MCC news July 19, 2011

Steve Waugh backs lie detectors to tackle corruption

29

Steve Waugh has undergone a lie-detector test to show how the system could be used to help track down players involved in fixing cricket matches.

Waugh, a member of the MCC Cricket Committee who were meeting at Lord's this week, proposed that polygraphs could be used to tackle corruption during the group's last meeting in Perth late last year. Initially there was much scepticism but Keith Bradshaw, the MCC chief executive, offered his support and a committee was formed with Waugh, Bradshaw, Courtney Walsh and Barry Richards.

Waugh then felt he should find out what the procedure involved and he passed the test conclusively. "As a former captain I wouldn't ask my players to do anything I wasn't willing to do myself, so I thought the same should apply here," he said. "I thought I needed to find out what a polygraph test is and go through the process to see if it was a possibility for the future.

"It was very nerve-wracking to go through the process, being sat in a room having your heart rate monitored, your blood volume, your blood pressure, your perspiration. There were a lot of devices I was attached to. The test went for two hours and by the end of it I was fairly convinced that if someone had something to hide they would be found out."

The test was conducted by Steven van Aperen, a former senior policeman in Victoria, who has also worked in the United States. However, any use of polygraphs in the future faces a huge number of hurdles and remains unlikely. Even if it passed all the legal battles it could never be made compulsory and there are doubts about the reliability of tests, although van Aperen said there was "96-98% accuracy."

"We know how hard it is to catch players," Waugh said. "There have been a lot of rumours about what is going on so it's about looking to the future. We've looked at different options and one of those might to get some younger players to pledge to do a polygraph test to lead the way.

"We know we haven't got all the answers but think this may be a piece of the puzzle that will help the game move forward. It could be a good tool for those wrongly accused. Maybe if there are cricketers out there doing the wrong thing it will make them think. We want to further explore that closely with the ICC."

The other anti-corruption measure put forward by the cricket committee was that the ICC's Anti Corruption and Security Unit (ACSU) should have the power to perform sting operations similar to that staged by the News of the World last year against Salman Butt, Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif.

Haroon Lorgat, the ICC chief executive, had previously talked about that possibility earlier this year. "I thought when this issue came up last year that perhaps we could have a 'mystery shopper'," he said. "In other words, some people posing as bookmakers approach players and see if those players report along with our codes of conduct."

Waugh said that such operations had shown their effectiveness. "In the past players have been caught. I don't think it's ideal, but if that's the way that wrongdoers can be caught then it could be an option but I don't think it should be the No. 1 option."

Tony Lewis, the MCC Cricket Committee chairman, said the group was only set up a few months ago, and that the problem of corruption wasn't going to be solved quickly. "It's a brave lead by Steve Waugh because having his name attached to it means it will be taken seriously."

The committee was also very strong in its belief that any captain or coach found guilty of corruption should face life bans. "They are the leaders of the team," Waugh said. "They need to shape the values of the team and should be taken out of the game for life."

Among the other issues discussed by the committee was the prospect of day-night Test cricket, which the MCC have been at the forefront of. Rahul Dravid, a member of the committee who played against the pink ball in the MCC-Champion County game in Abu Dhabi earlier this year, gave a presentation and said the one issue he had was the twilight period, with a suggestion that the problem could be avoided by scheduling an interval.

Martin Crowe said he would be trying to get the format introduced into New Zealand's first-class cricket next season. The committee believes the pink ball has now shown its durability, and produced an 80-over ball which had retained its colour as evidence.

They expressed their frustration that the ICC continued to drag its heels in the process but admitted further trials were needed. "It's going to take a couple of more years unfortunately, despite the fact we think it's a viable format," John Stephenson, the MCC's head of cricket, said. "There probably hasn't enough enthusiasm so far. The ICC have to be more proactive as an option for member countries to use then the momentum will gather."

The MCC also offered itself as an independent body, along with Imperial College London, to help the ICC undertake the testing off DRS in order to prove its accuracy.

Andrew McGlashan is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • mikeindex on July 21, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    There is no such thing as a lie detector test: the name is a complete misnomer. What they record is the emotional agitation of a person on being asked certain questions. In other words anyone feeling agitated - as most people would if accused of a serious crime, guilty or not - will record a positive result. In yet other words, anyone feeling anxious while taking the test will come across as a liar whether or not they're telling the truth, while a controlled and consummate liar will come across as truthful. Waugh's suggestion is no doubt well-intentioned but a bit naive.

