Amir’s interview

Unfortunately I was not able to watch the full interview that Mohammed Amir gave to Michael Atherton, but I found a transcript and it makes for very interesting reading. Amir is very contrite, saying ‘I told myself that I’d definitely done wrong and would accept the truth, whatever the consequences’ and ‘What I can say is that I think I deserved to be punished’. At the same time, however, he says that he was ‘tricked’ into the fixing by Salman Butt, at whose feet he lays the blame.

Amir says that he panicked and made an error of judgement. That is a plausible and far-reaching defence, but also one for which it is hard to provide evidence. It is worth mentioning that as intelligent and well-spoken as Atherton is, he is not a QC and thus not trained in cross examination. There is a particular portion of Amir’s testimony which struck me as suspicious: he gave his bank details to an unknown third party ‘Ali’ before the Oval Test, apropos of nothing according to Amir. Supposedly he did so because the man was a friend of Butt’s. This is not something I could even imagine anyone doing. I know that Amir’s circumstances are very different from those with which I am familiar, but even so I cannot think of a compelling reason to give one’s bank details to a complete stranger. At the same time, he was given the money for his no-balls in cash, which would be very odd if he had already given his bank details to the fixers. Amir also never answered why he texted ‘so in the first 3 bowl whatever you like and in the last 2 do 8 runs’ before he had been supposedly pressured into bowling the no-balls at Lord’s. It these points on which I think a skilled QC would have pressed and perhaps got a clearer picture than Atherton did.

I am by no means convinced of the veracity of Amir’s story, though the rest of his story is very believable. He claims that Butt and Mazheer told him that the ICC knew of his original phone calls and the only way to stay out of trouble was to follow along with Butt’s fixing. Whilst this is, on the face of it, a rather outlandish claim, the notion that he panicked and accepted is not. If it is true he would be far from the first one to do so. From there he is mostly very contrite, whilst also speaking of his anger with Butt, who Amir considered his ‘older brother’. In general it is a very good interview and it is nice to see him (mostly) take responsibility.

It will inevitably bring up the subject of whether Amir’s ban was too heavy. If one accepts his story as true, then it is easy to paint a picture with it of a young man who had few other options. That would, I think, be ill-advised. Even if one overlooks the illogic of Amir giving away his phone details, the fact that he was pressured into it would only be a reason for some leniency, certainly not any sort of pardon. It must be remembered that the ban is not merely a punishment for Amir, but a shot across the bows of other would-be fixers. The ICC, or any governing body, can never rigourously police and investigate every delivery of every match, they are reliant on informants. As preferable as it would be to use the ‘carrot’ and offer rewards to them, it carries the risk of false claims and is anyway unlikely to match the rewards of fixing. The only direct incentive to report fixing then is the threat of a lengthy ban for all those involved. For Amir, I think five years is about right. He will almost certainly play again, he will still be younger than some debutants when he his ban expires, but his career will have been curtailed and his reputation will probably never fully recover.

The fact that Butt and Asif also only got, in effect, five years is inexcusable, however. Again, I do not fully accept the claim that Butt tricked Amir into fixing, but he was still clearly heavily involved. He had to be, he was the captain and made for a natural organiser. There is no doubt in my mind that he should have been given a life ban and the fact that he wasn’t displayed the spinelessness of the ICC.

Fixing reactions

It’s been a pretty eventful week in cricket and there have been a lot of very good articles written, with not all of which I entirely agree. I’ve shared a lot of them on my Twitter feed, but I wanted to share them here as well. They are in no particular order:

A cleansing process Andrew Miller’s excellent piece on Cricinfo.

Here at last is the moment at which cheating for monetary gain stops being an in-joke, as acted out by jaded professionals with too many miles on the clock and too few years in which to capitalise on their athletic prime.

Why the spot-fixing scandal shouldn’t shake our faith in cricket Lizzy Ammon in the Mirror wrote a lovely article about why Sangakkara’s Spirit of Cricket speech at the MCC last summer should be remembered in the wake of the spot-fixing verdict.

Cricket must fight to regain its reputation, it’s still a game with a great deal of integrity and even more amount of beauty populated mostly with talented, polite, passionate, respectful players and officials – we really do have to try and remember that.

Does our society breed corrupt sportsmen? Harsha Bhogle writes on Cricinfo about the effect of culture on corruption in sport. Though I disagree with his statement that similar crimes by politicians would not be reported. The MPs expenses scandal has shown otherwise. ‘But sportsmen come from the same society as everyone else. Among sportsmen are the noble, the diligent and the caring, as there are the callous, the cheats and the criminals.’

The loss of innocence The BBC’s Adam Mountford has a much more pessimistic look at the proceedings which, I confess, is closer to my mood.

For me it is this loss of innocence which is one of the saddest aspects of this whole story. What I love about sport is the drama and the unpredictability. When I turn up at a cricket match I love the feeling that anything can happen that day.

Match-fixing: Where it all began Andy Zaltzman has his usual cleverly amusing take on the origins of match-fixing.

The best place to start might be with this game: USA v Canada in 1844, the first-ever international cricket match. It was a suspiciously low-scoring game, in which no batsman scored more than 14, and the USA, cruising to victory at 25 for 0 in pursuit of 82 to win in the fourth innings, lost all 10 wickets for 33.

A strong deterrent After the guilty verdict, but before the sentences were handed down, Nasser Hussain blogged about why this sent a clear message to potential fixers. I’m not sure jail time does this more than a lengthy ban, but I agree with the sentiment.

If the reward for fixing outweighs the risk of being caught, then there will always be those willing to chance their arm – particularly if they are not getting paid much by their cricket board.

As a final note: Whilst Kumar Sangakkara’s moving speech at Lord’s is an excellent reminder of what is great about cricket, The Duckworth Lewis Method‘s lone album has a similar effect. I’ve had it on a loop for most of the last few days.

Pakistani cricket

At stumps on the first day of the Pakistan v Sri Lanka Test Sri Lanka are 245-2. It’s not been a good day for Pakistan, but the scoreline is not the worst of their problems. The ICC have been given access to all the evidence collected by the CPS with regard to the spot-fixing case and are now looking into Pakistan’s matches before the scandal broke. It’s impossible to know what they will find, of course. It may be that all of the allegations are groundless. Any cricket fan will be desperately hoping that is the case, but it does beg the question of what to do if it’s not.

If it transpires that most or all of Pakistan’s matches are suspect and that there is a culture of fixing in the Pakistan side, as have been alleged, what could be done? It would be a problem far too deep to simply eradicate with bans, or the threats thereof. It would not be feasible to throw Pakistan out of cricket until they get their house in order, but on the other hand how could anyone watch them play with any confidence? The one saving grace is that most of the current side are different from the one that toured England, but if the corruption is set into the administration that would count for little in the long run.

Of all the things that have come out in the trial (including the desperately sad testimony by Amir about his pride of playing for Pakistan) this is, for me, the saddest. There does not seem to be any good outcome that is reasonably likely. The best that could happen is that the ICC finds no evidence of further corruption. It doesn’t look likely, but for now we have to keep our fingers crossed.

It’s a fair cop

The sentences in the spot-fixing trial were handed down today. Majeed is to be imprisoned for two years and eight months, Butt for two years and six months, Asif for one year and Amir for six months. Half of the sentences are suspended in each case.

I’ve stated earlier that I didn’t want to see long prison sentences, but I think these are fair. I’d have rather liked to see Amir avoid any jail time at all, though. The judge did make it clear that he considered the effect of the bans already handed down, but they were complicit in fraud. The impression I got from reading the judge’s statement was that the sentences were mainly for the fact that they did defraud bettors, and less for the disrepute brought onto cricket.

This is, I think, the correct course of action. It is not right that players be punished in a criminal court for cheating alone, that is a job for the governing body of the sport. Since the cheating in this case amounts to theft, however, it is reasonable that they be prosecuted for such. Since the prosecution focused on the no-balls and the judge could not determine the extent of the money that was defrauded, these seem like fair sentences. Going into the trial, I had hoped for less, but the judge laid out his reasons quite clearly and took the pleas and earlier bans into account. One can’t say fairer than that, and I doubt the players themselves could have too many complaints.

Guilty

Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif have both been found guilty of conspiracy to cheat (unanimously) and conspiracy to obtain and accept corrupt payments (by a 10-2 majority). It was also revealed today that Mohammad Amir had pleaded guilty to the charges. Their sentences will be handed down later this week; Butt faces a maximum of seven years in prison.

