Steve Waugh backs lie detectors to tackle corruption

[ahilya]

Steve Waugh backs lie detectors to tackle corruption

Steve Waugh has undergone a lie-detector test to show how the system could be used to help track down players involved in fixing cricket matches. Waugh, a member of the MCC Cricket Committee who were meeting at Lord's this week, proposed that polygraphs could be used to tackle corruption during the group's last meeting in Perth late last year. Initially there was much scepticism but Keith Bradshaw, the MCC chief executive, offered his support and a committee was formed with Waugh, Bradshaw, Courtney Walsh and Barry Richards. Waugh then felt he should find out what the procedure involved and he passed the test conclusively. "As a former captain I wouldn't ask my players do anything I wasn't willing to do myself so I thought the same should apply here," he said. "I thought I needed to find out what a polygraph test is and go through the process to see if it was a possibility for the future. "It was very nerve-wracking to go through the process, being sat in a room having your heart rate monitored, your blood volume, your blood pressure, your perspiration. There were a lot of devices I was attached to. The test went for two hours and by the end of it I was fairly convinced that if someone had something to hide they would be found out." The test was conducted by Steven van Aperen, a former senior policeman in Victoria, who has also worked the United States. However, any use of polygraphs in the future faces a huge number of hurdles and remains unlikely. Even if it passed all the legal battles it could never be made compulsory and there are doubts about the reliability of tests although van Aperen said there was "96-98% accuracy." "We know how hard it is to catch players," Waugh said. "There have been a lot of rumours about what is going on so it's about looking to the future. We've looked at different options and one of those might to get some younger players to pledge to do a polygraph test to lead the way. "We know we haven't got all the answers but think this may be a piece of the puzzle that will help the game move forward. It could be a good tool for those wrongly accused. Maybe if there are cricketers out there doing the wrong thing it will make them think. We want to further explore that closely with the ICC." The other eye-catching anti-corruption measure put forward by the cricket committee is that the ICC's Anti Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) should have the power to perform sting operations similar to that staged by the News of the World last year against Salman Butt, Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif. Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, had previously talked about this mention earlier this year. "I thought when this issue came up last year that perhaps we could have a 'mystery shopper'," he said. "In other words, some people posing as bookmakers approach players and see if those players report along with our codes of conduct." Waugh said that such operations had shown their effectiveness. "In the past players have been caught. I don't think it's ideal, but if that's the way that wrongdoers can be caught then it could be an option but I don't think it should be the No. 1 option." Tony Lewis, the MCC Cricket Committee chairman, said. "It's important to realise this group was only set up a few months ago and no one is going to sort out this problem quickly. It's a brave lead by Steve Waugh because having his name attached to it means it will be taken seriously." The committee were also very strong in their belief that any captain or coach found guilty of corruption should face life bans. "They are the leaders of the team," Waugh said. "They need to shape the values of the team and should be taken out of the game for life." Among the other issues discussed by the committee was the prospect of day/night Test cricket which MCC have been at the forefront of. Rahul Dravid, a member of the committee who played against the pink ball in the MCC-Champion County game in Abu Dhabi earlier this year, gave a presentation and said the one issue he had was the twilight period with a suggestion that the problem could be avoided by scheduling an interval. Martin Crowe said he would be trying to get the format introduced into New Zealand's first-class cricket next season. The committee believes the pink ball has now shown its durability and produced an 80-over ball which had retained colour as evidence. They expressed their frustration that ICC continued to drag their heels in the process but admitted further trials were needed. "It's going to take a couple of more years unfortunately, despite the fact we think it's a viable format," John Stephenson, the MCC's head of cricket, said. "There probably hasn't enough enthusiasm so far. ICC have to be more proactive as an option for member countries to use then the momentum will gather." MCC have also offered themselves as an independent body, along with Imperial College London, to help ICC undertake their testing off DRS in order to prove its accuracy.

[Blue-no1]

The technology has been well tested on Aussie players: Michael Slater, Clarke, Ponting, Gilcrist, and the great Steve Waugh himself. It will be very useful to try it out on Aussies in the next series.

[Mariyam]

Wouldn't make much of a difference. And it would cause more problems than it would solve. In a nutshell ( in India ) this is how a polygraph test works: You arrest/detain a suspect based on some evidence. You have to apply to and convince the court which is trying the suspect that a polygraph is vital. The court reserves the right to deny permission. In cases where the police are smart, they apply for a polygraph test when they apply for the arrest warrant. And as is the case with all other things in India, the police many a times go ahead without the courts consent. If they get some leads from the polygraph, they apply for a polygraph and re-do the tests to present to the court. :D Also, just the result of a polygraph test do not prove anything. For eg, if a person was to murder his father for the money and leave behind no clue, and his mother had a hunch that it was her son who did the murder, then if the police were to even administer the polygraph and get a 100% result on the son's guilt, they cannot do anything. Some other proof is a must. Even circumstantial evidence if not direct. So, polygraph or no polygraph, you will need get evidence. Polygraph is typically not used to find out who is guilty, but rule out suspicion on who isn't. And I'm not even getting into the whole accuracy arguement.

