Match and Spot-Fixing - a Great Cricket Scandal!

That is precisely why I dislike the jury system. Dragging any 12 people off the street and expecting them to understand the complexities of these matters is fanciful. That is why they will always err on the side of caution and fail to convict. It is one of the defences greatest allies. Sod the truth.

Lalit Modi tweets:

I am aware of the verdict at Southwark Crown Court. As you know I am limited in what I can say as I am restricted by the injunction
put in place following the 2012 libel trial. I will consider how this affects my own civil claim against Mr Cairns in due course.

One presumes that has now been kiboshed.

As for the recent Pakistan v England match-fixing allegations in the third ODI after 'suspicious betting patterns', it's all gone quiet. No surprise
the ICC have played down the cries with CEO Dave Richardson, saying in the Telegraph: "I wouldn’t be too suspicious if I were you. You can’t
be absolutely certain that it’s clean, but the signs are good...”

The carpets and sweepers must be running out, at this rate! But rather like the athletics governing body, when it's been alleged that some of
the top members of the world's cricket board are involved in the corruption, there is little chance anything will change.

Meanwhile, Ed Hawkins has regularly been critical of the ICCs anti-corruption squad (ACSU) often mooting it is a useless toothless shark. He 
recently and tactfully wrote:

The Cairns trial has raised some interesting and troubling questions. The ACSU has, once again, been portrayed as being less than rigorous
when conducting investigations. The future likelihood of current and former players as witnesses or 'whistleblowers' could be considered in doubt.

It is the role of the ACSU, however, which will cause more furrowed brows. It is a unit which the ICC have little faith in, although the paymasters are
guilty, chronically so, of failing to provide the unit with either the manpower or funding to do a proper job. There have been two reviews into its workings
since 2011, with the latest completed in January this year.

At the heart of the mistrust is the fact that although there have been 19 players banned for corruption since 2011, the ACSU has been responsible for
only two of them. In a results business, it's not good.

Lou Vincent was not one of their two. Even before the trial the ACSU were criticised for the urgency of a sloth in dealing with his confession and it was
down to the ECBs anti-corruption team to take up the mantle.

It was also discussed at the trial that Brendon McCullum, the New Zealand captain, had given evidence to the ACSU as far back as February 2011 about
two alleged approaches from Cairns. Before this trial, it was pertinent then to be wondering what exactly were the ACSU doing? We have an answer. Not
a lot.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/12009433/Pakistan-vs-England-ICC-plays-down-match-fixing-fears-in-third-ODI-after-suspicious-betting-patterns.html

There is some truth in this but you also have to ask questions of the Met  who prepared what turned out to be a flawed case and of the cricketing authorities who never charged  Cairns with match-fixing or corruption. 

The recent trail was for perjury, don't forget. Trying to prove perjury over an alleged offence for which he had  been investigated but never charged was a problematic route to take.

 Why was Carins never charged with match fixing and/or corruption? Why did Vincent never go to court for match fixing?

How was the BPL fixing case conducted so badly that almost everyione was acquited, including a player who actually admitted that he had received an illegal approach and not reported it?

And yet the only one I had any sympathy for - the 18 year old Pakistani bowler bullied into it by his captain - was sent to prison,  while these other characters,  who  appear to be far more venal,  get off...

Good post, and this report (www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/30/chris-cairns-cricket-perjury-trial-how-case-unfolded?CMP=share_btn_tw) underlines those issues, particularly the inconsistent statements of McCullum and the inefficient presentation of the evidence by both the Met and the CPS based on the ACSU evidence.

One result of this is "... the cost of this case to the public purse runs well into a seven-figure sum". That will act as a deterrent against other cases reaching court unless evidence is relevant, consistent and corroborated. It isn't all about shady Asian underworld gangs and their insidious reach: it is about the willingness of organisers and media to face up to situations and to accept that there has been wrongdoing in the past and to put into place systems that are adequate to detect it in future, and to have the willingness to take action on any new instances of corruption.

The first point, accepting the past evidence of corruption, has not been fully taken on board. Too many administrators are keen to seize upon the "one bad apple" principle and by excoriating that individual, deny the possibility that many more apples have been infected in varying degrees. Many believe this to be true of the county game today but so long as Lou Vincent and Naved Arif can be blamed for all of the past ills, and so long as they can be regarded as unpersons, not to be prosecuted lest they come out with any embarrassing revelations, then the game will have failed to confront its problems.

Secondly the politics of the international game have become so tangled between the commercial initiatives of the leading countries and the competing rivalries of personalities that the ICC itself has become hopelessly compromised.  What kind of ethical directive can be given by an organisation that indulges in the powerplay of Clarke, Srinivasan and Wally Edwards? The latter two have recently been replaced but the troika remains and there is no indication that the dictum of fair shares for us and to hell with the rest of you is likely to change.

There is no rest for the wicked as a sting in the tail has now beset Chris Cairns with the determination of Lalit Modi to thrust
ahead with his own civil case against the former New Zealand Captain.

The former head of the IPL, Modi, has thrown down the gauntlet of a £1.5m civil claim against Cairns - a case which begins
in March and is expected to last until May. And talk about a soap-opera repeat as both Vincent and McCullum may well be
asked to appear again in court as witnesses.

Although, as Nick Hoult writes in 'The Telegraph', "Because this is a civil trial, and they live outside the jurisdiction of the court,
they will not be legally bound to appear." Even worse for Modi, it may be dangerous for Vincent to return to the UK in case he
faces criminal charges for his match fixing alongside his admittance to money-laundering. As to McCullum he's stated he wishes 
to put the Cairns case behind him and concentrate on cricket.

But what of the other side of the coin?

Cairns not guilty verdict has angered many in the cricketing field, and this latest Lalit Modi decision may offer an opportunity to put
the wrongs of the past right. There could be a concerted effort made to back Modi and bring to bear the heavy guns of the fair and
good.

Perhaps, wishful thinking when Modi is not, perhaps, the most popular person within the cricketing world, where his case is seen more
as a personal vendetta. His outspoken criticism of the ICC and his general feuding over claims of corruption led to alleged death threats
from the Asian underworld, which Modi says, forced him to live in England.

So, 'Dishonour Among Thieves' may be a more appropriate title to describe the case next Spring, where only the legal teams come out
of this financially laughing while, as we saw with the recent Cairns case, the UK taxpayer becomes the poorer.

Meanwhile, cricket, once again, has its face rubbed in excrement.

www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/12030232/Chris-Cairns-must-return-to-High-Court-to-defend-1.5m-civil-claim-for-fraud-from-Lalit-Modi.html

"Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea."Boswell: Life of Johnson