I am glad to see that they were found guilty; any other verdict would have cast doubt on the ICC’s decision earlier this year. It is also a welcome change from the general dithering that has previously accompanied fixing allegations. I’m not convinced that it is a good idea for the courts to meddle in a case of sport, but in this case it did work out well.

I do hope, however, that the jail sentences are not harsh. I doubt that they will act as a deterrent more than the existing bans would. What I would like is for the ICC to use this to enforce the suspended aspect of the bans, but that does not seem feasible. Hopefully this is the end of the matter and in future we will not have to question every dropped catch. I’m not sure how feasible that is either.

Fixing a hole where the rain gets in

The spot fixing trial is nearing it’s conclusion. It’s been interesting to watch as the defence lawyers a) tried to explain away some fairly damming evidence and b) turned on each other in so doing. Asif has accused Butt of swearing at him to try to coax an unwitting no-ball and Butt has accused Asif (and Amir) of organising their own fixes without his knowledge. I’ve been trying to decide which one seems less likely. It’s a tough call, neither sound overly plausible. For Asif not to have been involved Butt would have to be confident that a man with over a hundred Test wickets couldn’t add an extra yard of pace without overstepping. For Butt not to have been involved someone must have been exceptionally confident that Asif would bowl a long spell. (Which is what Asif’s barrister has argued.) One or both of them is clearly lying and the simplest explanation is that they’re both lying.

The judge in the case, Justice Cooke, has instructed the jury to assume the guilt of Majeed and Amir which all parties agree is the case. I can’t see how this could be a good thing for either Butt or Asif though. Especially for Butt; if it is given that there was fixing and that his agent was involved, then… The only thing Asif has in his favour is that none of the marked money was found in his hotel room, but that’s hardly conclusive.

I can’t see how either of them could be found Not Guilty. The notion that Asif could have bowled his no-ball at the right time, but without knowing what he was doing is laughable. The notion that Amir, Asif and Butt’s agent could all have been involved in fixing without Butt’s knowledge is more likely, but it’s still decidedly far fetched. The simplest and most reasonable explanation is that all four were involved.

Painting testimonial pictures, oh-oh-oh-oh

One of the things on which I’ve had my eye in the past week (in the couple of hours I’ve had to spare between the MLB playoffs, RWC, and both premiership and international football) is the ongoing spot-fixing trial. I thought about writing about it at the weekend, but I’m (obviously) not a lawyer and thus the events are thus a little bit removed from what I can really analyse. And whilst the first few days had some very interesting evidence presented, it was mostly stuff that was already known, or was more speculative. Today, however, more of the video of the exchanges between Mahmood (the journalist) and Majeed was shown, in which Majeed claimed that the fixing was much deeper than no-balls and even included throwing an ODI. The video looks quite damming (as did the phone records last week), but a lot of the quotes sound like Majeed was talking out of his arse, trying to impress Mahmood. (Apparently Majeed knows just about every famous and important person in the world.) Majeed himself is not in the dock, so we’ll be denied a chance to see him use the ‘I was lying to try to get more money out of this guy’ defence, but I expect Butt and Asif will use roughly that tactic.

But what does seem to be true (since it was the thing for which Mahmood was pretending to pay the money, as opposed to an aside boast) is that the no-balls were to prove that the players would be involved in more serious fixing. The video today was of Majeed explaining about the ‘brackets’ that were allegedly fixed. If true, these would not be a few inconsequential no-balls, but would mean that the fixing was affecting the outcome of the match. (Haemorrhaging runs for a few overs, as the Majeed said they would, would let a batsman get set and possibly set him up for a big score.) If this is true (and again, that’s a bigger ‘if’ than if a skywriter started doing Kipling) then it certainly casts doubt on all the matches in which Pakistan have played in the past few years.

I’m very much looking forward to see the arguments of the defence. The evidence so far looks quite damming, but the original ICC case, after presumably hearing the same evidence and arguments, handed down surprisingly small bans. It makes me wonder if the defence won’t reveal some hole in the more serious allegations, without being able to explain away the original no-balls. (According to Cricinfo, Sky Sports statistician Benedict Bermange calculated to odds of innocently predicting those three no-balls at one in 1.5 million.) I’ll be keeping a slightly closer eye on the upcoming proceedings.