-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
"Gavaskar leads World XI selectors" ... who would you select?
- Thread starter adharcric
- Start date
C_C
International Captain
Yes. But it is NOT illegal in many sports to be a pot smoker-just as long as you dont dope up the day before a game.
The effects of pot lasts very short period of time in the system.
Masking agents on the other hand, are used to cover up drugs like nandrolone, a performance enhancing drug that has lasting effect for years.
Warne is a drug cheat and he got off easy. ALL other sporting bodies have very tough rules and regulations for this.
He also got away for matchfixing but thats another story.
As far as i am concerned, if guys like Azharuddin,Jadeja,Malik, etc. can be banned on circumstantial evidence(only Cronje had categoric evidence against him) Warne and junior should've been banned as well.
cric_manic
First Class Debutant
Mcullum is very good batter,better than taibu and a better keeper than courtney browneBookie said:
Blaze
Banned
Bookie said:
****house level of batting? He started his career for NZ as an opener and will bat in the top four for NZ in both tests and ODI's in the future. In five to six years time he will more than likely be NZ's best batsman.
And McCullum is a very very good keeper. I can't remember the last time he made a mistake with the gloves.
He would only make the test World XI side if they needed a keeper who can bat 7-8 though
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
What makes u think Sangakkara can't bat at 7 or 8, he is a world class batsmen and will be pushing Lara, Tendulkar, Kallis, Dravid, Inzi for a spot in the top order. Jones and McCullum and the others have to improve allot as batsmen before they get into the side infront of him. His keeping isn't that bad either compared to the other either.Blaze said:
Blaze, I agree Mc Cullum is a good keeper, but Sangakkara is just as good as a keeper, and if anything he showed what a brilliant keeper he was for the Asian XI (by taking 5 dismissals in the World XI innings) and only just missing the world record of 6 dismissal in an Innings.Blaze said:
(Only SriLankans have underplayed him as a keeper because of the folly of trying to move him to open the innings or come in at 3 after keeping for a whole innings. And for this reason they have undervalued his keeping by giving the gloves to Kalu)
McCullum is a good keeper, but his batting has still more to improve before he can compete as a genuine number 6 or 7 into a World XI.
On keeping alone he is good, but I would say Sangakkara is just as good and the only reason we are talking of Sangakkara is because, his failings despite being few and far between ae highlighted prominently (in view of high expectations ) and McCullum (while not in the same class) is shooting higher because his failings are not highlighted or are easily forgiven (because of not high expectations ).
Considering Murali is a certainty to play for the World XI with possibly Kumble as well, I would say Sangakkara will almost certainly be the better pick.
Last edited:
chaminda_00
Hall of Fame Member
I was wondering the same, i just thought it was some english saying i've never heardJono said:
FaaipDeOiad
Hall of Fame Member
Not true, in the sense we are discussing here. Retroactive sentencing is clearly forbidden under Australian law, and while the example you gave is true, it is not retroactive punishment. Let us say for example that C_C is accused of viciously beating Scallywag with a computer mouse over an argument on cricketweb in 2005. In 2007 a statute is passed in the state in question allowing for new, harsh sentences for internet-related cases of indictable aggravated assault, and in 2008 C_C is arrested, charged and convicted under the new laws sentenced to 20 years in prison. This is quite possible, and although C_C's lawyer could appeal the use of the law put into place after the incident, there is enough common law around to have the new law enforced, and it isn't retroactive punishment. However, the issue you are bringing up here about punishing Warne with laws about drug use written after he has already been found guilty of taking said drug would clearly be forbidden. This would be equivalent to the laws about internet-related assault being written in 2009 after the sentencing, and having C_C's punishment doubled afterwards. And, for what it's worth, appeals to increase or decrease sentencing after a conviction are ALWAYS based on the laws as written at the time of the trial, and later changes in the law (with some very rare exceptions perhaps, such as something being made entirely legal when people are in jail for doing it already) are not considered valid grounds for appeal.C_C said:
No, but a sporting body is not a credible legal framework in the sense you seem to believe it is. A sporting body may be (and usually is) given authority by delegation to make laws to govern it's own sport, but that doesn't mean that those laws have to be subject to all the checks and balances of a criminal legal system. There is nothing illegal about Warne being punished by Cricket Australia, and as the ICC agreed to it there is nothing being done wrong by Warne or by CA even within the framework of cricketing laws. Basically, if the ICC believes CA will punish Warne or anyone else fairly, CA are perfectly entitled to do so.C_C said:
False. Using a diuretic is not illegal in Australia at all, and "cheating" in sport is only illegal within the framework of the laws within a sporting body. An attempt at a civil suit relating to use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport could concievably be successful, but not in Warne's case as the drug use can not at all be proven on the balance of probabilities to be an attempt at enhancing his ability to play sport. It was the judgement if CA that it was an error of judgement on his behalf and not a legitimate attempt to cheat, and undoubtedly a civil court would reach the same conclusion.C_C said:
