht cricketer .. So lame story without any proofs ..
ganeshran Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Doh! Not a conspiracy theory, dude. Look it up. There are news articles about this. As for "solid proof", it's not happening. Not in this lifetime. Great if it does, but I doubt it. No sir, there's no "solid proof" that nailed Azhar, only some testimonies, phone records, bank details. That's all. There was no "solid proof" to nail Jadeja. Here's the thing about journalists providing proof, though. The SI journalist has taken great risks to tape bookies and meet shady characters. [Read about that here: http://blogs.cricket.yahoo.com/posts/2011/05/cricket-tends-to-protect-its-secrets-2/ ] An excerpt: This reporter has given you her version of the truth. It's up to you to believe it or junk it. You speak of the BCCI's "zero tolerance" like the Indian board is a shining beacon of integrity and propriety. Truth is, they may be as much in bed with bookies as are some of these players. Read the story, you'll know what I mean. Testimonials alone cannot be considered solid proof like the SI story, but combined with phone records, bank transactions, clear evidence of underperformance - yes it would constitute solid proof. If SI story can prove bookies made calls of certain duration to the players numbers and have the voice of players on record along with details of financial transactions, I would pretty much consider the player to be involved in match fixing.
tnameh Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Also, could someone please share the link to a published copy of the judgement? I haven't read it in detail, except for what the agencies reported, so it would be nice if someone can share the link to the full document. Tnx!
ganeshran Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 OK. Let me ask you guys a question. According to you, what constitutes solid proof in match fixing? Also, I'd like to point out that unlike the Delhi police taping Cronje, there's no such "smoking gun" in SI's case. I havent yet read SI's story so will reserve my comments on that. But if they dont have absolutely no evidence except conversations with bookies and unnamed BCCI officials and Bihari politicians, it would be a waste of time.
Vijay.Sharma Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 This is so misguided, I don't know where to begin. But just for the record — since you clearly don't seem to be the type who reads carefully before shooting off these comments — the investigation and the story has been done by Sports Illustrated India. Yahoo Cricket gave you a preview of the story. All these "scum messengers" are seasoned writers who have spent thousands of hours and millions of bucks following the game so that readers like you could benefit from the information they share. Most of what you know about cricket comes from them, and they've probably forgotten more about the game than you ever knew. So, seriously dude — the logic you just used? You could sharpen it by knowing how these writers argue their cases, and they don't do it by flinging poo.Again, stop bigging up the messenger. Focus on the message What in the message gives you an iota of evidence for the events' genuinity. In case you did not read my post properly, I myself said that focusing on the messenger is a logical fallacy....here read it again - "Of course mine is a fallacious argument but the moment you make a fallacious argument...." Focus on the message please
tnameh Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 That's the feeling I'm getting. Too bad. Are mods deleting the messages? BTW guys, start watching Times Now right now. SI editor Kadambari Murali is on air with Arnab while Arun Lal is trying to take the side of the cricketers.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 So far all I've seen is the following... 1. Speculation that match fixing is rife and some intl players MAY be in on it. 2. passing hearsay as the proof. E.g., I talked to a bookie who told me he had a conversation with a Delhi based player who abused the bookie. Come on! What sort of evidence/proof is this? 3. Promise of more to come. But after Zulqernanin Haider, Basit Ali, Sarfraz Nawaz, Aamer Sohail, Rashid Latif, Hashan Tillekratne I am still waiting for any "evidence" and not just hearsay. So far the only evidence that has been uncovered in match fixing was Cronje tapes and NOTW - other than that everything else is just speculation. By the way if Indian players were fixing and throwing games, how come we ended up winning the cup? That means either Indian players didn't throw games or other teams' players threw games. In either case it should be the other teams who need to be investigated.
