Drug Abuse, Ball Tampering and Match Fixing - Your Verdict

[Craig]

Well if it were an Australian for example (I'm not suggesting anything untoward) and if they caught after the World Cup, the ban would be meaningless.

 

[marc71178]

I would have the first-time drug abuse ban at six months if the abuser doesn't seem to have known about it. Of course, if the education is there then there should be no excuse.

For an International athlete, ignorance is not a valid excuse.

 

[Craig]

For an International athlete, ignorance is not a valid excuse.

Yep and if their English is poor then explain it to them in their own language (or get somebody who can).

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well if it were an Australian for example (I'm not suggesting anything untoward) and if they caught after the World Cup, the ban would be meaningless.

What have you heard?

Seriously tho, two years seems reasonable to me. A year at the least. What's more important tho is that bans are universally applied. The argument that because an international sportsman was unaware of the illegality of steroids he should get off scot-free is, frankly, insulting to the intelligence & to his country. Are we to believe that such things aren't reported in Pakistan?

 

[telsor]

Match fixing - Life ban. Unforgivable.

Steroids ( etc ). 2 years first offense, life for second. International players are full time professionals. 'not knowing' is no excuse. I don't care if nobody told them. It's their obligation to KNOW.

Ball tampering. Irrelevant, No umpire will dare call it again unless someone is stupid enough to blatantly do it in front of them ( and witnesses ) or gets caught on camera in a way that doesn't leave any doubt. On the off chance that does happen...It's a 'team' thing, so the entire team suffers loss of all match payments, the player caught and captain banned for 3 tests or 6 ODIs ( depending on what type of match they were playing ). Penalty doubles if any player from the same team gets caught within the next 5 years. ( and doubles again, and again until they have 5 clear years ).

 

[nightprowler10]

So it is ok for cricketer to steriod or whatever then?

And if you think that is harsh, in pro cycling, if a rider falls his drugs test (A and B) he will get a two year ban from the sport and then another two year ban from signing with one of the elite pro 20 teams. So technically is a four year ban.

Granted cricket doesn't have such a problem (as far as we know), but I can't believe the lax attitudes and people passed Warne's ban off as no such problem.

I probably should have specified I meant it was harsh as a first time offense. Part of the reason why I think its harsh is the fact that steroids don't IMO benefit cricketers in the same way they benefit athletes who need to hit the ball harder or peddle faster. Might be poor reasoning for some, I admit, but its just the way I think.

 

[telsor]

What about ball-tampering? Should you be allowed to use nails (but not external substances) to rub the ball, etc.
I've used nails before to scratch the hell out of a ball before in overcast conditions when it was swinging like crazy. Don't know about the seam-lifting deal though.

So...You CHEATED.

 

[telsor]

I probably should have specified I meant it was harsh as a first time offense. Part of the reason why I think its harsh is the fact that steroids don't IMO benefit cricketers in the same way they benefit athletes who need to hit the ball harder or peddle faster. Might be poor reasoning for some, I admit, but its just the way I think.

I think fast bowlers benefit at the very least.

It was also noted the other day in the Aus press that one of the reasons Aus is so good in ODIs is that they have a several big, STRONG Batsmen ( Hayden, Symonds, White ), so again, strength is a benefit in batting.


Maybe it's not as big an effect as weightlifting ( for example ), but it's still an unfair advantage.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I probably should have specified I meant it was harsh as a first time offense. Part of the reason why I think its harsh is the fact that steroids don't IMO benefit cricketers in the same way they benefit athletes who need to hit the ball harder or peddle faster. Might be poor reasoning for some, I admit, but its just the way I think.

Still speed recovery tho, which is what I'd assumed they'd be used for in the sport.

 

[pasag]

Out of interest why is that?

Why should it be so harsh? Imo year long bans are way to severe for first time offences and if the offender is remorseful and promises to clean up his act, there is no reason, imo, to kick him out for a year or more. If he re-offends I have no problem feeding him to the sharks so to speak, but people make mistakes and I don't want people out for so long for a first mistake made.

Although it must be said that 'two months' should just be a starting point. The fact that there could be no cricket during that period is an obvious flaw so I'd want the equivalent ban in terms of matches.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Why should it be so harsh? Imo year long bans are way to severe for first time offences and if the offender is remorseful and promises to clean up his act, there is no reason, imo, to kick him out for a year or more. If he re-offends I have no problem feeding him to the sharks so to speak, but people make mistakes and I don't want people out for so long for a first mistake made.

Although it must be said that 'two months' should just be a starting point. The fact that there could be no cricket during that period is an obvious flaw so I'd want the equivalent ban in terms of matches.

See, it's that sort of self-serving crap that makes me favour strict liability. It's easy to be remorseful when you've been caught, but I don't know of one sportsman who's held his hands up & said "Yeah, I'm using & I'm sorry" without a positive test. & precious few who've said it after one either...

 

[Tom Halsey]

Completely agree with Brumby that it is a bit dangerous to say the cricket was always a gentleman's game in the past, as the conduct was hardly perfect - WG Grace, Jardine, etc etc were not saints.

Also agree with the general consensus that match-fixing is by far the biggest evil in the modern game. Anyone caught match-fixing should be banned for life.

 

[pasag]

See, it's that sort of self-serving crap that makes me favour strict liability. It's easy to be remorseful when you've been caught, but I don't know of one sportsman who's held his hands up & said "Yeah, I'm using & I'm sorry" without a positive test. & precious few who've said it after one either...

Can't agree at all mate. Alot of people deny it, make up excuses whatever. If a bloke is going to admit what he did was wrong and never do it again, I say ban him for a short while and then forgive him. Again, if he's caught a second time, throw the book at him, but I can't agree with your cynical outlook nor your heavy handed tactics for dealing with the problem.

I know I'm in the minority here though.

 

[SquidAU]

Match fixing is by far the worst blight on the game. Life time bans, period.

I would rate ball tampering as the next worse but bans for 1 or 2 years should suffice.

Drug taking is one of those things that doesn't really make you play cricket better, but the players should know as well what not to take....so bans for a nominal period like 1 or 2 years should suffice.

The problems with all these is administrators of the game. They never get it right. And what authority, be it in sports or general politics, ever does?

There is always something stopping the right thing being done, usually the almight dollar!

 

[nightprowler10]

I think fast bowlers benefit at the very least.

It was also noted the other day in the Aus press that one of the reasons Aus is so good in ODIs is that they have a several big, STRONG Batsmen ( Hayden, Symonds, White ), so again, strength is a benefit in batting.


Maybe it's not as big an effect as weightlifting ( for example ), but it's still an unfair advantage.

Still speed recovery tho, which is what I'd assumed they'd be used for in the sport.

I agree its an advantage. But you'll agree its not bad enough to warrant a 1-2 year ban on first offense.

Loving multi-quote tbh.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I agree its an advantage. But you'll agree its not bad enough to warrant a 1-2 year ban on first offense.

Loving multi-quote tbh.

Sorry, but I don't agree, it's wilful cheating with malicious intent. Far worse than, say, Afridi's two-step on a good length, which was clearly done in the heat of the moment.

Actually I'm not really so hung up on the length of bans as their universal application. For them to be meaningful tho I do think they have to be beyond a slap on the wrist.

 

[nightprowler10]

Actually I'm not really so hung up on the length of bans as their universal application. For them to be meaningful tho I do think they have to be beyond a slap on the wrist.

Six months wouldn't be a slap on the wrist, which what I would think is just right for a first offense.

 

[Johnners]

A) I'll be hopping aboard the "Match Fixing is by far the worst" bandwagon. As all have said before me, it's just not cricket to be going out to play with the intention of losing, worse is the fact that those involved are doing to for their own financial benefit. 5 Year ban minimum

B) Drug abuse is still a relatively new phenominan in cricketing circles, and as much as i hate to say it, it's likely to become more and more of an issue in the future. Contrary to the beleif of quite a few others, imo the 1 year bans for a 1st up offence are spot on. Anything shorter and it's really nothing more than a slap on the wrists. Making a player sit out for a whole year is garunteeing the fact that they will miss a fair number of games. Also its' far more likely to make the offender realise the error of their ways, than say a 6 month bad would, where the team could only be playing 5-6 matches in total.

