Drug Abuse, Ball Tampering and Match Fixing - Your Verdict

[adharcric]

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.

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

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?

Open for discussion.

 

[BoyBrumby]

All evils in the game, but I'd say that match fixing is the worst, morally speaking. One of the basic tenets of sporting competition is that the participants are actually trying to win.

 

[nightprowler10]

Yeah I'd say match fixing is the worst of all. Even in baseball, steroids and other ways of cheating (corked bats, etc) have come and gone and people more or less forget about them, but I don't think people will ever forget about the Black Sox.

 

[oz_fan]

I agree that match-fixing is the worst of the lot. Ball tampering and steroids can only give an unfair advantage where as match fixing (if an entire team is involved) is predetermining the result of a match.

 

[adharcric]

Right then ... how about addressing the more meaningful questions?

 

[andyc]

Yeah match fixing>drugs>ball tampering.

 

[Craig]

Well those who are involved in match fixing should face bans from anywhere from 5-10 years to life, we don't need these people.

Drugs, 1st offence two year ban, 2nd 4 year band and a 3rd (and you would have to be braindead) then life. And if it is overseas players then Counties in England (as well as clubs) need to take a stance and not sign anybody who has been banned fortking drugs. But to prevent this, then there needs to be much better education, and players need to be made sure what is accepted and not accepted, and if brainless idiots like Shane Warne CBF paying attention then that is their problem. Also each cricket association needs to stress that if they have a problem and go see a doctor, either contact them or if they visit their GP then bring the paper work with them so the doc knows what to give them and try ant visit some shonky back door doctor like a certain Pakistani duo. Also increase testing, I was shocked at so few times Asif and Akhtar has been tested. This is a big issue for me and I for one have no tolerance of these cheats.

Ball Tampering - Fines and suspensions. Perhaps docked points in the ICC Champions or even relugated to last spot on the Test or ODI rankings (same thing could apply for match fixing).

 

[nightprowler10]

I don't have a problem with the punishments for match fixing and ball tampering, but the 1-2 year ban for steroids is a bit harsh in my opinion. And my opinion isn't so just because my favorite cricketer ATM could get banned again. I thought the same when Warne got the ban.

 

[TT Boy]

All evils in the game, but I'd say that match fixing is the worst, morally speaking. One of the basic tenets of sporting competition is that the participants are actually trying to win.

Completely agree.

 

[adharcric]

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.

 

[adharcric]

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.

 

[Craig]

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.

Well if there isn't an education process then the relevant board or assocation should be punished (ie fines) as well.

 

[Langeveldt]

Match Fixing>Drugs>Ball Tampering

And I'd like to actually see some bans handed out, as well as some education..

 

[Craig]

I don't have a problem with the punishments for match fixing and ball tampering, but the 1-2 year ban for steroids is a bit harsh in my opinion. And my opinion isn't so just because my favorite cricketer ATM could get banned again. I thought the same when Warne got the ban.

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.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think it's probably a mistake to assume cricket was always a gentleman's sport. I mean it was in the sense that it was played partly by gentlemen (i.e. amateurs), but the conduct of these amateurs was not always what we would call gentlemanly. DR Jardine was an amateur, but his captaincy was incredibly hard-nosed; aside from being the architect of bodyline he very famously dragged (not literally, but not far off it) Eddie Paynter from his hospital bed when England needed the little Lancastrian. Paytner's innings was reputedly fired by brandy & egg-whites, btw; I wonder what the doping-agencies would say about that combo nowadays?

WRT the length of sentence for transgression, any punishment is probably going to be arbitrary. That said, I'd quite happily sign up for a life-ban for match fixers tho & two years for a first doping offence seems reasonable. What is currently making nonsense of the drugs-policy is the adhoc application of it across international boards. Does anyone else think it seems like taking the piss that Asif has taken (as I type) 4 wickets on his return?

