Controversy as cricket electors change votes

[G_B_]

The proof of burden is on you as it is on me. You have to prove to me that the elections were fair which wouldn't require the launch of an ethics probe - that should be you enough indication. It is not a 'source'.

i dont have to prove anything. As things stand siva is part of that committee. The ICC has not made any issues about it. The ball firmly rests with the accusers. They need to provide certain degree of evidence (for eg how do they know its 9-1? did they ask the captains , all of them who are not even FICA members? where the captains truthful to them?). One report claims that Smith apparently voted thrice. So let Smith hold a press conference and confirm things. Enough of these second hand vague reports.

[Crookbond]

i dont have to prove anything. As things stand siva is part of that committee. The ICC has not made any issues about it. The ball firmly rests with the accusers. They need to provide certain degree of evidence (for eg how do they know its 9-1? did they ask the captains , all of them who are not even FICA members? where the captains truthful to them?). One report claims that Smith apparently voted thrice. So let Smith hold a press conference and confirm things. Enough of these second hand vague reports.

You mean to say ICC is fair in conducting the elections. If you really believe that, there's no point in discussion.

[Iconoclast]

70% of cricket's revenue comes from India. Yet they have just a tenth of voting power. Just does not make sense. India should amend the ICC constitution to make a voting college system which is proportional to revenue generated.

^^^^ Perfect example of why international cricket would be better off without Indians

[G_B_]

hmm without india cricket would be an incredibly poor sport with Aus and England ruling instead. either way countries like pakistan are ****ed. Thats just an honest accessment.

[G_B_]

You mean to say ICC is fair in conducting the elections. If you really believe that' date=' there's no point in discussion.[/quote'] so if the BCCI used channels outside the ICC to force board and captains to change their vote. what can the ICC do? or are the ICC omni present? Like say siva has a chat with Sammy after an IPL match where he is commentating or asks Bravo to ask on his behalf. Where does the BCCI figure in all of this from an evidence POV when there is no proof of them meeting board members or even captains.

[Crookbond]

so if the BCCI used channels outside the ICC to force board and captains to change their vote. what can the ICC do? or are the ICC omni present? Like say siva has a chat with Sammy after an IPL match where he is commentating or asks Bravo to ask on his behalf. Where does the BCCI figure in all of this from an evidence POV when there is no proof of them meeting board members or even captains.

You think it is healthy for the sport if BCCI black mails other boards to change votes for their personal interests?

[Debutant]

70% of cricket's revenue comes from India. Yet they have just a tenth of voting power. Just does not make sense. India should amend the ICC constitution to make a voting college system which is proportional to revenue generated.

:agree: BCCI should have veto power on all the matters and do away with this democratic and voting non sense. When you have the power, then you should abuse it. Good going BCCI :good:

[G_B_]

You think it is healthy for the sport if BCCI black mails other boards to change votes for their personal interests?

i am demanding proof. Then i can decide if its healthy or not. I really dont see for eg how the bcci can blackmail pakistani board. Are we going to tour them? so what hold do we have over them? their players wont play in the IPL. There is hardly any leverage.

[Crookbond]

i am demanding proof. Then i can decide if its healthy or not. I really dont see for eg how the bcci can blackmail pakistani board. Are we going to tour them? so what hold do we have over them? their players wont play in the IPL. There is hardly any leverage.

G_B, Since you are the sane guy over here I am continuing this discussion. As a normal person, there will hardly be any proof - so the proof of burden fallacy does not lie with me. ATM, I am unsure that the elections were fair. This is backed up by the fact that FICA wants an "ethics probe" which is enough to suggest that there was some issue with the elections. FICA doesn't launch an ethics probe every third day.

[yoda]

G_B' date=' Since you are the sane guy over here I am continuing this discussion. As a normal person, there will hardly be any proof - so the proof of burden fallacy does not lie with me. ATM, I am unsure that the elections were fair. This is backed up by the fact that FICA wants an "ethics probe" which is enough to suggest that there was some issue with the elections. FICA doesn't launch an ethics probe every third day.[/quote'] Indian cricketers are not part of FICA, so as far as Indian cricket is considered it is a random body. Why is Tim May entitled to keep representing FICA at this three man committee? I demand an investigation of FICA and Tim May.