tnameh Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 So far the only evidence that has been uncovered in match fixing was Cronje tapes and NOTW - other than that everything else is just speculation. By the way if Indian players were fixing and throwing games' date=' how come we ended up winning the cup? That means either Indian players didn't throw games or other teams' players threw games. In either case it should be the other teams who need to be investigated.[/quote'] The story says there may have been cases of mischief by Indian players before the World Cup, not during it. You're right about the second part - hence the bits in the story about the World Cup semifinal points a finger at Pakistan. But it specifically says Afridi is one of the "clean" players.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 The story says there may have been cases of mischief by Indian players before the World Cup, not during it. You're right about the second part - hence the bits in the story about the World Cup semifinal points a finger at Pakistan. But it specifically says Afridi is one of the "clean" players. Again the key words here are "may have been". Hell what does it even mean? I can come up wit claims and make statements like "2003 and 2007 World Cups may have been fixed" or "Ponting may have been part of some fixing mischief". There's no such thing as "may have been" in these cases - either you have the proof and the players ARE/WERE involved or they ARE/WERE not. Period. As for WC, the article simply doesn't make any sense as they have allegations around a Delhi based player. As I've stated earlier India WON the tourney so obviously any Indian/Delhi player didn't fix matches to lose. If WC is under scanner then investigate other teams but don't tarnish Indian players just for cheap publicity. Also do keep in mind that these articles/allegations/investigation was carried out by journalists who have to make a living just like us. It is in their best interests to muddy the waters to sell more copies and earn more money. Plus they can't go back to their bosses and say "oh we spent 6 months working on that match fixing story but we didn't find much". They will lose their jobs on the spot and that's why you have all these allegations and hearsay which are simply quoting a bookie! Hell I can do a better job than that. Pay me 6 months salary/benefits and I can come up with such kind of stuff, or maybe even better. Unless they have the tapes with players on record like NOTW it's all hearsay and just a way of making up news to make money. They simply followed one of the consultant principles - coz I am one. If a company hires you, you tell them what they want to hear and come up with some issues. And then you come up with a plan on how you can "fix" the problem. In this case the journalists are following Part 1 - making up the issues and telling what people may want to hear
tnameh Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Again the key words here are "may have been". Hell what does it even mean? I can come up wit claims and make statements like "2003 and 2007 World Cups may have been fixed" or "Ponting may have been part of some fixing mischief". There's no such thing as "may have been" in these cases - either you have the proof and the players ARE/WERE involved or they ARE/WERE not. Period. Sorry mate. I'd have to disagree with you here. And since we're strictly NOT dealing with statements like "2003 and 2007 CWCs were fixed", I don't wish to comment on that. I'll comment on what I know. SI is run by journalists. Journalists are not equipped to hang guilty players. They are merely bringing you their version of the truth. At the moment, they're saying that their version of the truth is: 1) Some players are up to no good 2) They have recorded phone coversations proving this 3) The records will be passed on to the ICC and the BCCI 4) They wouldn't have run these stories if they had no faith in these recordings 5) They are staking their careers, their reputations, hell, their MAGAZINE on this story. The thing you want to do from here on is, pass the tapes on to investigating authorities. And let them work on uncovering more dirt on this matter. And then, let the truth come out. Till then, I doubt neither of us is qualified to make a fair judgement on the quality of the story. Even though I've learnt the hard way that there's no smoke without a fire.
Ultimate_Game Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 Sorry mate. I'd have to disagree with you here. And since we're strictly NOT dealing with statements like "2003 and 2007 CWCs were fixed", I don't wish to comment on that. I'll comment on what I know. SI is run by journalists. Journalists are not equipped to hang guilty players. They are merely bringing you their version of the truth. At the moment, they're saying that their version of the truth is: 1) Some players are up to no good 2) They have recorded phone coversations proving this 3) The records will be passed on to the ICC and the BCCI 4) They wouldn't have run these stories if they had no faith in these recordings 5) They are staking their careers, their reputations, hell, their MAGAZINE on this story. The thing you want to do from here on is, pass the tapes on to investigating authorities. And let them work on uncovering more dirt on this matter. And then, let the truth come out. Till then, I doubt neither of us is qualified to make a fair judgement on the quality of the story. Even though I've learnt the hard way that there's no smoke without a fire. As I mentioned earlier journalists are professionals like you and me who have to make a living and what better way to do so than rake up a controversy and milk it all the way to the bank. As for "no smoke without fire" you can always make up smoke out of thin air. All it takes is a former player/commentator to make a statement like "I think the match was fixed" or "the match looked a little unusual" and presto you have the smoke! P.S. - I think 1992 and 1996 is when match fixing really happened in the world cups. Read more about it and discuss at this thread... http://indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=265933
Prakat Posted May 9, 2011 Posted May 9, 2011 No controversy breaks with previews. It just drops out of thin air. The way this is playing out is very very odd.
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