|
|
Post by fraudster on May 22, 2014 13:44:36 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! Maybe they'll re-run it for ya on Sky Sports Classics Flash - don't hold your breath though. This is awful. Vincent and Arif, they weren't even good players - ridiculous signings even wthout all this. I wonder what the Inner Circle think of their hero 'Barry' now. This does explain a bit about the old board, and this reflects very badly on Sussex regardless of whether they are former players or not - they were present players when it happened. Dispicable. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 22, 2014 15:17:14 GMT
The Sussex player who asked for £50k to help throw the game, then turned it down, then told the hierarchy of the match fix... who is he, I wonder? I would not be surprised if he still plays for the club.
So, that's two down - how many more to follow?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on May 22, 2014 15:42:38 GMT
It strikes me that throwing a game isn't actually that easy. Even if you have 2 players trying to lose you still have 9 trying to win. If you dolly a catch the fielder might drop it, if you take a suicidal run they might miss the stumps, how many times have we watched a bowler beat the bat time and again with no luck and said 'he'll bowl a lot worse another day and take 5', deliberate bad balls might keep taking wickets!
Really hope Cricket is going to get on top of this now, otherwise we may one day have a game when both sides are trying to lose like the boxing match in 'Porridge'!
|
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on May 22, 2014 16:03:00 GMT
MrsDoyle - you're right and ideally you'd need three players (as per the 50grand issues that s&f raises) or a captain who could influence the choice of bowlers and the batting order. Which is why I'm worried about whether there are more skeletons to emerge about our former players with links to the ICL.
I think county cricket has a real chance now by moving away from the education approach currently endorsed by the PCA and ECB to a more mixed solution with beefed up on the ground enforcement and deterrence focused on televised games. They should be applying algorithms to undercover suspicious patterns of betting on exchanges, use web crawlers and free text analysis (in different languages) to pick up rumours about fixed games, proactively investigate games and listen a hell of a lot more to people like Ed Hawkins as opposed to injuncting newspapers (although that was the ICC).
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 22, 2014 16:08:15 GMT
It strikes me that throwing a game isn't actually that easy. Even if you have 2 players trying to lose you still have 9 trying to win. If you dolly a catch the fielder might drop it, if you take a suicidal run they might miss the stumps, how many times have we watched a bowler beat the bat time and again with no luck and said 'he'll bowl a lot worse another day and take 5', deliberate bad balls might keep taking wickets! Really hope Cricket is going to get on top of this now, otherwise we may one day have a game when both sides are trying to lose like the boxing match in 'Porridge'! Just speaking generally, and not about any particular match, it's a lot easier to throw a game if the captain is one of the cheats. He can influence the batting order, bowling spells and field placings - but he couldn't do it on his own, I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 22, 2014 16:27:15 GMT
In the context of earlier discussion upthread, here is Cricinfo's report on SCCC's statement in November 2012, following the publication of Ed Hawkins' book. www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/591688.htmlAmongst other things, the statement said: "The club can confirm approaches were made to players regarding this game,. . ." At the time, many inferred that the approaches were not disclosed until after the game. If that's right, did someone blow the whistle after the match, or wasn't there time before the start for the players to disclose the illegal approaches? |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on May 22, 2014 16:29:19 GMT
The BBC say Sussex CCC are declining to comment. Surely, pressure will mount now for a deeper analysis of what happened -especially as the ICC ACU is being discredited. God, I hope the club are preparing themselves for what could be a tough grilling ahead.
A fuller ECB statement is due later.
Didn't Vincent claim that the Sussex player who asked for and then turned down £50k before the Kent match tell the hierarchy the game was fixed after it was over and that Vincent was the ringleader?
Point of interest. How many more games did Vincent play for Sussex after this Kent debacle?
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on May 22, 2014 16:37:17 GMT
The BBC say Sussex CCC are declining to comment. Surely, pressure will mount now for a deeper analysis of what happened -especially as the ICC ACU is being discredited. God, I hope the club are preparing themselves for what could be a tough grilling ahead. A more full ECB statement is due later. there has been some sort of cover up (for whatever motives), I hope to goodness no-one tries to cover up the cover up! Whatever happens, I want to see our club come out of this properly 'cleansed'. It's the only way we can move forward. |
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on May 22, 2014 16:39:14 GMT
God knows who is advising them on their digital media strategy but having the twitter feed carry on with marketing without dealing with this at all is mental.
We went round this in the old thread. I think as per the other reports it was clearly after and as you pointed out the player who appears to have reported it had already negotiated an offer up to 50k before knocking it back and then being grumpy after the event when they lost. That was at the heart of why the rest of that statement was inconsistent - if the approaches were reported afterwards it smelt to high hell. Ed Hawkins had not alleged approaches - he's alleged a match had been fixed or at the very least a huge amount of money had been bet as if it had been fixed to the result that occurred.
You can imagine Sussex are regretting their head in the sand statements now and have gone to ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by twelvegrand on May 22, 2014 18:49:52 GMT
Paul Downton gave an interview to TMS - here
Questions whether match fixing is as widespread as the media portray it but then said 5 matches are under investigation. I'm not sure those are compatible statements! |
|
|
|
Post by mrsdoyle on May 22, 2014 21:44:13 GMT
And Lou Vincent confirms my theory that it isn't easy to throw matches, he's quoted in the Daily Mail saying that he failed in one commission when he accidentally hit a 6 trying to get stumped! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2014 23:33:06 GMT
The BBC say Sussex CCC are declining to comment. On the most shameful day in Sussex's history, such ostrich-like behaviour does the club no credit. As the case is now the subject of formal legal proceedings, there are areas on which the club cannot and should not comment.. But at the very least there needs to be a statement confirming full cooperation with the ECB, a reaffirmation of a policy of no tolerance and a promise that any current employee of Sussex CCC found to have been involved in such activities or who failed to report suspicious activity will be dismissed by the club with immediate effect. And that's the bare minimum. Essex didn't come out of the Kaneiria/Westfield affair with much credit - not because the club as the employer was culpable in any way for the orignal wrong-doing but because of the poor way the club subsequently handled it. Sussex needs to take note of the mistakes made by Essex and to ensure that they are not repeated. This is going to hang over the club like a black cloud for a long time to come and has comprehensively ruined the rest of this season. We're playing Hampshire tomorrow in the T20 and suddenly the result now seems a matter of no consequence. I suspect it will impact badly on the gate , too. ps: And I am now more convinced than ever that the reason the old Sussex message board was shuttered was because the club knew this was coming and the board had to be silenced before the news broke. If the club itself is refusing to comment on the charges the ECB has brought against two if its players, then it certainly did not want any of us commenting via an officially-linked Sussex message board. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2014 0:20:07 GMT
It just keeps on getting worse - and one fears there is more to come in this crisis. There's now a story in the Daily Telegraph saying the ICC has distanced itself from the statement put out by Sussex in Nov 2012, which it claims was untrue. You can read the full piece here: www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/news/10850653/ICC-denies-it-cleared-the-Sussex-Kent-game-at-the-centre-of-match-fixing-crisis.html#disqus_threadBut this is the key passage from Nick Hoult's story: The International Cricket Council is adamant that it did not clear the match between Sussex and Kent of the suspicion being fixed. It contradicts a statement issued by Sussex in 2012 which said “in conjunction with the ICC, a full investigation was undertaken with nothing untoward coming to light”. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2014 7:00:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on May 23, 2014 7:23:35 GMT
Brooks said: “From a Sussex point of view we did all we could at the time. We reported it and passed it on to the ECB who passed it on to the ICC. They looked into it and from their records with the gambling firms they couldn’t see enough evidence to take it further forward."
That certainly isn't the same as 16-Nov-2012
Sussex CCC are aware of a book recently released by Ed Hawkins, entitled “Bookie Gambler Fixer Spy: A Journey to the Corrupt Heart of Cricket’s Underworld", in which Sussex’s Clydesdale Bank 40 match with Kent in August 2011 is mentioned, a match that was shown live on Sky.
The Club can confirm approaches were made to players regarding this game. Working with the PCA, the Club investigated and reported the issue at the time, passing all the information promptly to the ECB after the match. In conjunction with the ICC, a full investigation was undertaken with nothing untoward coming to light, and the Club's prompt action receiving praise.
There have been no further reports made to the Club concerning any Sussex matches.
As a Club, we are committed to ensuring that the game’s integrity is not breached at any time and we will continue to take a full and leading role in the ECB’s endeavours to protect the game.So, if Dave Brooks is not being misquoted, he is saying that the club statement was either untrue or very carelessly written. This looks like getting very messy indeed.
|
|