[Crookbond]

Indian cricketers are not part of FICA' date=' so as far as Indian cricket is considered it is a random body. Why is Tim May entitled to keep representing FICA at this three man committee? I demand an investigation of FICA and Tim May.[/quote'] :hysterical: Done with the ad hominem on FICA? It still doesn't tell anything about the fairness of ICC elections.

[CG]

Good riddance of that alcoholic siva.

[G_B_]

G_B' date=' Since you are the sane guy over here I am continuing this discussion. As a normal person, there will hardly be any proof - so the proof of burden fallacy does not lie with me. ATM, I am unsure that the elections were fair. This is backed up by the fact that FICA wants an "ethics probe" which is enough to suggest that there was some issue with the elections. FICA doesn't launch an ethics probe every third day.[/quote']

ICC denies voting impropriety

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci-icc/content/story/634892.html?CMP=chrome

[Crookbond]

Fair enough but I think it mandates an independent ethics probe - in case you have done no wrong, there is no harm.

[Sachin=GOD]

May-Siva, and a fragmented future Dileep Premachandran · May 9, 2013 ·

If you’re an adult who has ceased to be shocked by random acts of violence, you should watch YouTube footage of the riot between fans of Dinamo Zagreb and Red Star Belgrade at the Maksimir Stadium in May 1990. What you see isn’t mutual dislike or irritation – it’s undiluted hatred. It also marked the beginning of the end for Yugoslav football. A couple of years later, the country itself would cease to exist, fragmented by a series of wars and skirmishes that saw some of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind. The most disturbing aspect of the Tim May-Laxman Sivaramakrishnan affair is the unmistakable aftertaste it left of cricket going down that Balkan route. Not to war and genocide, but to two extreme positions whose adherents completely ignore the language of compromise. Having said that, some of the things written about N Srinivasan, the president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), do make you wonder if he is indeed Slobodan Milosevic’s long-lost twin. You know breaking point has been reached when a cricket administrator is described as “dangerous”. Siva’s election ahead of May was certainly a surprise to many. May has been at the forefront of the players’ struggle for rights, whether through chasing delayed payments or negotiating with cricket boards for more sensible itineraries. As for Siva, we have no idea whether he’s a champion of players’ rights – India haven’t had an association worth the name for decades. As May himself pointed out, the issue isn’t so much which man was chosen, as how it was done. “The only thing that I can say and reinforce, is that this issue isn’t about [from my perspective anyway] whether Siva or I got elected or not, but it’s about was the process compromised?” he told Fairfax Media. “Did boards interfere and make threats to captains to change their votes – which leads to the crux of the matter – that we [FICA] on behalf of all players need to ensure that the players’ representative is actually the representative chosen freely by players, not one forced upon the players by boards.” The scenario that’s played out is all too familiar to anyone who has followed cricket over the past decade. The BCCI stands on one side, with bat, ball and flexed muscles – the playground bully. The other nine boards are scattered around, some supine with fear, others half-crouched and wondering what stance to take. At least, that’s the narrative that we’ve been given time and again. It raises an interesting question: If play stops, who is to blame? The one bully, or the nine cowards who don’t stand up to him? Which is worse – misuse of power or lack of spine? In all ten cases, whether it’s the alleged bully or his victims, the motivation for their behaviour is the same – self-interest. Back in 2009, when the International Cricket Council was being pilloried for the Test championship not becoming part of the calendar, I had a long chat with a high-ranking official. Interestingly, he didn’t just criticise the BCCI. He was as scathing of the other powerful boards, organisations that he said were equally opposed to the idea for their own commercial reasons. The ICC is the softest of targets. Like the United Nations, it’s powerless when faced with the power of veto that the rich and powerful have. The Cricket Committee, comprised largely of those that have distinguished themselves playing the game, can only recommend changes. The final decisions go upstairs, to power brokers and bean counters, many of whom have never swung a bat or ball in their lives. That it’s an unacceptable state of affairs was evident back in 2008, when Michael Holding resigned his place on the committee in protest against the decision to overturn the Oval forfeit of 2006, and classify it as a draw. “I have just written my letter of resignation to the ICC cricket committee because I cannot agree with what they’ve done,” he said during a commentary stint. “That game should never, ever be a draw. When you take certain actions, you must be quite happy to suffer the consequences. “A lot of things are happening today that I don’t want to be involved with, so I’ve moved on.” There have been similar tales of frustration from other luminaries. The issue is not the Decision Review System – the BCCI hardly needs one extra vote to quash moves to make it universal – it’s the process that leaves the final decision in the hands of those that care more about power games than the game itself. Assuming that several boards intervened to change their captains’ votes in Siva’s favour, what does it say about them? Doesn’t it make them as contemptible as the Indian kings and princes that sided with the British and other colonial powers in the 18th and 19th centuries? Right now, everyone wants a slice of India’s pie, while engaging in malicious Chinese whispers about the cook. Just consider three of the boards whose captains apparently voted in favour of May. Simon Wilde of the Sunday Times tweeted recently that the England and Wales Cricket Board made a loss of one million pounds in 2012, when South Africa and England contested a three-Test series for the No.1 ranking. The previous summer, when India were demolished 4-0, they made a profit of 15 million. With a five-Test series for the Pataudi Trophy promising a financial bonanza in 2014, what are the chances of the ECB offending the BCCI? Cricket Australia let down its players during Monkeygate, when faced with the potential cancellation of the series and the loss of as much as $60 million. Cricket South Africa is guaranteed 20% of the TV money from the Champions League Twenty 20 – Australia gets 30% – an event that they have also hosted twice. Paul Marsh, chief of the Australian Cricketers’ Association, has been critical of the Indian stance on various issues, but his most recent comments were also unequivocal about who else was to blame. “There has to be a tipping point,” he said to Fairfax. “The reality is the boards can’t see past the next India tour that might be in jeopardy because they say something. There are constant threats of that sort of stuff.” Everyone else is too busy counting Indian Rupees to call the BCCI’s bluff. Imagine what could be done if there was some semblance of unity among the nine other boards. India cannot play cricket in a vacuum. Without the stardust sprinkled by the likes of Chris Gayle and other international stars, even the Indian Premier League would wither and die. Instead of spine and an awareness of the big picture, what you see are boards drawing up TV deals that ensure full payment only if a certain number of games against India are guaranteed. In most cases, victim blaming is the last refuge of a scoundrel. In this one, there are nine entities that paint themselves as victims when they’re nothing of the sort. Greedy opportunists deserve no sympathy. Between them and the navel-gazing BCCI, cricket could go the way of Yugoslav football.

http://www.wisdenindia.com/cricket-blog/may-siva-fragmented-future/61663

[G_B_]

@DM I fully agree. Let then have a 100% probe. But at the same time the western media cannot come up with half truths. Either publish the whole thing with direct quotes or dont publish at all. Media in the west tend to always stay in the grey zone of speculation. Thats one thing i like about the News of the World spot fixing sting. They had bulk of proof to support their claim. Not some odd ball who writes about his vague suspicions in a book to make it sell more. On the wisden article, I personally think people in the west (media unions and governance) missed a huge trick. Rather than being friendly with India and try to change India from the inside they took a highly confrontational approach to the BCCI. Its the same thing with that DRS issue. They attempted to jam it down the throats of the BCCI who was not into it. A more gradual approach would have been a much better bet. For whatever reason its the BCCI who holds the purse of world cricket. A little more tact would have been better. In the case of Tim May, all he ever seems to do knowingly or otherwise is to make big statements. I am sure a lot of people remembered the kind of ugly rumours May spread about security in India after the 2008 Mumbai blasts. From England cancelling the test in chennai to banning the IPL. Same for Pakistan recently. You make such comments then people are going to sit up and take notice. Especially if it threatens them.

[Crookbond]

Tim May has does more than just make big statements.

[G_B_]

Tim May has does more than just make big statements.

i agree but the statements he makes causes the most damage as they are the ones picked up in the media.

[Crookbond]

i agree but the statements he makes causes the most damage as they are the ones picked up in the media.

He's The Dark Knight. :winky: