Match and Spot-Fixing - a Great Cricket Scandal!

Vincent is clearly not the most reliable witness but he makes a very serious allegation when he says that he co-opted a fellow Sussex player in the fix to lose the game and that the player turned down £20k and asked for £50k, only to change his mind again.

We are also told in the Telegraph article that the player concerned is no longer playing first-class cricket. As nine of Vincent's ten team mates that day are still playing, the Telegraph has in effect named him.

That narrows it down a bit: "After the match, which Sussex lost, the player who had decided not to participate in the scam “stormed around” in the dressing room because he knew the game was fixed, then reported Vincent to the club.
Vincent claims he panicked at this stage and stashed £45,000 in his house. His bookmaker contact arranged for the cash to be paid into a Dubai bank account and then transferred to an account in New Zealand. He also says he acted as a courier to ensure his fellow Sussex player, who no longer plays county cricket, received his £15,000 in cash. He became scared when his bookie contact began using his children’s names."

Sussex innings Runs Balls Mins 4s 6s S-Rate
EC Joyce run out 7 10 23 - - 70.00
L Vincent c Cross b Mahmood 0 1 1 - - 0.00
+BC Brown b Maharoof 2 4 6 - - 50.00
CD Nash st Cross b Keedy 31 34 37 5 - 91.18
*MH Yardy c Cross b Keedy 24 24 24 1 - 100.00
Naved-ul-Hasan b Junaid Khan 34 27 30 2 2 125.93
MW Goodwin c Brown b Maharoof 9 10 15 - - 90.00
OP Rayner b Junaid Khan 6 9 14 - - 66.67
WD Parnell not out 2 2 3 - - 100.00
CJ Liddle not out 4 2 1 1 - 200.00
MS Panesar did not bat
Extras (6 lb, 6 nb, 1 w) 13
Total (8 wickets, innings closed, 20 overs) 132

Also note that the suspect player referred to above is not the same as his "accomplice within the Sussex team when he fixed a YB40 match against Kent in August 2011 and introduced him to the bookie who was running the scam."

Sussex innings Runs Balls Mins 4s 6s S-Rate
EC Joyce c Jones b Stevens 20 30 41 3 - 66.67
CD Nash lbw b Stevens 49 34 52 7 1 144.12
L Vincent run out 1 7 6 - - 14.29
MW Goodwin c van Jaarsveld b Ball 2 8 13 - - 25.00
*MH Yardy st Jones b Riley 23 34 50 1 - 67.65
JS Gatting run out 34 31 28 2 2 109.68
+BC Brown c Jones b Riley 1 3 2 - - 33.33
WD Parnell c Denly b Coles 40 50 56 3 - 80.00
Naved Arif lbw b Ball 11 29 27 - - 37.93
CJ Liddle c Tredwell b Coles 8 8 13 1 - 100.00
MS Panesar not out 0 0 3 - - 0.00
Extras (3 lb, 10 w) 13
Total (all out, 39 overs) 202

Of course this is a Sussex website (a non-official one) but it really isn't any longer a question of Sussex as an organisation holding up its hand to say "We're clean!" in a world of grubby morals and convenient consciences. Why should there be any difference between the moral attitudes of the various clubs that represent touchdown locations and short-term revenue opportunities for the numerous averagely-talented but extravagantly hyped artisans in the international hiring-fair? Lou Vincent and many others care nothing about the differences of representing Sussex, Lancashire, Auckland, the Chandigarh Lions or the Bookmakers Federation Annual Dinner, Dance and Corruption XI.

County clubs themselves have a role to play in establishing strict codes of conduct on and off the pitch while representing the county, banning of the use of mobile phones and other communications media in dressing-rooms, and in implanting some basic moral values into their schools and clubs outreach programmes. It could be argued that they shouldn't employ itinerant characters like Vincent, but then that would pretty much rule out all the indifferent worthies of the Blast, Bash and Pepsi-burping festivals of flatulence, wouldn't it?

When sporting ability is of lesser significance than the opportunity for one moment of praxis (to hit or to block, to bowl a niggardly long-hop or to risk being driven off a good length ball) to decide a match then there will always be a very tempting opportunity in unregulated markets to effect that decision artificially, by controlling the game within a game to modify behaviours. The shorter the format, the juicier the plum, and the branch bends more enticingly toward the ground.

Cricket has matured since the early days when huge wagers were placed on the results of matches between teams representing various landed Whiggish interests. The endemic corruption and opportunity to cheat has long since receded on a wave of public disinterest. The truth is that the audience is neither wealthy enough nor large enough to bet to distort a 4 day game of any kind, and that helps to preserve a certain kind of moral purity. But if we - either Sussex or the ECB - want to play with the big boys on the big world stage, as another thread on this board has been discussing recently, then we'd better be very much open-eyed about what we're going in for, and not try to kid ourselves that our 175-year history or fond store of anecdotes means anything. And perhaps as well as fighting through the ICC to ensure that effective measures are taken in every country that sets up these tournaments, we may need to set up a realistic code of conduct and expectations to which all players, whether born or qualified for England or birds of passage, must be legally bound as part of their contractual structure.

I went to both the games in question. I have just read my diary entries summarising the two days play which at the time I took 100% at face value and what I wrote then worries me now. For the sake of all the clean Sussex players, which I am going to believe is all of them until shown otherwise, this matter must be investigated thoroughly because it must be horrid for them to have this cloud of suspicion hanging over them.

It;s such a shame the old board is lost - Jim May's posts which were questioned at time would look ridiculous now.

We're doomed . . . 

IIRC, Jim chose his words carefully. He said something like "there is no match fixing shadow hanging over the team"  I obviously can't be precise, but the word shadow was used in that way. If the alleged cheats have left the club, it gives you some wriggle room with your choice of words.