  • Blazedragon on July 20, 2011, 18:50 GMT

    lie detectors aren't a 100% error free.

  • truebleue_cricfan on July 20, 2011, 11:36 GMT

    Scenario in future. 5 years down the line….BCCI opposes use of lie detector while all other countries unanimously agree to use it! :)

  • waqtpk on July 20, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    Lie detectors and polygraphs are unreliable and by law cannot be used as evidence. Scientific research shows that it is easier for the liers to beat the test and easier for the innocent to fail the test. I find it strange that an intelligent person like Wagh will come up with such an idea.

  • Stark62 on July 20, 2011, 11:24 GMT

    The ump's should be tested is well.

    I still can't forget the incident down under against Ind and of course more recently against Pak.

    Ump's can make or break a game!

  • Dhump on July 20, 2011, 10:48 GMT

    I am down with that idea as long as they start testing with ICC officials (including Management and Umpires), then teams in order of highest to lowest in Test Rankings...

  • AB99 on July 20, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    It is a pathetic idea as this would violate thee spirit of the game. But as the Austrailains are nnot at the top team in the world, they will come with this distractions to prove their 'holier than thou' attitude. If implemented then, not just the players but even the umpires shd be included as this is to tackle corruption and the umpires are equally human as the players are. . And the Australian players shd be included in the list ...

  • ashok16 on July 20, 2011, 5:17 GMT

    However much I like Steve Waugh, this one I disagree. Lie detectors, as many others have said, can easily be beaten in practice. In most countries, they are not legally admissible. And people can come up many excuses once they fail. Somebody might take the test in a language they are not comfortable in, and use that as a valid excuse once they fail saying, "I didnt understand the accent or a particular phrase". I think cricket's elephant in the room is performing enhancing drugs that nobody wants to talk about.

  • on July 20, 2011, 4:05 GMT

    What Mr.@johnathonjosephs says here is clearly something to answer before someone takes these tests. These tests totally depend on increase blood pressure and heart rate which can be there for people who suffer from anxiety. Until they have a 100% test, many players won't take it. The direction is good for the sport, but the solution needs to be 100%.

  • Boris72 on July 20, 2011, 3:42 GMT

    "Thought I'd stumbled onto Page 2." youngkeepersdad, very well spoken. Has nobody picked up on the fact that lie detector tests don't work? All it takes is about 10 minutes on Google and you will find dozens of different ways to pass them no matter what you say. There is a reason why they have never been, and never will be, allowed in the court of law, and nor should they be allowed in a game where its public image has been tarnished already, let alone tarnished more by this completely stupid idea. Waugh, I respect and normally agree with your opinions, but not this time.

  • mikeindex on July 21, 2011, 14:05 GMT

    There is no such thing as a lie detector test: the name is a complete misnomer. What they record is the emotional agitation of a person on being asked certain questions. In other words anyone feeling agitated - as most people would if accused of a serious crime, guilty or not - will record a positive result. In yet other words, anyone feeling anxious while taking the test will come across as a liar whether or not they're telling the truth, while a controlled and consummate liar will come across as truthful. Waugh's suggestion is no doubt well-intentioned but a bit naive.

  • Blazedragon on July 20, 2011, 18:50 GMT

    lie detectors aren't a 100% error free.

  • truebleue_cricfan on July 20, 2011, 11:36 GMT

    Scenario in future. 5 years down the line….BCCI opposes use of lie detector while all other countries unanimously agree to use it! :)

  • waqtpk on July 20, 2011, 11:31 GMT

    Lie detectors and polygraphs are unreliable and by law cannot be used as evidence. Scientific research shows that it is easier for the liers to beat the test and easier for the innocent to fail the test. I find it strange that an intelligent person like Wagh will come up with such an idea.

  • Stark62 on July 20, 2011, 11:24 GMT

    The ump's should be tested is well.

    I still can't forget the incident down under against Ind and of course more recently against Pak.

    Ump's can make or break a game!

  • Dhump on July 20, 2011, 10:48 GMT

    I am down with that idea as long as they start testing with ICC officials (including Management and Umpires), then teams in order of highest to lowest in Test Rankings...

  • AB99 on July 20, 2011, 7:06 GMT

    It is a pathetic idea as this would violate thee spirit of the game. But as the Austrailains are nnot at the top team in the world, they will come with this distractions to prove their 'holier than thou' attitude. If implemented then, not just the players but even the umpires shd be included as this is to tackle corruption and the umpires are equally human as the players are. . And the Australian players shd be included in the list ...