C) I really don't like the attitude of "it's hard to detect, so lets just not worry about it/allow it" shown by many people in the cricketing fraternity. There's no doubt it's a blight on the spirit of the game, and is clearly cheating. For starters, a clear line needs to be drawn between what is & isn't ball tampering. Then, there really needs to be something done to assure the umpires receive the best possible support, should they indeed feel the need to penalise the fielding team with a ball tampering offence. Whilst it's probably not the cheapest thing to do, would it be that hard to have a few select cameras whose sole job it is to follow the ball at every oppurtunity?

 

[Pratters]

Modern cricket is but a shadow of the pure, gentleman's sport that it was once regarded as. In recent times, the decency, innocence and "clean" nature of cricket has fizzled away.
Today, the sport that we adore has been tarnished by three evils: the (ab)use of banned substances (steroids), the act of ball-tampering and the ominous threat of match-fixing.
Clearly, all three of these are forms of "cheating" in one way or another. Basically, I would like to hear your thoughts on these, particularly addressing the following questions.

Before taking on the questions, I will jot down my thoughts on your above remarks..

When cricket first became popular in England (I am talking about the initial stage when it went to various counties and county versus county matches became prominent in due course, it was basically entertainment for the rich lords who would bet on these games. This meant money for the players playing in these games and thus widening interest in it for the players apart from being the reason for the fast initial spread of the game. So betting has been at the root of cricket and though it can be speculated whether match-fixing existed or not because of it, we do know that cricket has not really been a gentleman's game - taking WG Grace as the biggest contradiction to cricket being a gentleman's game, there is little need to go into more specifics.

A basic trait of the sport is to look at every past era as a better, purer golden age for the game. Even in the early 1900s, we found pieces which regarded the pre test cricket era as the golden age because there were no concrete stands which spoiled the purity of the game and suchlike.

Ball tampering and match fixing are certainly no new phenomena. If any thing, ball tampering was more prevelant in the 60s to 80s. Navjot Sidhu and Atul Wassan have said on tv the teams (including theirs) used to regularly tamper with the ball. It was an unwritten law of sorts. With camera eyes so piercing now, the ball tampering is now a bit difficult to do (remember Dravid and the logense incedent not so long ago?) Match fixing has recieved a jolt after some players were found out at the dawn of the new century. Now it can be argued that it still prevails but it would certainly be more difficult to do it now after the noise the match fixing saga created. Earlier, there was no noise and if it was being done, I fear it was done with much more freedom and much less fear by the perpetrators. So we are past the worst where match fixing and ball tampering are concerned for me which is not that bad a thing.

My take on the specific questions at hand -

Where do they stand with respect to one another in terms of severity? (Please answer the less obvious questions as well ...)

Match fixing>Drugs>Ball tampering.

What degree of punishment is appropriate for each violation?

What changes, if any, should be made to the policies governing each violation?
For example, changes regarding drug testing and preventive measures; changes regarding the loosening of ball-tampering restrictions as an advantage to bowlers; changes regarding the regulation of ball-tampering through umpires, match referees or external officials; changes regarding how match-fixing can be prevented, even if it may not exist today. In short, what changes should be made in your opinion?

Uniform rules for all offences regardless of the country.

For drugs, the WADA rules are good enough.

For match fixing, a life ban at first offense - no place for match fixers in sport.

For ball tampering, the umpire should be trusted with his judgments. Also, if we catch perpetrators of ball tampering via camera, they should be given equal punishment as the offense has been committed and why leave the punishment just bcause the umpire on the field cannot see from 20 angles like the 20 tv cameras can.

Cheers.

 

[silentstriker]

Modern cricket is but a shadow of the pure, gentleman's sport that it was once regarded as. In recent times, the decency, innocence and "clean" nature of cricket has fizzled away.

Oh please. When exactly was it 'innocent'?

Where do they stand with respect to one another in terms of severity? (Please answer the less obvious questions as well ...)

Match Fixing >>>> Steroids = Ball Tampering = Appealing for a catch you dropped > appealing for a wicket you know is not out

What degree of punishment is appropriate for each violation?

Life for match fixing, about six months to a year for ball tampering and steroids.

What changes, if any, should be made to the policies governing each violation?

Every country should have a consistent drug policy. BCCI doesn't even test their players. The other policies are fine.