Samuels found liable

[roseboy64]

Going to post an interview Samuels did that was played before Richardson's interview. Some paraphrasing.

Marlon:Wasnt surprised at the ruling. Said from the time he was banned from bowling after "8 years of bowling" after being tested for a particular ball but being banned from bowling after other people had just been banned from bowling that particular ball he wasnt surprised.

Do they have an agenda?

Marlon: You would not believe what I know. It is not finished yet. Injustice has taken place. In due time we will know the full story.

DOes he feel a part of the team?

Marlon: People wanted him in their corner, but he refused. Still i manage to survive in cricket for 8 years.

Marlon:In due time you will hear the full story.

Mindset:

Marlon:No sleepless nights. NOthing to worry about. The truth will reveal itself.

Marlon:Happy spending time with family. I ve been financially smart. Money is nothing to worry about, the problem is the way i have been dealth with.

Kochar

Marlon:Know him for 7 years. He has been encouraging. There are people who say they are close to me, but when in darkness(4 surgeries) they have not checked up on me to give me encouragement.

MArlon:Captain does not give out bowling changes at team meeting. Does not even know the team selected. Says the fact that the tape had him saying that Dwayne Smith was on his debut means the tape was wrong as he could never say anything like that.

Any information about corruption from ICC or WICB

MArlon: They make us watch a tape whn our career starts. I dont know anybody that gambles. Says watching the tape is just for watching sake.

Personal Business

MArlon: Aftert the tour. On my time on my personal business. If I had died at that time in India, my family couldnt call WICB to bury me.

1200?

Marlon:Says he was expecting 2000 from reality show deal. RObin SIngh called him to do reality show. Payment was getting delayed, and he was patient as he sadi that is how things in India run. Said if he had got 2000, 1200 wouldnt have been a problem.

Why not ask Chris Gayle

Marlon: Me and Chris had already spent 10 000 on clothes, and Chris had paid some of that. He sadi it would have looked bad to ask Chris again for more money.

Then?

Marlon:Called Kochar for a loan. Kochar said sure. When he reached Jamaica, he called Kochar and he said not to rush. Said then "all hell bruk loose". Said if he really wanted to do something wrong, then I would have lied and said that I paid him back.



Not too sure about the bold bit. Don't remember him quite saying so. Copied verbatim from another site and everything except the bold I heard.

 

[roseboy64]

Oh and it wasn't a vote, just a discussion. But still, Richardson was wrongly guided. Someone paying someone else's hotel bill is nothing wrong. What kind of stupid code writiing is that if that exactly is what it means? Giving someone money to pay a bill brings the game into disrepute. What? Richardson was really for what Bishop said and this just means Samuels wasn't really found guilty. Kangaroo court basically. Bishop was smart enough to realise that this whole thing was nonsense. Samuels accepting payment for his bill brings the game into disrepute? This is makes for a purely subjective decision. Richardson didn't find the act wrong but was told by Saunders and Barnett that accepting the payment for the bill alone violates the code. Makes me sound biased but come now.

Wish I had a copy of Richardson. Gone round and round above but let me simplify. Richardson said he was led to believe that if he agreed that Samuels had taken the moeny then he was guilty of violation. It's been shown that Kochhar isn't a bookie, only a gambler. That though wasn't important. He was guided away from what he really thought that he could find no wrong with Samuels.

Have to agree with what Bishop wrote.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Because Samuels did not pay him back, it was a gift. A gift of money. If the man is, as it does appear that he is, a bookie, there is something very wrong with that. It's extremely stupid on Samuels' part. You don't receive a gift of money from a bookie.

And given that Samuels did, apparently divulge cricket related information, it does appear strongly as though it was monetary reward.

 

[roseboy64]

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.

Springer says though that only the opening bowlers might have been discussed. Not all the bowlers or who's bowling first change. The game can change at any minute so it'd be stupid to have a set first change in a team with so many different options.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Springer says though that only the opening bowlers might have been discussed. Not all the bowlers or who's bowling first change. The game can change at any minute so it'd be stupid to have a set first change in a team with so many different options.

Anything can change in game circumstances. That doesn't mean that there can't be a plan for it initially. The opening bowlers could have changed, but that doesn't mean that supplying information about them is any less wrong. People bet based on probability. If a bookie knows information in advance, the odds shift his way. It's all about probability. Nothing is certain.

 

[roseboy64]

Because Samuels did not pay him back, it was a gift. A gift of money. If the man is, as it does appear that he is, a bookie, there is something very wrong with that. It's extremely stupid on Samuels' part. You don't receive a gift of money from a bookie.

And given that Samuels did, apparently divulge cricket related information, it does appear strongly as though it was monetary reward.

That's besides the point that I was trying to make there. Richardson though that it didn't bring the game into disrepute but what was told by two of the other three that accepting the money did and he just went with what they said. That's why you'll find stories of Richardson upset with the ruling.

Anyway. It was not proven that the man is a bookie, it was concluded that he isn't.

 

[roseboy64]

Anything can change in game circumstances. That doesn't mean that there can't be a plan for it initially. The opening bowlers could have changed, but that doesn't mean that supplying information about them is any less wrong. People bet based on probability. If a bookie knows information in advance, the odds shift his way. It's all about probability. Nothing is certain.

Springer and Samuels have both said that it's pretty much certain that there was no plan for that as it relates to who would bowl after the opening bowlers. Also, Kochhar isn't a bookie. And Samuels was disproved of the charge that he recieved the bill payment as reward for team info. The panel went so far as to question the wording of the ICC code not only on the charges he was charged with but pretty much the whole section that they were concerned with. And a two year ban for a subjective judgement? Something with the word could. Would be better if it maintains that the receiving of the gift definitely brings teh game into disrepute.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

That's besides the point that I was trying to make there. Richardson though that it didn't bring the game into disrepute but what was told by two of the other three that accepting the money did and he just went with what they said. That's why you'll find stories of Richardson upset with the ruling.

Anyway. It was not proven that the man is a bookie, it was concluded that he isn't.

Given this:

Someone paying someone else's hotel bill is nothing wrong. What kind of stupid code writiing is that if that exactly is what it means? Giving someone money to pay a bill brings the game into disrepute. What?

...I think I was addressing at least part of your point.

Regarding Richardson, that's just extremely poor on his part. I don't think he can blame anyone but himself there. He did not stand by his conviction.

And I'd think there must be some very strong evidence that the man is a bookie. It cannot just be an unsubstantiated allegation that has turned conclusion.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Springer and Samuels have both said that it's pretty much certain that there was no plan for that as it relates to who would bowl after the opening bowlers.

1. Springer wouldn't necessarily have known of the game plan. Or the entirety of it.
2. Samuels would try to defend himself, for obvious reasons.

Also, Kochhar isn't a bookie.

You know this certainly?
How exactly?

And Samuels was disproved of the charge that he recieved the bill payment as reward for team info.

A malfunctioning credit card still seems rather convenient...

 

[roseboy64]

Springer would be at the meeting seeing as he's an assistant coach at the time.

It's stated in the report that Kochhar can't be said to be a bookie.

Evidence presented was that Samuels and Gayle were to be getting 2000 US each. They didn't get it. They were both also shopping and spent quite abit on clothes for themselves and family. Believable them shopping knowing them. Gayle paid for his room by himself. Samuels claims he didn't want to make it look bad to ask Gayle to pay for him. Hence, he called his friend to pay for it. Also, that Samuels called Kochhar when he reached back in Ja and Kochhar said to take his time in paying him back. When the whole saga broke out it was advised that Samuels shouldn't pay back Kochhar or have further contact with him.

Also, he thought something to the effect that he did nothing wrong so didn't see the need to ask that if he payed back Kochhar the charges would be dropped. Felt his honesty of his story was enough and the whole thing would be dismissed. Can you dismiss his naivete there?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Springer would be at the meeting seeing as he's an assistant coach at the time.

Ultimately it's up to the captain. And such things aren't necessarily decided in official meetings.

It's stated in the report that Kochhar can't be said to be a bookie.

From what I understand from the report, he has not been proven to be a bookmaker, yes. But he has admitted that he bets on matches and on the match in question. And if Samuels supplied information in that case, it's still, AFAIK, illegal.

Felt his honesty of his story was enough and the whole thing would be dismissed. Can you dismiss his naivete there?

No. No you can't. Because it was a totally amateur move. You do not supply any match information to anyone involved in gambling over sports. It's just plain stupid. And as far as I can tell, Kochhar is still being investigated as to whether he is or was a bookmaker.

Whether or not the information proved accurate. Whether or not he was rewarded, Samuels was still supplying information of some sort. In the conversation transcript that you posted, it was pretty obvious that Samuels was not having a friendly conversation about cricket. He was supplying information about the match. Samuels is not innocent here. Perhaps 2 years is too harsh, given that he was just naive and stupid in his handling of everything, but he certainly has brought the game into disrepute.

 

[roseboy64]

The thing though is that he was proven innocent of the charge relation to the conversation.

Oh and you're right that it'd be up to the captain. Therefore, how would Samuels know what Lara was thinking if it wasn't discussed?

If they had found him guilty him for the conversation I could see that despite there not being a definitive link between the info and the hotel bill. No link and so no charge. How then can he be charged for bringing the game into disrepute for accepting the payment of the bill when it was noted that it wasn't anything corrupt, according to the panel?

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Because maybe he...like...talked to Lara? Considering that it involved him, ie bowling 1st change. Lara's not some social recluse who spends all his time off the pitch alone in his room watching footage of Shane Watson. And this was before Samuels ran him out, so they were still on speaking terms.

 

[roseboy64]

That's specualtion though. Unless Lara says he did that's baseless. Unfortunately Lara wasn't interviewed.

Samuels had some notable people in West Indian cricket putting their reputations on the line in defence of him. Good defence if tthey had not relied on that alone. It seems his legal team thought that would be enough. Really shoddy work there. HIghly qualified and all but should done more work. Also, should have known before that it didn't need to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. It just needed to be proven that there was a 51% chance he was guilty.

 

[silentstriker]

I don't really see what the prospect of money has to do with anything. Simply giving information to a bookie should be the crime, the money can be funneled through various channels that are unprovable. Many times, you'd never ever be able to prove the monetary aspect of it. This isn't a criminal court - this is a sport thats trying to recover from people throwing away games. This type of stuff needs to end. The fact that he was talking to a bookie about a future game alone is enough in my eyes, and I can't believe others think differently (well, I can believe it, but I just find it hard to understand).

 

[roseboy64]

I'm just confused about the whole matter.

 

[honestbharani]

never thought much of the guy. Always get the feeling he is an arrogant-airhead... Juz my opinion though. Can't really pin point any exact reasons.