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!
i know i am god. since when i pray i find i am talking to myself.
(massive apologies to barnes)
(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 that the latter is a sporting contest, the former isn't.
The Cricket Web Podcast - episode 13 out now
We're on iTunes - why not give us a review?
Last edited by zaremba; 23-09-2011 at 07:33 AM.
My point is essentially that cheating to gain an advantage is clearly wrong, but at least you're still aiming for the sporting contest, because you're trying to win.
Sport after all is loaded with unfair advantages, rightly or wrongly, publicly or underhand, for whatever reason - look at the Champion's League, for example - but any moment of fakery, for me, just isn't sport.
Get the wicket on one of those balls and then the subsequent match result may be different.
Another way of looking at it is that the bowler loses the chance of taking a wicket with that ball, but gains an exactly equal chance of getting a wicket with the 7th ball of his over which he wouldn't otherwise have bowled.
India are playing Australia, boxing day test. Shane Watson and Michael Clarke have taken a bribe to bowl the fourth ball of the 23rd over as a no-ball. On that ball, Sachin nicks to second slip and Ponting takes a screamer... The Aussie players start to celebrate but are interrupted by the no-ball call.
You're telling me that that would have the same impact on the output of the game, on Watson's subsequent performance, on Clarke's concentration levels, on team morale, as if Sachin pulls back because he has a fly in his eye and Watto has to run in again?!
Last edited by four_or_six; 23-09-2011 at 02:57 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)