The price to pay

The Indian cricketers who are opposing the so-called 'Whereabouts Clause' have maintained that they travel a lot, that they get less than 3 months in a year to spend with their friends & family & that they shouldn't be disturbed (or their privacy invaded) during that time. Now, I'm really curious what goes on in those 3 months! In this time & age, when medical support's readily available in almost all parts of the civilized world, what's so 'Private' that these pampered babies can't spare 20mins to be chauffeured to a local hospital & provide a test sample? Are these guys regularly visiting the deepest Congo or the South Pole & spending weeks on end there? Indian international cricketers work & play in a rarefied professional & social environment that ordinary Indians can only fantasize about. So, I have no problem with them being held to a higher standard. It goes with the territory my friends.

Why are we even discussing this? The BCCI will win, as it always does. It's got enough votes at the ICC to prevent WADA compliance - it keeps Chingoka (aka the guy sitting in for Zimbabwe) around for just such a vote, and the Bangladeshis will be bought off by promising to play that India will play an extra Test in Dacca. Shouldn't take much to buy off Julian Hunte and his cronies either. As for the English and Aussie and South African boards that receive government support as an IOC-compliant sports body, an extra TV deal will supply the cash they'll lose. Discussion is irrelevant. Arguing is irrelevant. WADA is irrelevant. The BCCI will assimilate you.

The views of the Indian fans supporting their cricketers so fervently - it's pitiful, terrifying, and completely understandable. Other countries have sporting traditions and understand the importance of drug-free sports. India does not, as its woes in the Olympics demonstrate. The whole nature of this discussion would be entirely different if the Indian hockey team had the hold on the Indian national consciousness that it once did. Most Indians don't care for any sports other than cricket (those that do are shouted out) and their ignorance of the global sporting fraternity shows. As for security concerns espoused by the Indian cricketers, they aren't more than those faced by WADA-compliant Israeli tennis players or South American Europe-based football players who live in fear that their families at home will be kidnapped and held for ransom. As for travelling, tennis players travel a lot too, and while they complain with the whereabouts regulations, they do comply.

Ian misses the point entirely, as do most commentators. You see, cricket needs drugs to become what its bosses and its Indian fans want - matches on every day of the year. Such superhuman requirements mean turning the sportsmen into supermen - and that means drugs. WADA is an evil global conspiracy that stands in the way of pharmaceutical progress in ensuring that humanity evolves into the next stage - homo chemicus, if you will. By ignoring WADA, cricketers will be able to take their noble role as guinea pigs for the rest of us. Since they have no qualms about dumping their families at home for months on end in search of riches and the adrenalin of competition, they will surely have no qualms about serving the far more noble purpose - acting as test subjects for the next stage of human evolution. Wellcome to the Bayer new world :-)

So Ian Chappell admits there are concerns with giving your whereabouts for the next 90 days but says players should do it for the good of the sport. I always thought Ian Chappell talked sense but he seems to have completely lost the plot on this. Indian cricketers are more at risk than most others so why should they risk their lives to satisfy some obscure authority that has set themselves up to police the world. Since when has cricket had a credibility problem with steroid abuse.

Teams can schedule bilateral series with teams outside conference over a 2 year period but they wont be counted for championship qualification. This approach is tilted in favor of bigger markets with 3 out of 4 from conf A making it to championship round as opposed to 2 from B and 1 from C. However, this is only way for it to make financial sense. India, Aus, SA, and Eng will play 15 tests in a 2 year period that counts towards championship while the # would be 9 or 15 for conf B teams and it will be 9 for conf C teams. Once every two years one month should be dedicated for this championship round among 6 teams. India could play a 5-test away series in one 2 year cycle and 5-test home series in another 2 year cycle. The big 4 will buy it because they can earn good money playing each other. They can play other teams in a 2 year cycle but it wont count towards championship. This ensures other teams can also earn money playing big 4.

cont'd 3: Preserve test cricket: For this to happen, administrators must properly assess the proper role for test cricket in their overall portfolio. I would suggest fewer and more relevant 5-match series with a test championship. For this to make sense they need the bigger market nations to do well and last till the end. I would suggest the following three conferences . Conf A: SA, Eng, India, and Aus Conf B: SL, Pak, NZ, and WI Conf C: Bang, Ireland, Kenya, and Zim. Within the conference they are required to play each other in a 5-test series for conf A. For conf B, it could be 5 or 3. For conf C, it will be 3-test series during a 2 year period. After 2 years, the top 3 from conf A, top 2 from conf B, and topper from conf C will go to championship stage where they could be split into two groups of three each and the winner of that group goes to the final against the winner of the other. The championship round lasts for one month in a 2 year period. cont'd

Cricket has to worry about more important issues than worrying about WADA compliance being end of the world. I am not swaying one way or the other on this topic as I beleive as long as the goal is to keep the sport drug free being WADA compliant or not is besides the point. WADA is just organization to enforce compliance, albeit the largest one. NFL and MLB have their own enforcement for keeping their sport drug-free. The bigger decisions of sport administrators should be: 1. Penetrate existing markets: To penetrate existing markets deeper and faster (possibly using IPL-style domestic leagues) because soccer is eating into their market and other than IPL, cricket is only defending its turf (instead of being the aggressor on soccer). 2. New market identification and development: Enter new markets and have an entry-plan for new markets (which markets, when and what strategy to employ to be successful). They are doing very poorly on this too. To be continued

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/05/stories/2009080553100800.htm a bunch of hugely spoilt cricketers and a high and mighty Board of Control for Cricket in India have come together, in an ill-informed and irrational way, to challenge a crucial provision in the World Anti-Doping Code. a large majority, led by Roger Federer, have come out in support, with the all-time tennis great famously remarking: "You're not going to catch them by ringing up and saying, 'Look, I'd like to test you maybe in two days.' The guy is cheating and they are smart, right?" Union Sports Minister M.S. Gill, keen to put India in the forefront of the anti-doping campaign, must be strongly supported in his principled stand that the cricketers cannot be exceptions. ===== I hope better sense prevails after this editorial in atleast one paper :( especially among 'hugely spoilt' cricket watchers here (I cant call them fans) :(

@RaghuramanR and Ian, ur point seems valid, but it could get unfair rather easily. Policing is required, but not to this extent. @pchikoop, Sorcerer & edward_smythe, you guys have great points that topple Ian's arguments, but Ian has some focal arguments about sustaining the game as well. For once I was confused since either end of the argument sounded legitimate. But, considering the practical complexities involved, a random sampling policy would work best, meaning, it is the responsibility of the drug testing officials to locate a player randomly (maybe after nets or at any cricket related public appearance of a player-end of interviews/official meetings) and test them within 10 mins and have the tests restricted to 3/player/year.This way, players need not update their every movement, the admin will get its job done and won't be able to puppetize players who aren't administratively inclined.Drug testers' need to have strict certification and ID req's to get past player's security.