MCC news

Strauss would take lie-detector test

Andrew McGlashan at Lord's

July 20, 2011

Comments: 7 | Text size: A | A

Andrew Strauss focuses on the final Test against Sri Lanka, Rose Bowl, June 15, 2011
Andrew Strauss would support any ideas that dig out corruption in cricket © PA Photos
Enlarge

Andrew Strauss has said he would be "absolutely" willing to undergo a lie-detector test, if it was decided that they were the way forward in combating corruption in the sport, after Steve Waugh underwent the process and called for figurehead players to lead the way.

Waugh would ideally like international captains to take the lead in rooting out match-fixing even though he knows polygraphs could never be made compulsory. While his proposals received support from Strauss his opposite number, MS Dhoni, was less forthcoming with a straight "no comment" and suggested that he hadn't heard of the idea when asked whether he would take a test.

Strauss added that a lot of work would need to be done to prove if lie-detectors worked - and there are many differing opinions over the accuracy of testing - but was in favour of anything that could tackle corruption. "My response is that I'm in favour of anything that helps us get to the bottom of any wrong-doing in the game," he said. "It's vitally important for cricket going forward that it's as clean as possible and can demonstrate it's as clean as possible.

"The devil is always in the detail with this sort of thing. I don't know exactly how lie detectors work and how accurate they are, but I like the idea of it. I like the idea of us getting down to the nitty-gritty and finding out if any wrong-doing has been going on and therefore making the sport cleaner as a result."

During the test that Waugh undertook in Australia he read a prepared declaration stating that he had never been involved in fixing a cricket match, or any element of a match, and it may be a template that could be followed in the future.

"I, Steve Roger Waugh, do hereby declare that during my cricketing career except for manipulating matches for purely strategic or tactical reasons I never deliberately under-performed or fixed a cricket match or a passage of play within a match or did anything other than try my hardest for any cricket team I played for.

"I never received any form of payment, either in money or as a gratuity or benefit in return for under-performing in any cricket match I have played in."

Waugh said that it was his frustration at endless questions about corruption that prompted the idea of polygraphs. "There are a lot of rumours out there about match-fixing and spot-fixing. I became sick and tired about being asked if games I played in were above board."

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

RSS Feeds: Andrew McGlashan

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by MaanasG on (July 21, 2011, 14:31 GMT)

Are the politicians and businessmen of ICC ready to take this test..? Introduce this first there..then on players. Let it begin from the Highest office of Cricket !

Posted by   on (July 21, 2011, 13:40 GMT)

These should be tested at the board level first and then the poor players can be tested!

Posted by Meety on (July 21, 2011, 6:20 GMT)

@ jonesy2 - I agree, I think its irrelevant what the accuracy of a lie detector is. I would imagine the ICC would not line up all International players & put them on the Test. You would have to imagine that it would only be players where there have been allegations made & there were some corrobarrating evidence - such as with H Gibbs, or D Kaneria. @ NRI - ".. If someone who has never been corrupt becomes nervous and twitchy.." - I would imagine that players would only be asked/required to sit the test IF there was some substantial evidence, it is not a case of "Are you guilty?" & see what the response is. Where beating a lie detector test becomes difficult is when you are then asked questions like "have you ever met Mr X before?" or "have you ever been in this place before?" or "Can you verify what this transaction in your bank account was for?"

Posted by jonesy2 on (July 21, 2011, 5:13 GMT)

the fact the lie detectors may or may not work is irrelevant, because a "corrupt" player does not know if the test works or not they are still going to be nervous or anxious to take the test and it would be easy to see who has something to hide. polygraph tests arent completely fool proof but they give the tester enough of an indication to be able to know who needs investigating etc.

Posted by Boris72 on (July 21, 2011, 3:59 GMT)

Lie detectors are never used in any case where anybody wants proof. All you have to do is fool the machine into thinking your lies match your control questions by doing a small few things that Googling it will tell you. Lie detectors are no more than science fiction and simply do not work.

Posted by NRI- on (July 21, 2011, 0:19 GMT)

Lie detectors are not fool proof - they can go wrong either way so they are not used in a court. If someone who has never been corrupt becomes nervous and twitchy, the lie detector will pick up the change in the heart rate - then what? Are we to assume that that person is guilty? If someone has no guilt over what they have done, they will not fail the lie detector even though they have committed fraud. The error rate in the lie detector in both directions will far exceed the DRS - let's not do it.

Posted by AvidFanDownUnder on (July 20, 2011, 22:49 GMT)

Whatever you say about Steve Waugh no one will ever argue with the fact that Steve Waugh was always an honest competitor and Strauss is not that different. I think if the bodies that run cricket could develop something fool-proof (obviously not 100% as that is impossible) then it should be used because it will root out cheats. The system should be tested for all defects however because it would be a tragedy if the fault of testing throws out a genuine honest competitor.

Comments have now been closed for this article

TopTop
Email Feedback Print
Share
E-mail
Feedback
Print
Andrew McGlashanClose
Andrew McGlashan Assistant Editor Andrew arrived at ESPNcricinfo via Manchester and Cape Town, after finding the assistant editor at a weak moment as he watched England's batting collapse in the Newlands Test. Andrew began his cricket writing as a freelance covering Lancashire during 2004 when they were relegated in the County Championship. In fact, they were top of the table when he began reporting on them but things went dramatically downhill. He likes to let people know that he is a supporter of county cricket, a fact his colleagues will testify to and bemoan in equal quantities.
Country Fixtures Country Results
SAf Invit XI v Eng Lions at Soweto
Jan 5-7, 2015 (10:30 local | 08:30 GMT | 03:30 EST | 02:30 CST | 00:30 PST)
1st unofficial Test: Sth Africa A v Eng Lions at Paarl
Jan 11-14, 2015 (10:30 local | 08:30 GMT | 03:30 EST | 02:30 CST | 00:30 PST)
England XI v Act Inv XI at Canberra
Jan 12, 2015 (10:00 local | 23:00 GMT | 18:00 EST | 17:00 CST | 15:00 PST)
England XI v PM's XI at Canberra
Jan 14, 2015 (14:20 local | 03:20 GMT | 22:20 EST | 21:20 CST | 19:20 PST)
Australia v England at Sydney
Jan 16, 2015 (14:20 local | 03:20 GMT | 22:20 EST | 21:20 CST | 19:20 PST)
Complete fixtures » | Download Fixtures »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days