|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 22, 2014 11:39:46 GMT
I would be surprised if any of the culprits remain at the club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 12:05:43 GMT
Vincent and Naved Arif now formally charged with match fixing while they were Sussex players in 2011.
Vincent faces "at least 10 charges" relating to two Sussex matches and Arif faces five charges relating to the Sussex v Kent game.
Arif is now suspended from all forms of cricket, even minor league, and Vincent is allegedly "in hiding" from those who wish himn harm for giving evidence.
Meanwhile, the ICC Anti-Corruption Unit is likely to be dismantled and something more robust put in its place after a series of mishaps, including giving the Sussex v Kent game a clean bill of health and cocking up the case against Stevens and the Bangla Desh lot.
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on May 22, 2014 12:09:51 GMT
wow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 12:14:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 22, 2014 12:16:42 GMT
Vincent and Naved Arif now formally charged with match fixing while they were Sussex players in 2011. Vincent faces "at least 10 charges" relating to two Sussex matches and Arif faces five charges relating to the Sussex v Kent game. Arif is now suspended from all forms of cricket, even minor league, and Vincent is allegedly "in hiding" from those who wish himn harm for giving evidence. Meanwhile, the ICC Anti-Corruption Unit is likely to be dismantled and something more robust put in its place after a series of mishaps, including giving the Sussex v Kent game a clean bill of health and cocking up the case against Stevens and the Bangla Desh lot. Great news, BM! Where did you get this from? Can't see anything on the usual sites. Edit: your links to the Telegraph appeared after I'd posted this. Arif's slow batting in that match had always looked suspicious. I assume Sky still have the recording of that match - would love to watch it again!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 12:17:49 GMT
Now oln the Telegraph website. Have posted link above.
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on May 22, 2014 12:24:54 GMT
Thanks borderman.
So 15 charges with 5 for Arif - would that suggest more Sussex matches were fixed than the ones we knew about so far?
BTW did a moderator just delete a post of mine?
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 22, 2014 12:27:09 GMT
This quote from the Telegraph article worries me:
"Vincent was told by his bookmaker handler to approach a third Sussex player, but that person turned down the offer to join in the fix and was furious in the dressing room after the match because he knew it had been rigged."
If this is right, then the club knew the match had been fixed. . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 12:35:17 GMT
The club knew this was coming some weeks ago. I wonder if we have stumbled upon the real reason why this message board had to be made 'unoffcial' and removed to arm's length - because debate about this on an offical Sussex site would leave the club in a potentially difficult position and require constant moderation.
I recall when the Kaneira/Westfield issue was going on, the Essex (offical) messageboard carried a message saying no comnmnent on the matter was permitted for legal reasons - and they then had one hell of a job policing it becase it required the board to be monitored by a club offical round-the-clock.
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on May 22, 2014 12:36:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 22, 2014 12:38:55 GMT
The club knew this was coming some weeks ago. I wonder if we have stumbled upon the real reason why this message board had to be made 'unoffcial' and removed to arm's length - because debate about this on an offical Sussex site would leave the club in a potentially difficult position and require constant moderation. I suspect you're right, BM. The club were 100% tight lipped about the reason for the messageboard change. No reasons were given and no questions about it were answered. They were just taking the lawyers' advice, no doubt.
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on May 22, 2014 12:42:50 GMT
That's a plausible explanation - Jim May's legalistic post on this subject would have been the focus of discussion which would be hard to host officially! Better off close the board and delete it (as far as is possible).
I'm looking forward to going down to Arundel next month but not more than I am anticipatinged what the Sussex statement will say - we fired them at the end of the season but didn't tell anyone?
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 22, 2014 12:50:11 GMT
For those who have the time, you might like to read through the BetFair 'message board' thread for the Sussex v Kent match. This is fascinating. I don't understand all the betting jargon, but the thread is effectively a real time commentary on the match by ordinary punters. Throughout the game it is obvious that they suspect the match is being fixed, and there are some interesting comments about a previous televised match against Surrey. If you can skip through some of the trivia, the thread is an alarming read community.betfair.com/cricket/go/thread/view/94046/28222773/sussex-v-kent?liveView=0
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on May 22, 2014 13:01:01 GMT
Thanks for that link to the betfair thread.
I was at the Surrey game referenced in that thread - was anyone else? I'd be interested in your reflections because I have quite a vivid memory of it.
BTW the presumably Indian guy threatening another Indian guy for revealing the fix before the match is I hope a joke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 13:06:28 GMT
Thanks for that, fb - quite fascinating.
Vincent and Arif, of course, have only been charged and are technically not yet guilty (although I guess Vincent has in effect entered a plea of guilty). What I don't quite understand is why Arif has been suspended from playing in any form of cricket, pro or recreational, yet when Darren Stevens was charged this time last year, he was allowed to play on. The charge against Arif has been brought by the ECB and the charge against Stevens was laid by the now discredited ICC anti-corruption unit and the Bangla Desh authorities. But I can't see that should make any difference?
Perhaps it is the promised new tougher regime already being applied, and if Stevens were in last year's position today, he would automatically be suspended?
|
|