View Poll Results: Which is worse?

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Match/spot fixing

    18 72.00%
  • Doping

    3 12.00%
  • Unban Corrin

    4 16.00%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Match fixing or doping?

  1. #31
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Spark View Post
    They're both pretty bad but as far as cricket is concerned, definitely match fixing IMO.
    Yep, agreed.
    ~ Cribbage

  2. #32
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    The great state of New South Wales
    Posts
    43,241
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    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.

  3. #33
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    32,117
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    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.
    + time's fickle card game ~ with you and i +


    get ready for a broken ****in' arm

  4. #34
    State Vice-Captain
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    mediterranea
    Posts
    1,452
    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)


  5. #35
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,887
    Quote Originally Posted by GingerFurball View Post
    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.

  6. #36
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,189
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.

  7. #37
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    15,993
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.
    And we still haven't walked in the glow of each other's majestic presence.

  8. #38
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    15,993
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    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.

  9. #39
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Howe_zat View Post
    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.
    Last edited by zaremba; 23-09-2011 at 07:33 AM.

  10. #40
    Hall of Fame Member Sanz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    16,230
    Quote Originally Posted by four_or_six View Post
    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.

  11. #41
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    Not the No-balls though. At the max they were giving a free run, they would still have to bowl the 6 regular balls.
    Yep, quite. In this respect there's no difference (other than the measly additional run) with a bowler pulling out in his delivery stride.

  12. #42
    Hall of Fame Member Howe_zat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Top floor, bottom buzzer
    Posts
    15,993
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    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.
    Well yes, that's a very good point. There would be unfair advantages there - for example between those who have previous success and can afford certain drugs or the knowhow to use them, and those who are new and can't obtain these things. But you're right, I have removed a lot of the nastiness of doping in that argument.

    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.

  13. #43
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanz View Post
    Not the No-balls though. At the max they were giving a free run, they would still have to bowl the 6 regular balls.
    Um... if you're not pissing around bowling no-balls then one or more of those balls may be a wicket. Not to mention the fact that you would be concentrating during your spell on what you're meant to be concentrating on.

    Get the wicket on one of those balls and then the subsequent match result may be different.

  14. #44
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,887
    Quote Originally Posted by four_or_six View Post
    Um... if you're not pissing around bowling no-balls then one or more of those balls may be a wicket. Not to mention the fact that you would be concentrating during your spell on what you're meant to be concentrating on.

    Get the wicket on one of those balls and then the subsequent match result may be different.
    Sorry 4o6 but I have real difficulty with that. If you get a "wicket" with that ball, it's irrelevant. So far as taking a wicket is concerned, that ball is a non-event, a nullity, a nothingness, just as if the bowler had pulled out of his delivery stride.

    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.

  15. #45
    Cricketer Of The Year four_or_six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    9,189
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    Sorry 4o6 but I have real difficulty with that. If you get a "wicket" with that ball, it's irrelevant. So far as taking a wicket is concerned, that ball is a non-event, a nullity, a nothingness, just as if the bowler had pulled out of his delivery stride.
    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.
    But imagine, making players up for arguments sake...

    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.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Road to the 2011 ODI World Cup
    By pasag in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 334
    Last Post: 03-04-2011, 08:23 AM
  2. Qayyum's report
    By Xuhaib in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 01-10-2010, 07:25 AM
  3. ACC Twenty20 Cup, UAE Nov 2009
    By laksh_01 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-12-2009, 02:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •