-
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.
Samuels found liable
- Thread starter roseboy64
- Start date
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
For all intents and purposes, like it or not, Samuels is innocent of the charge according to the code, unless there's further evidence not brought to public attention which shows a link between paying the hotel bill and the information providing as well as proof Samuels has brought the game into disrepute which by the responses I guess he has but that was a separate charge of which he was acquited. So really only it needs to be shown that the bill paying was a favour for the information. According to the law if that's not proven he's innocent, whether you think him to be or not. Supposed to be a report soon explaining their decision.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Erm... how was that in any way connected to match-fixing?
I thought the fine on Oram was silly and excessive, FTR, and said so.
Goughy
Hall of Fame Member
Pratters
Cricket, Lovely Cricket
Just because people were not dealt with appropriately earlier doesn't mean that we shouldn't deal with the current situation appropriately. Such stuff is serious and needs to be stamped out of the game strongly.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Two years should be the lightest punishment for incidents like these.
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
Well today Samuels' lawyers K. Churchill Neita and Delano Harrison, both Q.Cs, were interviewed on this popular sports program here. Guy I mentioned before was who the WICB asked to review their case against Samuels.
Neita says he was stunned and diappointed with the verdict and felt it was not consistent with the evidence presented. Harrison says that he thought the tribunal would have taken 10-15 mins to come up with a decision based on their arguments. Neita said Prof. Bishop who "is an acute legal mind" found the charges baseless and was the dissenting voice to Barnett and Justice Saunders.Richie Richardson voted against Samuels but made comments after in Neita's presence. Signed document with reservation...ban excesive, harsh and unfair. Harrison said that he was stunned that Richie voted aganst. He seemd convinced with their arguments. They thought they had Richie and Bishop in their corner.
Harrison says the term"beyond a reasonable doubt" was the evidence standard for the case. Says that icc code of conduct is nonsense,i.e.proof beyond probablility(didnt catch it properly)., but the jurists used "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Neita said Marlon asked to borrow the money, and that the prosecutors said that Kochar is not a bookie. Harrison says there should be no stigma attached to a gambler and that Samuels did not know he was one.Says prosecution contended that the request for the payment of the bill ,"which was to be repaid when Marlon came back home", was based on the tele coversation. Harrison says that "the nail in th coffin" was Marlon not paying back Kochar. Says Marlon was going to pay back when he reached back but when he arrived he didnt have time to pay him back before the allegations first surfaced. Neita says Marlon did not pay back because of his WC camp commitments. That he immediately went into camp and was focused on that.
Harrison says mandatory punishment is totally wrong in civilized society. Maurice Foster asks if Marlon was a scapegoat. Neita says who am i to judge, but emphasizes the credentials of the people who gave Marlon character references, high ranking. Says Marlon at KC (Kingston College - a prominent male high school) hated people who engaged in dishonest behaviour.
Oh and about the "balance of probability". Equal to "preponderance of the evidence". Simply put - if you assign percentages - balance of probability means more than 50 % likely to be true. If the proposition is more likely to be true than not true - then a liable verdict is returned. If they used the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard - then they are effectively saying that there is "clear and convincing evidence" that Samuels is guilty.
Neita says he was stunned and diappointed with the verdict and felt it was not consistent with the evidence presented. Harrison says that he thought the tribunal would have taken 10-15 mins to come up with a decision based on their arguments. Neita said Prof. Bishop who "is an acute legal mind" found the charges baseless and was the dissenting voice to Barnett and Justice Saunders.Richie Richardson voted against Samuels but made comments after in Neita's presence. Signed document with reservation...ban excesive, harsh and unfair. Harrison said that he was stunned that Richie voted aganst. He seemd convinced with their arguments. They thought they had Richie and Bishop in their corner.
Harrison says the term"beyond a reasonable doubt" was the evidence standard for the case. Says that icc code of conduct is nonsense,i.e.proof beyond probablility(didnt catch it properly)., but the jurists used "proof beyond reasonable doubt". Neita said Marlon asked to borrow the money, and that the prosecutors said that Kochar is not a bookie. Harrison says there should be no stigma attached to a gambler and that Samuels did not know he was one.Says prosecution contended that the request for the payment of the bill ,"which was to be repaid when Marlon came back home", was based on the tele coversation. Harrison says that "the nail in th coffin" was Marlon not paying back Kochar. Says Marlon was going to pay back when he reached back but when he arrived he didnt have time to pay him back before the allegations first surfaced. Neita says Marlon did not pay back because of his WC camp commitments. That he immediately went into camp and was focused on that.
Harrison says mandatory punishment is totally wrong in civilized society. Maurice Foster asks if Marlon was a scapegoat. Neita says who am i to judge, but emphasizes the credentials of the people who gave Marlon character references, high ranking. Says Marlon at KC (Kingston College - a prominent male high school) hated people who engaged in dishonest behaviour.
Oh and about the "balance of probability". Equal to "preponderance of the evidence". Simply put - if you assign percentages - balance of probability means more than 50 % likely to be true. If the proposition is more likely to be true than not true - then a liable verdict is returned. If they used the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard - then they are effectively saying that there is "clear and convincing evidence" that Samuels is guilty.
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
Bishop is Professor Aubrey Bishop, Saunders is Justice Adrian Saunders and Barnett is Lloyd Barnett, a lawyer. Richardson was the WIPA representative. Courtney Walsh was to be the 5th member of the panel but because of his connections to samuels he stepped away. Those connections being that he is the president of Samuels' club. Same club of Micheal Holding who also went to KC.
Based on how they sounded I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to go to the CAS. Can they?
Based on how they sounded I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to go to the CAS. Can they?
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
Oh and in a previous interview I heard Jackie Hendriks, President of the Jamaica Cricket Association, former Test cricketer and WICB Board Member, said he had a good chat with Marlon and called teh situation unfortunate. Seemed to be in Samuels' camp and also said that he's banned from all forms of cricket under the ICC i.e Test to club cricket.
Craig
World Traveller
Touche.?
If Samuels is banned, I guess he would be well within his rights to go and play in the ICL since it is a not a competition that is ICC sanctioned, unless the authorities in India (or read as cop who wants his 5 minutes of fame) want to have a word or two to him about his relationship with Kochar. The transcript posted by Xavier was pretty incriminating for mine.
Last edited:
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
According to what I'm hearing from Richie Richardson it was a split decision from the panel. Professor Bishop with his legal experience worded his objections correctly, whereas Richardson was wrongly included as agreeing with a decision to ban Samuels. Therefore, it was 2-2 not 3-1.
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
The Marlon Samuels Judgment - The full text of the disciplinary committee ruling on the misconduct allegations against West Indies batsman Marlon Samuels.
silentstriker
The Wheel is Forever
Regardless of what got him banned, that transcript is pretty damning by itself and I have no sympathy for him.
roseboy64
Cricket Web Content Updater
Look he can't be charged for giving out team info because the info he gave out he couldn't have, and so he wasn't charged with that. Read what Henderson Springer said in the report I linked to. Samuels could not have known who was to bowl first change. Also, he was saying Dwayne Smith was going to be a debutant. No way was Dwayne Smith a debutant then, pretty sure he had quite a few ODIs prior.
Also, Richardson himself said on air that he saw nothing wrong with what Samuels did. Also, that he accepted what Saunders and Barnett thought because they were legal minds. Basically if he knew that he could do what Bishop did he would. Would have been 2-2 not 3-1, on the charge of accepting reward which could bring the game into disrepute. The evidence provided doesn't make it seem he could bring the game into disrepute by accepting money to pay a bill when he had no money and didn't want to burden Gayle.
Also, Richardson himself said on air that he saw nothing wrong with what Samuels did. Also, that he accepted what Saunders and Barnett thought because they were legal minds. Basically if he knew that he could do what Bishop did he would. Would have been 2-2 not 3-1, on the charge of accepting reward which could bring the game into disrepute. The evidence provided doesn't make it seem he could bring the game into disrepute by accepting money to pay a bill when he had no money and didn't want to burden Gayle.
Mr Mxyzptlk
Request Your Custom Title Now!
The bit about Dwayne puzzled me too. Because neither Bravo nor Smith were uncapped in that series. Bravo against England in 2004, and Smith, I think, against South Africa in 2003.
But he could have known when he was due to bowl, because team plans are discussed in advance of games, and sometimes that includes a proposed bowling order.
But he could have known when he was due to bowl, because team plans are discussed in advance of games, and sometimes that includes a proposed bowling order.