Players need protection from accusers
Just as well that there was no ICC Anti-corruption Unit in the times of David and Goliath
Omar Kureishi
24-Oct-2001
Just as well that there was no ICC Anti-corruption Unit in the times
of David and Goliath. Almost certainly, doubts would be raised and
there would be suspicions.
Someone like Ali Bacher might even have come forward to charge that
the 'encounter' was fixed. Kenya beat India at Port Elizabeth. It was
a bigger upset than Bangladesh beating Pakistan in the 1999 World Cup
or Zimbabwe beating South African in the same tournament.
I saw the Kenya-India match on television and Kenya played out of
their skins and a depleted Indian team lost to what was the better
team on that day. Kenya were without their captain Maurice Odumbe who
had been handed a two-game suspension, an unusually harsh punishment.
The team was fired up because of this and its resolve showed in the
body-language of its players. To insinuate that there was some hankypanky is to take credit away from a great team effort and in the
bargain cast aspersions on the integrity of the Indian players.
I think the time has come for cricket to be saved from its redeemers.
I also feel that the players need to get some protection from those
who make accusations and then fail to come up with any proof.
Justice Karamat is carrying out a judicial inquiry to determine if the
Pakistan-Bangladesh match was fixed in the World Cup. The man who made
the accusation was Dr Bacher. He was no ordinary, Tom, Dick or Harry.
He was the chief executive of the South African Cricket Board. He had
no proof and admitted as much, saying that Majid Khan had told him.
What he was doing was retailing the suspicions of someone else who in
turn said that he had no evidence.
While members of the Pakistan team have appeared before Justice
Karamat Bhandari, Bacher has not done so. He represents the main
accuser. Bacher should have himself volunteered to do so. It would
have been an honourable thing to have done so.
The life ban on Hansie Cronje has been re-affirmed and since he had
pleaded guilty and had been caught with the goods, as it were, the
life-ban seems justified. Though whether the punishment fits the crime
is a matter of some doubt in my mind. His name had been dragged
through the mud and he will carry the stigma for the rest of his life
and there was no chance of his ever playing for South Africa again, I
feel a case existed for tempering mercy with justice.
Punishment is meant to act as a deterrent and not be an act of
vengeance on its own. I may be mistaken but I do not recall any of the
book-makers who became household names being sent to jail.
Thus we have the anomaly of one party being banned or fined for
accepting money from another party but this 'another party' getting
off scot-free. The bribe-taker is to be punished. Not the bribe-giver.
This is, what I would call, half justice, like the curate's egg, good
in parts.
In 1974, when I was manager of the Pakistan team on its tour of
England, we had twice evacuated our hotels because of bomb scares. The
IRA were then on the rampage and bomb blasts were fairly routine. Not
for a moment did we consider calling off the tour. We did not even
discuss it the following mornings at breakfast.
There was no satellite television in those days and to the best of my
recollection, nothing appeared in the print media about the bomb
scares in the hotels where the Pakistan team was lodged.
I write this in the context of the security concerns of the England
players due to tour India. As I wrote last week, New Zealand and Sri
Lanka could have easily toured Pakistan and with absolute safety. I
don't think that the England players will be in any kind of danger
because of the events in Afghanistan.
If one was to go entirely by what one sees on BBC and CNN, one would
get the impression that the whole region is in turmoil. The pictures
we are seeing are selective and angled. There should be no doubts
about the tour and the only fears should be about Sachin Tendulkar
regaining his form. No such fears have been expressed about the
tournament in Sharjah and Pakistan is just as concerned about the
safety of its players.
I think England flatter themselves that they constitute a high-profile
target. A One-day International was being played in Sri Lanka when
Columbo airport was being attacked. Pakistan toured India even when
the Shiv Sena had vowed not to let the tour proceed. Though the
security was tight, the Pakistan players tell me that they enjoyed the
tour.
The ECB will incur a heavy financial loss if the India tour is
cancelled. So too will the Indian Cricket Board. Should England's tour
be cancelled, the Indian Cricket Board will get an idea of how we felt
when India cancelled its tour of Pakistan and then refused to play in
the Asian Test Championship, though the reason was not security.
Pakistan had taken quite a financial knock. Although I am in agreement
with the ICC plan for neutral venues, there should be compelling
reasons for the cancellation of tours and I don't think it should be
left to the players. With due respects to them, they are not best
informed on all political matters in most cases, they are not informed
at all. These decisions should be arrived at on a government to
government level.