Many women may take back their husbands even after finding out that he secretly spent 2 out of 7 day business trip in Thailand, yet many of these women may kill their husbands if they find a video of their husband in the act.
Never had i understood the meaning of “seeing is beleiving” more than after the spot fixing saga.
Imagine Shane Warne and Mark Waugh on sofa counting money taken from an Indianbookie and then telling how the pitch is and what any captain will do winning the toss, which bowler is likely to pick wickets. What uproar would it have led to. Yet it all happened and all they got was a fine that was probably less than the money received. ACB acted like a crooked cop, who takes part of the loot and lets go the theif.
The phrase dont get caught should actually be dont get caught…on camera.
this is a very good point.....today ian chappel has emerged as one of the biggest "ethical" cricketer ever but where was he when shanes and waughs were screwing the cricket spirit....i guess had he seen a video of these two players at that time, he would have demanded a life time ban on them as well....."seeing is beleiving" for sure....
A few points:
1. Warne & Waugh affair was in early days of match-fixing scandal, i.e., mid nineties.
2. Their offence was minor.. they did not fix any matches but rather provided pitch and weather information. Not sure what more ACB could've done then besides fines.
3. Any fine Warne and Waugh would've paid would be in addition to the money they received. The would not have been allowed to keep the money.
4. PCB has been aware of actual match-fixing since the early nineties, yet they did nothing to prevent it from taking place. All the big culprits escaped unpunished. Only Salim Mailk (when he was already of retirement age) and Atta ur Rehman (who wasn't even a regular member of the team) were banned. This despite overwhelming evidence and sworn affidavits of other players that the match fixing did actually take place and our players deliberately lost matches.
^I dont buy the crap that taking money for providing info on pitch to a bookie is any better than taking money for bowling a no ball.
They are not equal offences. The second is one is happening in an actual match. It's fixing.
Providing weather info is not FIXING. But you know what I don't understand? What stupid bookie is paying money to get weather and pitch information? This information is easily available anyway... is it not????? Maybe it wasnt that easy in the 90s? Still doesn't make sense to me.
^What bookie will be paying for a random no ball? If he indeed fixes the no ball a day earlier, he has to find someone willing to bet a huge amount on that particular no ball, extremely hard to find. The point is player accepting a bribe for something whther bowling an inconsequential no ball or providing info not otherwise available to bookie.
^So is taking money and providing information about pitch and weather to a bookie, helping him place the bets.
thats not match fixing or spot fixing or any kind of fixing..
is it ethical? no.. deserves a smack.. and i think they did get one.. but its nowhere close to being as unethetical and serious as spot fixing or match fixing..
i stilll dont understand y the fk did the bookie want to pay the aussies for pitch and weather information.. how is that any secret!!!!!!!
thats not match fixing or spot fixing or any kind of fixing..
is it ethical? no.. deserves a smack.. and i think they did get one.. but its nowhere close to being as unethetical and serious as spot fixing or match fixing..
i stilll dont understand y the fk did the bookie want to pay the aussies for pitch and weather information.. how is that any secret!!!!!!!
Bcoz most likely ACB played down the offence by stating that it was about providing pitch information. Even the no balling hasnt been proved as of yet to be a spot fixing. Is there anyone who placed a bet on these no balls, highly unlikely. But it did show that players took bribe in exchange for no ball. Dont see it differently than player taking bribe for info he is not supposed to share with a bookie.
Icon.. your assumption that ACB played it down and it was actually more than just providing pitch info.. is based on what?
I say it again.. the fact that they bowled the no balls as per the bookie..makes it irrelevant to me if there was any actual money riding on it.. they are performing in match conditions as per their fixer.. guilty !!!!