Drug Abuse, Ball Tampering and Match Fixing - Your Verdict

[Pratters]

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.

The problem is, like murder in real life (except a Cary Grant in North by Northwest of course ), no one is going to admit they fixed matches in sport, not at least till there is a lot of evidence which has mounted against the given bloke. No one will go out of the way to say he match fixed.

Maybe we can give lesser offenses in the degree a proven match fixer will not be allowed into a cricket field or cannot income off cricket all his life while a proven match fixer who aids give more information into the match fixing ring will just be banned from playing cricket and the cricket field for 5/10 years and not life - but the maximum I would go where match fixing is concerned.

Match fixing is against the very spirit of sport and there is no need for much lose treatment for match fixers the way I look at it.

 

[pasag]

Oh yeah, with match fixing I fully agree, over there I was talking about drugs though.

 

[howardj]

Match-fixing is clearly the worst offence possible. A fundamental tenant of professional sport is that each team is actually trying to win! Fixing matches, or elements of your performance, will kill the game quicker than anything. Once the public loses trust....that's it. Accordingly, if a player (especially in the current climate) is found guilty of accepting money to perform other than to the best of their ability, they should be banned for life. The retort of some to a life sentence is that "oh you don't get life for murder". Well, I'm not talking about locking people up, just banning them from ever playing cricket again.

 

[silentstriker]

Right, normal 'cheating' is still in an effort to try to get your team to win. Its obviously wrong and should be punished, but nothing like doing the opposite (i.e losing on purpose).

 

[howardj]

Actually, it should be a life ban for fixing any element of a match. Whether it involves under-performance or not. Either way, it strikes at the very credibility of the sport.

 

[Pratters]

I was talking about drugs though.

Righto. I misread. No worries.

 

[FRAZ]

Match Fixing -> Drug abuse
And it depends what people think about ball tampering ... Ball tampering has types and it really depends upon each and every case and is a much smaller typa offense !!!

 

[adharcric]

Oh please. When exactly was it 'innocent'?

Let me clarify. There was a perception that cricket was a "decent" and "innocent" sport until recently, mainly because people hadn't been caught for match-fixing, drug abuse and ball-tampering. I don't actually believe the fluff I put in the introductory statement.

 

[gunner]

match fixing is worse

ball tampering is next

and drug abuse is least worse cos soemtimes its taken unknowingly

 

[Craig]

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.

Yeah but what sort of creditibility it will give? If it is a a short ban for a few months for the 1st offence what sort of messages it will give and surely it will make cricket look like a laughing stock.

 

[pasag]

Yeah but what sort of creditibility it will give? If it is a a short ban for a few months for the 1st offence what sort of messages it will give and surely it will make cricket look like a laughing stock.

I'm talking about all sports though, not just cricket. I think it's quite obvious that every sport in the world needs to be consistent in this issue. I want shorter bans for first time offences all across the board, in all sports, but consistency is much more important than that.

 

[Craig]

I'm talking about all sports though, not just cricket. I think it's quite obvious that every sport in the world needs to be consistent in this issue. I want shorter bans for first time offences all across the board, in all sports, but consistency is much more important than that.

The problem is a lot of other sports have drug problems more then others, but a stand does need to be taken. Put it this way, if you gave a cyclist, runner, weightlifter, swimmer, or whatever a two month ban, the sport would be a joke.

For starters the sooner people like Dick Pound are replaced the better. Sadly he is leaving this November, not sooner.

 

[adharcric]

While I generally agree with Pasag's school of thought, a two-month period is too short and it really is a joke tbh. The first-time ban should be for six months or a year.

 

[vic_orthdox]

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.

So you let them back in after two months when in all likelihood they are still reaping the benefits of cheating?

 

[pasag]

So you let them back in after two months when in all likelihood they are still reaping the benefits of cheating?

Two months is just an arbitrary amount though of what I consider to be a minimum, obviously they shouldn't be allowed back in if they still have drugs or the benefits of the drugs in their system.

Craig, you keep on saying two months would make the sport a joke, but that's not any type of argument so I'm not sure how I can respond to it other than saying, no it wouldn't imo.

Anyways, the first post asked for everyone’s opinions on the matter and those are mine. The overreactions in calling for bans ranging from years to life have always astounded me for first time offences. But hey that's just my opinion which is what adharcric asked for.

 

[adharcric]

Craig, you keep on saying two months would make the sport a joke, but that's not any type of argument so I'm not sure how I can respond to it other than saying, no it wouldn't imo.

As a cricketer, would you really feel bad about missing just two months of action? Not that bad. That's why it's a joke, at least IMO.

The overreactions in calling for bans ranging from years to life have always astounded me for first time offences.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[pasag]

As a cricketer, would you really feel bad about missing just two months of action? Not that bad. That's why it's a joke, at least IMO.

Well yeah I said earlier in this thread that whatever the equvialent of a couple of months is in cricket terms. It would be in terms of matches obviously. Anyways, I reckon I've said what I've wanted to say on the topic and I'm outttt.

 

[BoyBrumby]

WRT to drugs & specifically steroids I think we also have to consider the long-term effects of them on those who take them. I think doctors are pretty much agreed that they're generally bad news, health-wise. There's certainly an argument to be made that punishments should be draconian in part to protect cricketers from themselves or from unscrupulous coaches or physicians who may exert pressure on them to "juice" (as I think you crazy kids call it) to aid recover or put on muscle bulk or whatever. If a first-time ban is only a token there's obviously not so much of a disincentive to leave the needle alone.

 

[silentstriker]

WRT to drugs & specifically steroids I think we also have to consider the long-term effects of them on those who take them. I think doctors are pretty much agreed that they're generally bad news, health-wise. There's certainly an argument to be made that punishments should be draconian in part to protect cricketers from themselves or from unscrupulous coaches or physicians who may exert pressure on them to "juice" (as I think you crazy kids call it) to aid recover or put on muscle bulk or whatever. If a first-time ban is only a token there's obviously not so much of a disincentive to leave the needle alone.

Actually, the adverse health effects of steroids are vastly overrated and most of them go away once you stop taking them. If you're smart about it and don't overdose on it, you can probably do it without any major long term health effects.

Not that the health effects should have anything to do with the legality of them in sport, but just saying.