I'm absolutely anti a loosening of the current ball-tampering rules too. It seems a pretty poor argument that because an offence is hard to detect it shouldn't be applied anymore. Unfortunately, thanks to the actions of Inzi & Pakistan, it's now to all intents & purposes another law that cannot be applied. If any umpire has serious ambition to a long-term career officiating he'd be foolhardy in the extreme to call any team on it. Even if he's seen it with his own eyes the precedent has now been set that a camera would need to have picked it up too. How is an ump to know this? Ask the third umpire to check the tapes?

 

[Beleg]

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.

Those 'gentlemen' of yore were also racist, misogynstic and classist individuals who didn't shy away from using underhanded means when they could get away with them, and often when they couldn't. Competitive sport has never been 'clean', 'innocent' and 'decent' - the passage of time has merely clouded the avarices of the past.

I wouldn't take too much pride in cricket's history, specially when it is riddled with apartheid, racism and an artificial divide enforced on the basis of mistaken morality. (Players vs. Gentlemen)


Steroids have always permeated sports. Sportsmen have been taking performance enhancing substances since the dawn of sports itself. A ban of an year or two should suffice in most cases. Regarding rampant ball-tampering, the current punishment is enough. My problem is not with the punishment but the manner in which 'ball-tampering' is judged. The term itself is also a kind of a misnomer; a more specific turn of phrase is needed to seperate the harmless from the dangerous.

Match fixing needs to be punished with a life-time ban. No exceptions. The definition of 'match-fixing' has to be pretty clear cut though, merely telling some jockey about the state of the pitch overnight is not match fixing.

 

[pasag]

Have always said the ban is too long for first time drug offences. Two months imo, after that should come the year/life bans.

Match fixing as others have said is easily the worst and should have serious charges within it. Don't know about life-bans though.

Ball tampering should only see people suspended with continued offences.

 

[Craig]

I think it's probably a mistake to assume cricket was always a gentleman's sport. I mean it was in the sense that it was played partly by gentlemen (i.e. amateurs), but the conduct of these amateurs was not always what we would call gentlemanly. DR Jardine was an amateur, but his captaincy was incredibly hard-nosed; aside from being the architect of bodyline he very famously dragged (not literally, but not far off it) Eddie Paynter from his hospital bed when England needed the little Lancastrian. Paytner's innings was reputedly fired by brandy & egg-whites, btw; I wonder what the doping-agencies would say about that combo nowadays?

WRT the length of sentence for transgression, any punishment is probably going to be arbitrary. That said, I'd quite happily sign up for a life-ban for match fixers tho & two years for a first doping offence seems reasonable. What is currently making nonsense of the drugs-policy is the adhoc application of it across international boards. Does anyone else think it seems like taking the piss that Asif has taken (as I type) 4 wickets on his return?

I'm absolutely anti a loosening of the current ball-tampering rules too. It seems a pretty poor argument that because an offence is hard to detect it shouldn't be applied anymore. Unfortunately, thanks to the actions of Inzi & Pakistan, it's now to all intents & purposes another law that cannot be applied. If any umpire has serious ambition to a long-term career officiating he'd be foolhardy in the extreme to call any team on it. Even if he's seen it with his own eyes the precedent has now been set that a camera would need to have picked it up too. How is an ump to know this? Ask the third umpire to check the tapes?

Yes finally some commonsense, not just your 3rd paragraph, but the whole lot.

 

[Langeveldt]

Have always said the ban is too long for first time drug offences. Two months imo, after that should come the year/life bans..

Surely not, if the education is in place to prevent players accidentally taking substances, there can be no excuse for willfuly taking performance enhancing drugs? If the cheating is so blatant then why should they only get two months? Probably served during a period when they wouldn't be playing anyway..

 

[Craig]

Have always said the ban is too long for first time drug offences. Two months imo, after that should come the year/life bans.

Match fixing as others have said is easily the worst and should have serious charges within it. Don't know about life-bans though.

Ball tampering should only see people suspended with continued offences.

Out of interest why is that?