[Crookbond]

Given a chance, I would use this on Punter.

[King Tendulkar]

Waugh getting this horribly wrong!!I dont think pakis would fail lie detetctor test even if lieing. Lieing and cheating is so ingrained and natural to them, that when they lie their heart rate etc probably drops.

[Sachinism]

This is the most retarded thing ever. Its quite possible to beat this thing.

[Jersey #10]

Dumb Idea liars can easily pass this test while innocent can fail it with ease.

[Laaloo]

N-TZ8Z5S9rI :--D

[Cricket Tragic]

:facepalm:

[Ram]

WTF is Steve Waugh on about? He is making it sound as though we are dealing with some hardened, calcified criminals. For eff’s sake, these are cricketers that are talking about and by and large, most of them are spotless with integrity of character. It would be monumentally stupid to have all of them (or even a few of them, depending upon how it works) go thru a lie-detector test. Can you imagine the sheer absurdity of the situation when someone like Rahul Dravid or a Sangakkara or Andrew Strauss are called for a lie-detector test? And are we going to test all of cricketers, or only a few? If so, how will the few be picked? Plus, this has to be something completely voluntary (I don’t any authority outside law enforcement has the rights to demand that someone take the lie-detector test). So that just beats the whole point of it. Why would a cheat offer himself up to be tested, when he knows there’s a chance for him to being caught? And even if by some remote chance that somebody does fail a test, you still cannot prove anything, given the slightly dubious nature of technology. All we will left with is protracted legal battles that will benefit no one but the lawyers on both the sides. And why stop with lie-detector tests? Why not truth-serum? Or intimidation by dogs? I cannot believe somebody as intelligent and smart as Waugh thinks this is a viable option. Even if he has lost his mind, what is more incredible that we have people from MCC/others taking this seriously and creating news out of it. If you want to rid the system of corruption, fine, but at least be sensible about it. There are umpteen other practical ways that be a 1000 times more effective, with 1000 times less controversy and commotion.

[Alchemist]

We will start having Maury show before a match or during the innings break.

[nballa]

these cheapos won't have the DRS because it costs like a thousand bucks a game. good luck getting them to embrace this.

[Laaloo]

First victim: muhammad " Oh I waant to buy a generator for my village" Amir

[Cricket Tragic]

Strauss would take lie-detector test Andrew Strauss has said he would be "absolutely" willing to undergo a lie-detector test, if it was decided that they were the way forward in combating corruption in the sport, after Steve Waugh underwent the process and called for figurehead players to lead the way. Waugh would ideally like international captains to take the lead in rooting out match-fixing even though he knows polygraphs could never be made compulsory. While his proposals received support from Strauss his opposite number, MS Dhoni, was less forthcoming with a straight "no comment" and suggested that he hadn't heard of the idea when asked whether he would take a test. Strauss added that a lot of work would need to be done to prove if lie-detectors worked - and there are many differing opinions over the accuracy of testing - but was in favour of anything that could tackle corruption. "My response is that I'm in favour of anything that helps us get to the bottom of any wrong-doing in the game," he said. "It's vitally important for cricket going forward that it's as clean as possible and can demonstrate it's as clean as possible. "The devil is always in the detail with this sort of thing. I don't know exactly how lie detectors work and how accurate they are, but I like the idea of it. I like the idea of us getting down to the nitty-gritty and finding out if any wrong-doing has been going on and therefore making the sport cleaner as a result." During the test that Waugh undertook in Australia he read a prepared declaration stating that he had never been involved in fixing a cricket match, or any element of a match, and it may be a template that could be followed in the future. "I, Steve Roger Waugh, do hereby declare that during my cricketing career except for manipulating matches for purely strategic or tactical reasons I never deliberately under-performed or fixed a cricket match or a passage of play within a match or did anything other than try my hardest for any cricket team I played for. "I never received any form of payment, either in money or as a gratuity or benefit in return for under-performing in any cricket match I have played in." Waugh said that it was his frustration at endless questions about corruption that prompted the idea of polygraphs. "There are a lot of rumours out there about match-fixing and spot-fixing. I became sick and tired about being asked if games I played in were above board."

[Pagalpanti]

Honestly the way spot fixing unraveled last year, many times when there is something unusual I can't help but think could that have been fixed. Not so sure if this is the right way forward but it would be nice to know if we're actually watching a sport and not a show like WWE.