  • ashok16 on July 20, 2011, 5:17 GMT

    However much I like Steve Waugh, this one I disagree. Lie detectors, as many others have said, can easily be beaten in practice. In most countries, they are not legally admissible. And people can come up many excuses once they fail. Somebody might take the test in a language they are not comfortable in, and use that as a valid excuse once they fail saying, "I didnt understand the accent or a particular phrase". I think cricket's elephant in the room is performing enhancing drugs that nobody wants to talk about.

  • on July 20, 2011, 4:05 GMT

    What Mr.@johnathonjosephs says here is clearly something to answer before someone takes these tests. These tests totally depend on increase blood pressure and heart rate which can be there for people who suffer from anxiety. Until they have a 100% test, many players won't take it. The direction is good for the sport, but the solution needs to be 100%.

  • Boris72 on July 20, 2011, 3:42 GMT

    "Thought I'd stumbled onto Page 2." youngkeepersdad, very well spoken. Has nobody picked up on the fact that lie detector tests don't work? All it takes is about 10 minutes on Google and you will find dozens of different ways to pass them no matter what you say. There is a reason why they have never been, and never will be, allowed in the court of law, and nor should they be allowed in a game where its public image has been tarnished already, let alone tarnished more by this completely stupid idea. Waugh, I respect and normally agree with your opinions, but not this time.

  • on July 20, 2011, 2:33 GMT

    worst idea!as simple as that!steve waugh better luck next time!

  • dsig3 on July 20, 2011, 2:25 GMT

    If Mr Waugh says so then make it happen and fast.

  • Agnar on July 20, 2011, 2:01 GMT

    It is a sad situation when we need the lie detectors to have a honest cricket game. Perhaps the spirit of the game is lost. Clearly greed for money has taken over many players. May be we should all abandon cricket and start playing and watching a more primitive game.

  • straight_drive4 on July 20, 2011, 0:17 GMT

    id back anything steve waugh says!!

  • ramsharat on July 19, 2011, 23:29 GMT

    not a bad idea. can give it a try!!!!

  • Number_5 on July 19, 2011, 23:17 GMT

    Good onya Tugga. How do you think the ICC would operate with guys like Dravid and Waugh in charge? Throw in some other highly respected ex-players from other countries with untarnished reputations on and off the field (Fleming NZ, Sangakkara SL, Atherton Eng..just to name a few) and how well do you think the game would be run? This more than anything demonstrates why we need strong, transparent leadership, something the game is lacking atm...Dravid and Waugh would get my vote any day of the week....

  • on July 19, 2011, 22:53 GMT

    @bigwonder, it takes 2 hrs 2 complete a lie detecting test, u really think its worth dat small a thing??

  • Mcgrath-Dravid-Flintoff on July 19, 2011, 22:39 GMT

    If Steve Waugh approves it then so do i

  • johnathonjosephs on July 19, 2011, 22:39 GMT

    Lie detectors can be easily beaten with practice, especially if the person practices meditation. They rely only on elevated physiological responses that are COMMON with lies (increase blood pressure, heart rate, pupil dilation, saccade movement and directions). In fact, some people who might be telling the truth but are just nervous can be wrongly misdiagnosed. Trust me as a person in the medical field, lie detectors are not reliable

  • ygkd on July 19, 2011, 22:30 GMT

    Thought I'd stumbled onto Page 2. Corruption in the game needs to be tackled front-on, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. It may catch the minnows, but the big fish will probably still get away.

  • drkhalidnaeem on July 19, 2011, 22:11 GMT

    I liked the idea of compulsory polygraph testing of every player, umpire and official. There might be some technical reasons of lie dtectors being inadnissible in court of law, I am sure its accuracy is not one of them. It's accurate and reproducible.

  • sreesam on July 19, 2011, 21:56 GMT

    Another useless suggestion from the aussies....Remember how they wanted ODI to split into 2 T20 innings!!

  • bigwonder on July 19, 2011, 21:12 GMT

    I think Steve is onto something. The lie detectors can be used to replace DRS. For example, ask Umpires to use lie detectors if we think they gave an incorrect decision, or ask the batsmen to go through lie detector test to confirm he indeed nicked the ball or ask the fielder/keeper if they took the catch cleanly.

  • sachin_vvsfan on July 19, 2011, 20:07 GMT

    "It's a brave lead by Steve Waugh because having his name attached to it means it will be taken seriously."

