Match and Spot-Fixing - a Great Cricket Scandal!

To be fair, I am certain that Sussex CCC has acted correctly and properly in all respects throughout this case - except in one crucial area: the handling of its public pronouncements (and now non-pronouncements). This has created a perception that is almost certainly wrong that Sussex has been economical with the truth/is in a state of denial/has something to hide. I'nm sure none of these things are true, but if that is the perception created then the 'brand' is severely damaged.

As said before, legal ramifications mean there are certain issues that the club cannot and should not address publicly right now and the ECB may also have advised Sussex to say nothing. But that means say nothing on the specific charges or about the two players concerned. It does not prevent a general statement expressing profound regret and a 100 per cent determination to preserve the integrity of the game and to root out and expose wrong-doers and to take action against them.

You might say all those things are platitudes and are taken as read; but in my view it urgently needs saying as a statement of intent to protect the Sussex 'brand' and reassure supporters who must now be wondering how many other matches we have seen down the years which were thrown by Sussex players who were paid by the club to go out there and win - and by someone else to go out there and lose.

Well said Dave Brooks (although like fb I was also surprised that he has spoken out as an ongoing witness in the case). But DB does not speak for Sussex any longer and his words are no substitute for an official club statement.

All of this leaves a horribly sour taste - not least from the abuse heaped upon those who asked questions about this on the old messageboard when it was first exposed in Ed Hawkins' book in 2012 and again in 2013 when the Mail revealed that the ECB investigation was on-going and that charges against at least one Sussex player were likely to follow.

I wish I could forget about it and look forward to the game v Hants tonight. But the integrity of Sussex cricket has taken such a battering over the last 24 hours that quite frankly I couldn't care ruddy less about tonight's game at the moment.

Flashblade - as far as I can tell the former is true but I haven't seen anything about the latter. And that's the key - someone who was approached did not report that until after that match had been fixed. If they'd have done that now they'd have end up on a failure to report an approach charge with aggravating feature of having failed to prevent a fix.

As per my posts above that is crucial because other Sussex games that season look very suspicious notably this match. The issues under question in that match are related to performance and decisions. 

I either failed to hit send on a post (or my post was deleted?) yesterday before charges were laid that referred to the "minor hypocrisy" on the old board about Essex and Sussex's relative behaviour. Given what we know as of now Sussex have more to convince us of in terms of dressing room culture. I read Ed Hawkin's book won the day it came out and posted about the book in a separate thread and about the Sussex position in the dedicated thread. I enjoyed the debate on the board but I did think double standards were applied because it was sussex.

I also posted cryptically the rumour (without naming players) that [read the betfair thread if you're so minded] were the players that might have something to do with the case although not necessarily in a fixing respect. We now have a position with people charged which answers part of the issue and clears up speculation/rumour about who deliberately underperformed.......but return to Flashbalde's point there is definitely a question about who was approached and only reported after the match.

Sussex must issue a statement of the type suggested in excellent posts by others to lance the boil of silence and show we will act decisively. Of course it can't go into specifics but it can be a statement of principle on player conduct, support for whistleblowers and club action where wrongdoing is found. Obviously that's harder because of the 2012 statement and fact Arif/Vincent were quietly let go but it's time to show what Sussex as a club stand for.

Weirdly this isn't the case for me - I suspect because I've factored this into my thinking (mental accounting of Sussex's position?) since 2012 I'm still completely up for the cricket. Mind you I can't watch too much Twenty20 because every time someone adjusts a wrist band or calls for a bat my mind assumes I'm about to see a maiden, wide or a wicket! [EDIT - I do realise there is no such thing as spot fixing for single events but I expect to see the 5 over bracket influenced]

After what happened to Tony Palladino at Essex, I agree with twelvegrand that support for whistleblowers needs to be stressed and emphasised by both Sussex and the ECB.

Dressing rooms can have a complex set of conflicting loyalties, and from what I understand of the Essex case, there was a section of the dressing room that was as angry with Palladino's "disloyalty" for blowing the whistle as they were with Kaneiria and Westfield. I think things have moved on a bit since then with new rules and codes and the PCA's extensive programme of instruction in these matters. But it would do no harm whatsoever to stress support and protection for whistleblowers as strongly as possible - especially as Vincent claiming he's in hiding and in fear of his life is hardly going to encourage anyone to speak out if they think to do so could risk reprisals.

Just had a look at the Sussex website to see if the club has been prompted into saying anything - and there is still no acknowledgement that Sussex CCC has just made front page headlines around the world for the first time since Captain Grieg led the breakaway Packer rebels 37 years ago, Instead, the big stories at the county ground 24 hours after the most shameful day in Sussex cricket history are "Friday Feeding Frenzy for Natwest T20 Blast clash" and "Development XI in narrow win over Brighton & Hove".

If the issue wasn't so serious and hadn't delivered such a body blow to the integrity of the game, the refusal to engage with the biggest story to hit Sussex cricket in decades would be comic. Instead it just looks shifty.

I think Sussex need to learn some lessons in marketing from ECB. Faced with the drip-drip-drip of suspicion and cynicism about the integrity of their prize property, the financial saviour of the game, it seems that ECB have pushed to bring out into the open all of the half-truths and whispers about Vincent and others, and may have encouraged the leaking of his testimony. Their attitude seems to be that the boil is messy enough as it is, so lance it now and then let the sore place gradually knit and in time it will appear smooth and unblemished.

By contrast Sussex risk giving the appearance that they don't much care what's happened in the past so long as you suckers roll up with your £25 for tonight's hit and miss. I'm very sure that is not the case, and there is probably a great deal of crisis discussion taking place behind the silence. The problem that they have created for themselves is that earlier false assurance that "nothing untoward" has taken place. How do they move away from that to an admission that what happened was known about, was buried for lack of cast-iron evidence at the time, and will never happen again because it is against the club ethos, the new PCA procedures, and all the other points in the excellent posts above from borderman and twelvegrad.

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the course of this discussion.  It should be remembered that, although this is now an unofficial messageboard, this does not give carte blanche for innuendoes and speculative "revelations" without fear of legal comeback, and also that innocent people can be damaged in this way.  Moreover, in the case of the player allegedly "approached", comment with the benefit of hindsight can easily distort the picture: if he was approached, the interval between the approach and reporting might not have been as long as it can seem to have been, allowing for little more than time for the player to process his thoughts, perhaps even under [perceived] intimidating pressure.  Remember the test match collision, many years ago, between John Snow and Sunil Gavaskar: it was over in a flash, but endless television replays in slow motion made it seem increasingly sinful; the circumstances were very different, but the analogy is apt and cautionary.