Match fixing or doping?

[Furball]

Come off it guys, trying to lose a match is worse than deliberately bowling a no-ball.

As for the OP, it's a really good question. I think we're all more revolted by fixing than cheating, but there's really no good reason for that. Either way you compromise the integrity of the game. The idea that the cheat is somehow the more noble for actually trying to win is a hard one to sustain.

It's a bit like being asked whether you'd prefer to die by being fried, boiled or roasted. None of them are pleasant and when you analyse them, they're all pretty sub-optimal.

The key difference is that someone who dopes is doing so to perform better and try and win. It's unethical, but I'm not sure it necessarily compromises the integrity of the game - certainly nowhere near as much as someone deliberately underperforming does.

 

[Fusion]

Yeah I don't get the "spot fixing is exactly the same as match fixing" argument. It's not really that black and white though. For instance, if you steal something, then you stole. However, would you punish someone that stole a can of soda the same way you would punish someone that stole millions of dollars? What about killing someone? Is manslaughter the same as murder? In both cases, a life was lost. Yet the legal system treats them differently. I'm fine with someone saying that they feel spot fixing is as bad as match fixing. However I'm just surprised if you don't draw a distinction between the two.

 

[Sanz]

The key difference is that someone who dopes is doing so to perform better and try and win. It's unethical, but I'm not sure it necessarily compromises the integrity of the game - certainly nowhere near as much as someone deliberately underperforming does.

How is Doping not compromising the integrity of the game ? I am just not sure how do you get to measure this sort of stuff, who designed the scale ?

 

[Sanz]

Doping calls into question the fairness of an individual player's abilities and performance.

But it affects the game itself if that improved ability and performance changes the outcome of a game, does it not ?

 

[four_or_six]

Yeah I don't get the "spot fixing is exactly the same as match fixing" argument. It's not really that black and white though. For instance, if you steal something, then you stole. However, would you punish someone that stole a can of soda the same way you would punish someone that stole millions of dollars? What about killing someone? Is manslaughter the same as murder? In both cases, a life was lost. Yet the legal system treats them differently. I'm fine with someone saying that they feel spot fixing is as bad as match fixing. However I'm just surprised if you don't draw a distinction between the two.

Agree with you to a certain extent in terms of punishment fitting the crime, but it's not like two distinct 'bowling no-balls' and 'the whole team contrive to lose a match'. It's just all part of the same spectrum that includes all kinds of fixes, where people's opinions of what is bad enough to gain a life ban differs.

For me, they are to all extents and purposes the same crime but with differing degress of severity rather than two different crimes.

 

[Fusion]

Agree with you to a certain extent in terms of punishment fitting the crime, but it's not like two distinct 'bowling no-balls' and 'the whole team contrive to lose a match'. It's just all part of the same spectrum that includes all kinds of fixes, where people's opinions of what is bad enough to gain a life ban differs.

For me, they are to all extents and purposes the same crime but with differing degress of severity rather than two different crimes.

I think it's fair enough if you say the punishment for both should be the same (whether that's a lifetime ban or a slap on the wrist, depending on your view). I just don't agree with "they're exactly the same thing". One is taking money to definitely lose a match. The other is to alter your performance that may have an impact on the match result, though more than likely it won't. Both are despicable, however one is significantly worse in my book.

 

[four_or_six]

I think it's fair enough if you say the punishment for both should be the same (whether that's a lifetime ban or a slap on the wrist, depending on your view). I just don't agree with "they're exactly the same thing". One is taking money to definitely lose a match. The other is to alter your performance that may have an impact on the match result, though more than likely it won't. Both are despicable, however one is significantly worse in my book.

Hmmm... spot fixing can be all sorts of things though. There was the suggested one with Pakistan when they were over here, something along the lines of: the opening batsmen in an ODI bat really slowly for 3/4 overs, getting the price up for a big over, and then in a specified over go for a big one. That's also spot fixing but it's seriously ****ing up the match.

 

[Jono]

On the day in 1948 when the Crims scored 700 against Essex, Keith Miller is said to have deliberately chucked his wicket away first ball*.

Applying Jono's logic, "for that one ball, Miller was trying to lose."

But personally I don't think that what Miller did was remotely as serious as it would have been had he (or his captain) deliberately tried to lose the match.

You can say of course that Miller chucking his wicket away didn't matter, because his team-mates were scoring so heavily that it couldn't possibly influence the outcome of the match. Couldn't a lot of spot-fixing be described in the same way?

Just a thought. Probably a crap one, but hey, that's never stopped me before.


* It's recently been suggested by David Frith that this may not in fact be true. But whether or not that's so, it doesn't really alter the point.

Firstly, and off topic, I hate when people marvel in that story and use it to pump up Miller. I love most things about what I've read about Keith Miller, but if true, that act is one I do not respect.

Now onto your point. I see what you are getting at. However I think that example is Keith Miller being a smartarse/lazy. The key difference is he didn't have ill intentions in doing so.

What if a player has been told by the bookies that his team cannot win by more than 4 wickets, and they are 5 wickets down, 2 runs to win and 50 balls left. He knows his team is going to win, he knows it. There is no way they will lose, and him losing his wicket will have no impact on the success of his team, only the margin. He then purposely gets bowled (disguising it as a **** shot) and the next batsman to come in scores the 2 runs and his team wins by 4 wickets.

The bookies are happy.
The team is happy.
He is happy.

Is this not still fixing a match?

Yeah I don't get the "spot fixing is exactly the same as match fixing" argument. It's not really that black and white though. For instance, if you steal something, then you stole. However, would you punish someone that stole a can of soda the same way you would punish someone that stole millions of dollars? What about killing someone? Is manslaughter the same as murder? In both cases, a life was lost. Yet the legal system treats them differently. I'm fine with someone saying that they feel spot fixing is as bad as match fixing. However I'm just surprised if you don't draw a distinction between the two.

Who on Earth is talking punishments here?

Pre-meditated murder and murder in the heat of the moment are both still murder. One gets a more severe sentence to the other.

Losing on purpose match fixing or spot fixing a specific point in a match are both match fixing. One gets a more severe sentence to the other.

 

[Sanz]

Firstly, and off topic, I hate when people marvel in that story and use it to pump up Miller. I love most things about what I've read about Keith Miller, but if true, that act is one I do not respect.

Now onto your point. I see what you are getting at. However I think that example is Keith Miller being a smartarse/lazy. The key difference is he didn't have ill intentions in doing so.

Well we don't know if Aamer's intention was to lose the match, do we ? Don't think I am trying to justify his action but just that the moment we bring the "Intention" factor we open ourselves to grave inconsistencies.

 

[Jono]

No that's a fair point. But if Aamer's intention was not to lose the match, then his punishment should be less severe to match fixing. And that has happened.

I think when people say that match fixing and spot fixing are the same, they are being misinterpreted here (and perhaps zaremba has taken me too bluntly, which is my fault for my wording).

We aren't saying that they should both receive the same bans. We are saying they both bring the game into disrepute, and the match is tainted forever because of the incident, even if it is just one ball (or one over that is less than 6 runs scores on purpose etc. one intentionally missed goal in a game of football)

 

[Prince EWS]

They're both pretty bad but as far as cricket is concerned, definitely match fixing IMO.

Yep, agreed.

 

[Prince EWS]

No that's a fair point. But if Aamer's intention was not to lose the match, then his punishment should be less severe to match fixing. And that has happened.

I think when people say that match fixing and spot fixing are the same, they are being misinterpreted here (and perhaps zaremba has taken me too bluntly, which is my fault for my wording).

We aren't saying that they should both receive the same bans. We are saying they both bring the game into disrepute, and the match is tainted forever because of the incident, even if it is just one ball (or one over that is less than 6 runs scores on purpose etc. one intentionally missed goal in a game of football)

Yep, this again.

 

[Spark]

No that's a fair point. But if Aamer's intention was not to lose the match, then his punishment should be less severe to match fixing. And that has happened.

I think when people say that match fixing and spot fixing are the same, they are being misinterpreted here (and perhaps zaremba has taken me too bluntly, which is my fault for my wording).

We aren't saying that they should both receive the same bans. We are saying they both bring the game into disrepute, and the match is tainted forever because of the incident, even if it is just one ball (or one over that is less than 6 runs scores on purpose etc. one intentionally missed goal in a game of football)

Nicely put.

 

[hang on]

match and spot fixing, for sure. not too fussed about doping since it is never really an even playing field, one of the fundamental premises of the antidopers.

i look at doping as one end of the spectrum of the fitness training and techniques, dietary help, medical support advantages that 'have' countries ....er...have. this would, i am sure, be anathema to some. for example, not every team has the financial resourses to build up their stamina by altitude training, so what is wrong with a little bit of erythropoetin doping for a poor team?

an unabashedly libertarian worldview takes care of the self harm and lack of knowledge element to it is as well. and helps me sleep at night!

and regarding recreational use, go for it....as permitted by the laws of the country!

 

[zaremba]

The key difference is that someone who dopes is doing so to perform better and try and win. It's unethical, but I'm not sure it necessarily compromises the integrity of the game - certainly nowhere near as much as someone deliberately underperforming does.

Which of these races has had its integrity damaged the most?

(1) A sprinter is paid not to win a race and so deliberately underperforms and comes second.

(2) A sprinter wins a race, having taken performance-enhancing steroids.

(3) A sprinter is paid to ensure that he doesn't win a race in under a particular time. He runs as fast as he can and by 70 metres he has gained a sufficient lead to ensure that victory is certain. He then deliberately showboats over the last 30 metres and slows down a little, thus ensuring that although he's still going to win he's not going to beat the stipulated time.

I'd say (1) and (2) are on a par with each other. Both fatally compromise the integrity of the race. In short, you don't know in either case whether the result has been procured by the dishonesty of the participants.

And both are way ahead of (3), serious though (3) undoubtedly is.

I'd add that (3) is more or less on a par with what Amir did. Ban-worthy but really not as serious as the doping.

 

[four_or_six]

Which of these races has had its integrity damaged the most?

(1) A sprinter is paid not to win a race and so deliberately underperforms and comes second.

(2) A sprinter wins a race, having taken performance-enhancing steroids.

(3) A sprinter is paid to ensure that he doesn't win a race in under a particular time. He runs as fast as he can and by 70 metres he has gained a sufficient lead to ensure that victory is certain. He then deliberately showboats over the last 30 metres and slows down a little, thus ensuring that although he's still going to win he's not going to beat the stipulated time.

I'd say (1) and (2) are on a par with each other. Both fatally compromise the integrity of the race. In short, you don't know in either case whether the result has been procured by the dishonesty of the participants.

And both are way ahead of (3), serious though (3) undoubtedly is.

I'd add that (3) is more or less on a par with what Amir did. Ban-worthy but really not as serious as the doping.

A sprinter has control and can speed up again if someone gets close to him. I'm still not convinced that Amir/Asif/Butt could be sure that their fixes weren't going to negatively impact the result. It only takes a couple of good balls to turn a cricket match.

 

[Howe_zat]

Which of these races has had its integrity damaged the most?

(1) A sprinter is paid not to win a race and so deliberately underperforms and comes second.

(2) A sprinter wins a race, having taken performance-enhancing steroids.

(3) A sprinter is paid to ensure that he doesn't win a race in under a particular time. He runs as fast as he can and by 70 metres he has gained a sufficient lead to ensure that victory is certain. He then deliberately showboats over the last 30 metres and slows down a little, thus ensuring that although he's still going to win he's not going to beat the stipulated time.

I'd say (1) and (2) are on a par with each other. Both fatally compromise the integrity of the race. In short, you don't know in either case whether the result has been procured by the dishonesty of the participants.

And both are way ahead of (3), serious though (3) undoubtedly is.

I'd add that (3) is more or less on a par with what Amir did. Ban-worthy but really not as serious as the doping.

I tend to think spot-fixing and match-fixing are both worse than doping based on a different analogy - imagine if every game of cricket had everyone involved being paid to deliberately perform certain actions, act out scenarios or manufacture a result. Now compare that to the situation where everyone is on steroids.

I tend to think that the latter is a sporting contest, the former isn't.

 

[Howe_zat]

I tend to think spot-fixing and match-fixing are both worse than doping based on a different analogy - imagine if every game of cricket had everyone involved being paid to deliberately perform certain actions, act out scenarios or manufacture a result. Now compare that to the situation where everyone is on steroids.

I tend to think that the latter is a sporting contest, the former isn't.

On reflection, this is also why athletics is better than wrestling.

 

[zaremba]

I tend to think spot-fixing and match-fixing are both worse than doping based on a different analogy - imagine if every game of cricket had everyone involved being paid to deliberately perform certain actions, act out scenarios or manufacture a result. Now compare that to the situation where everyone is on steroids.

I tend to think that the latter is a sporting contest, the former isn't.

An interesting argument, but I'm not sure it really works, because by universalising the dishonesty in both cases you distort the comparison. A key facet of the problem with doping is the fact that someone has dishonestly procured for themselves an unfair advantage. In your hypothetical situation where everyone is on steroids, you have re-created a level playing field. No-one now has an unfair advantage relative to anyone else. And so you've completely changed the comparison.

 

[Sanz]

A sprinter has control and can speed up again if someone gets close to him. I'm still not convinced that Amir/Asif/Butt could be sure that their fixes weren't going to negatively impact the result. It only takes a couple of good balls to turn a cricket match.

Not the No-balls though. At the max they were giving a free run, they would still have to bowl the 6 regular balls.