    Shocking to see such a highly respectable man is associated with such things

  • cricpolitics on July 19, 2011, 20:03 GMT

    @crikkfan: Let's not be sane now. The hawkeye inaccuracy does not end you up in a jail but an inaccurate result from the lie detector could very well take an innocent person to the jail.

  • suprabadh on July 19, 2011, 20:02 GMT

    It is heartening to know that cricket authorities are taking steps to advocate the theory of lie detectors to check match-fixing. I am of the opinion that whatever may be the inputs used for detection of match-fixing it should directly focus on the punishments that could be awarded to players. We have seen in many cases an award of punishments went unnoticed in the past. An effective detector used should directly hold the person/s responsible. Now that great past cricketers converged at Lords an amicable solution promulgated.

  • mrmonty on July 19, 2011, 19:27 GMT

    With all due respect to Mr. Waugh (I am a huge fan btw), lie detector technology is just inadmissible in any court of law anywhere in the world as Hawkeye's ball prediction. Anyone can be trained to beat it any day.

  • SettingSun on July 19, 2011, 19:22 GMT

    I'm really quite horrified that someone as highly respected as Steve Waugh would be advocating this ridiculous idea. Lie detectors, and the data they provide, are not admissible in most courts for a reason - because they have never been proved to be entirely accurate. Therefore, perhaps worse than somebody passing the test despite the fact they have lied to it, somebody could easily fail the test through blind nerves and be punished for something they haven't done. It's an utterly absurd idea and I'm amazed that Waugh is backing it.

  • crikkfan on July 19, 2011, 18:54 GMT

    On a lighter note, polygraph is about as accurate as hawkeye !

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • crikkfan on July 19, 2011, 18:54 GMT

    On a lighter note, polygraph is about as accurate as hawkeye !

  • SettingSun on July 19, 2011, 19:22 GMT

    I'm really quite horrified that someone as highly respected as Steve Waugh would be advocating this ridiculous idea. Lie detectors, and the data they provide, are not admissible in most courts for a reason - because they have never been proved to be entirely accurate. Therefore, perhaps worse than somebody passing the test despite the fact they have lied to it, somebody could easily fail the test through blind nerves and be punished for something they haven't done. It's an utterly absurd idea and I'm amazed that Waugh is backing it.

  • mrmonty on July 19, 2011, 19:27 GMT

    With all due respect to Mr. Waugh (I am a huge fan btw), lie detector technology is just inadmissible in any court of law anywhere in the world as Hawkeye's ball prediction. Anyone can be trained to beat it any day.

  • suprabadh on July 19, 2011, 20:02 GMT

    It is heartening to know that cricket authorities are taking steps to advocate the theory of lie detectors to check match-fixing. I am of the opinion that whatever may be the inputs used for detection of match-fixing it should directly focus on the punishments that could be awarded to players. We have seen in many cases an award of punishments went unnoticed in the past. An effective detector used should directly hold the person/s responsible. Now that great past cricketers converged at Lords an amicable solution promulgated.

  • cricpolitics on July 19, 2011, 20:03 GMT

    @crikkfan: Let's not be sane now. The hawkeye inaccuracy does not end you up in a jail but an inaccurate result from the lie detector could very well take an innocent person to the jail.

  • sachin_vvsfan on July 19, 2011, 20:07 GMT

    "It's a brave lead by Steve Waugh because having his name attached to it means it will be taken seriously."

    Shocking to see such a highly respectable man is associated with such things

  • bigwonder on July 19, 2011, 21:12 GMT

    I think Steve is onto something. The lie detectors can be used to replace DRS. For example, ask Umpires to use lie detectors if we think they gave an incorrect decision, or ask the batsmen to go through lie detector test to confirm he indeed nicked the ball or ask the fielder/keeper if they took the catch cleanly.

  • sreesam on July 19, 2011, 21:56 GMT

    Another useless suggestion from the aussies....Remember how they wanted ODI to split into 2 T20 innings!!

  • drkhalidnaeem on July 19, 2011, 22:11 GMT

    I liked the idea of compulsory polygraph testing of every player, umpire and official. There might be some technical reasons of lie dtectors being inadnissible in court of law, I am sure its accuracy is not one of them. It's accurate and reproducible.

  • ygkd on July 19, 2011, 22:30 GMT

    Thought I'd stumbled onto Page 2. Corruption in the game needs to be tackled front-on, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. It may catch the minnows, but the big fish will probably still get away.