Rate Him: Shane Warne

[Ikki]

From The Same Link :-

Warne :- "As far as Ratan Mehta is concerned, I have never even heard of him before."

That's a lie. Ratan Mehta in the past has ,during investigation, accepted that he knew Warne and met him.

Really, Kazo - You want me to trust the thief's word. Sorry, I can't.

From the same link: Ratan Mehta insisted he had not met Warne.

Brian Lara and Dwight Yorke were also present when they had their 'meeting'. It was no deal and it's defamation.

This being outside the fact that giving reports on pitch and player conditions is not in the same as match-fixing.

 

[Sanz]

How is passing info to bookies matchfixing though? Again, unless you alter the state of the match in any way how is it match fixing? Just like Samuels recently, he had dealings with bookies but he's no matchfixer.

Why would you deal with bookies and accept money from them if you do not intend to affect the outcome of games (positively or negatively) ?

Are you suggesting that passing valuable information to Bookies may not alter the game result ?

Case in point VB series :- India kept Chawla as the surprise factor for the finals, Now If some player had passed that information to a bookie and the bookie in turn had passed the same to Ponting, do you believe that information would have helped Australia ?

He has been fined for link with bookies who were linked to players who fixed matches. He took money from them. W

 

[Sanz]

From the same link: Ratan Mehta insisted he had not met Warne.

Yeah and Md. Asif also said that he is 'Innocent'. Like we are gonna take Drug Cheats and Bookies statements on face value.

Ratan Mehta in 2004 , during some investigation, said that " He used to meet Warne in 5 star Hotels", And for Warne to come out and say "I have never even heard of him" is a complete lie, because it is a proven fact that Mehta and Warne have had dealings in the past.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah and Md. Asif also said that he is 'Innocent'. Like we are gonna take Drug Cheats and Bookies statements on face value.

Ratan Mehta in 2004 , during some investigation, said that " He used to meet Warne in 5 star Hotels", And for Warne to come out and say "I have never even heard of him" is a complete lie, because it is a proven fact that Mehta and Warne have had dealings in the past.

I don't understand you. In one instance you cannot trust Warne or Mehta because they are drug-cheats and liars and then flip that stance and accept Mehta saying he and Warne used to have dealings in the past and use that as evidence.

The fact is, there are no proven dealings of the past between them. You can think of Warne what you want, but to take that and create a scenario that you cannot prove is worse than taking a liar's word for it. Again, this is defamation. With this standard of proof, then Brian Lara is also a match-fixer.

The businessman has told the ACSU he saw Warne and Mehta emerging from the Pizza Pomodero restaurant in London's Knightsbridge, along with West Indian Brian Lara and a third man, thought by the businessman to have been another cricketer. Warne said yesterday that man was, in fact, English Premier League soccer star Dwight Yorke, Lara's friend and countryman.

But as far as the reported meeting between Warne and Mehta is concerned, both men yesterday insisted it had not happened. Mehta went further, disparaging the reputation of the businessman who says he saw them together. Outlook has not published the man's name, owing to its fears for his safety.

It is understood the ACSU has decided not to investigate the allegations concerning Warne at this stage.

In a statement released yesterday morning, before his first Pura Cup match back from his year-long drugs suspension, Warne said: "This story is total rubbish and completely untrue. The only time I have had dinner with Brian Lara in London was at the Pizza Pomodero with his manager, David Manassi, and my good friend Dwight Yorke. As far as Ratan Mehta is concerned, I have never even heard of him before."

And this about the reliability of the source:

Mehta also cast doubts about the "credentials" of the businessman making the allegations, saying he had recently faced charges in court. The Herald last night learned the businessman had faced charges on claims he attempted to extort money from a jeweller. The case was not yet completed, but the businessman has had his passport returned after it was originally seized.

 

[pasag]

Why would you deal with bookies and accept money from them if you do not intend to affect the outcome of games (positively or negatively) ?

The bookies want non-public info which is important to them in setting odds and the like. Unless Warne accepted money to play differently it is not matchfixing, end of story. Dubious affairs that bring the game into disrepute - yes, matchfixing no.

 

[Goughy]

That and also events where a player accepts money to pass information to the bookies, which is what Warne and Waugh did. Warne fixed matches by passing information to the bookies.

There is not one piece of logic there

 

[Sanz]

I don't understand you. In one instance you cannot trust Warne or Mehta because they are drug-cheats and liars and then flip that stance and accept Mehta saying he and Warne used to have dealings in the past and use that as evidence.

It is not just Mehta's statement, it has been confirmed by the ACU that the person in question who told about the Warne-Mehta meeting to media is a reputable witness :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2004/02/15/scfixx15.xml

Last week the story went a stage further when the Indian weekly magazine Outlook tracked down the Indian businessman. The ACU have confirmed he is a reputable witness and originally contacted the unit through a third party.

When the businessman - his name cannot be published because of possible death threats - was traced by Outlook, he offered a verbal testimony which closely matched the three-page submission he had made to the ACU. He said he had been with Mehta at a bar in London in June 1999 when Mehta had rung up several players to fix one of the biggest matches in that World Cup.

In last week's Outlook the businessman claimed that the Super Six match between Pakistan and India at Old Trafford was fixed, allegedly by Mehta, who runs a fashionable restaurant in Delhi and has denied the charge. Pakistan were firm favourites, lost by 47 runs, but still qualified for the semi-finals. India scored 227 for six from their 50 overs; Pakistan, behind the clock after one batsman took 30 overs to score 41, finished with 180.

"I saw Ratan Mehta make and receive in excess of 20 calls on his mobile phone. He had two mobiles with him, one was Indian and one, I think, was British. . . In some of the calls he was making bets or moving money but others were obviously to cricketers. At various times, Mehta told me who he was speaking to and it included (three players, including the above, whose names have to be withheld)."

============================================

Needless to say that the outlook investigation that is mentioned in the above news report is where Ratan Mehta said he 'used to meet Warne in 5 star hotel"

 

[Sanz]

The fact is, there are no proven dealings of the past between them. You can think of Warne what you want, but to take that and create a scenario that you cannot prove is worse than taking a liar's word for it. Again, this is defamation. With this standard of proof, then Brian Lara is also a match-fixer.

Brian Lara has not been fined by his Board for his links with bookies who fixed matches. I am not creating any scenario about Warne, that he was fined by his board for his link with bookies accepting money from them is a FACT. That he took a Drug Masking agent is a fact. That he was banned for a year is a fact.

It is hard to take Warne's statement on face value. He has no credibility on the issue at all.

 

[Sanz]

The bookies want non-public info which is important to them in setting odds and the like. Unless Warne accepted money to play differently it is not matchfixing, end of story. Dubious affairs that bring the game into disrepute - yes, matchfixing no.

And what could be the 'Non-Public' information ? Team Strategy, Player injury, Team composition etc etc ?

Are You suggesting that this doesn't come under the realm of match fixing ?

 

[Ikki]

I skimmed the article, but what does that have to do with Warne? The WC matches did not even involve Australia. Furthermore, the article I posted is more recent than the one you did. The Sydney Morning Herald found out that the same businessman was in trouble for extorting money - intimidating people and threatening them to get money.

 

[Sanz]

And this about the reliability of the source:

Funny as hell as well as ridiculous to present the statement of the 'accused' to question the reputation and reliability of the source.

Here is ACU's take on the source(From the link I posted) :-

The ACU have confirmed he is a reputable witness and originally contacted the unit through a third party.

When the businessman - his name cannot be published because of possible death threats - was traced by Outlook, he offered a verbal testimony which closely matched the three-page submission he had made to the ACU. He said he had been with Mehta at a bar in London in June 1999 when Mehta had rung up several players to fix one of the biggest matches in that World Cup.


Needless to take I will take ACU's statement over Mehta's anytime.

 

[Ikki]

Brian Lara has not been fined by his Board for his links with bookies who fixed matches. I am not creating any scenario about Warne, that he was fined by his board for his link with bookies accepting money from them is a FACT. That he took a Drug Masking agent is a fact. That he was banned for a year is a fact.

It is hard to take Warne's statement on face value. He has no credibility on the issue at all.

Warne was fined for his involvement with John the Bookie. Not Mehta. You cannot convict people because of past crimes. You've created a scenario because there is 0 proof. Just a scenario you have created in your mind. Whether Warne has credibility or not isn't the issue, the issue you have 0 proof.

Just because someone does not have good moral standing doesn't mean you can accuse them of what you want.

 

[pasag]

And what could be the 'Non-Public' information ? Team Strategy, Player injury, Team composition etc etc ?

Are You suggesting that this doesn't come under the realm of match fixing ?

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Bookies want inside information to help them in betting, setting odds whatever. The more knowledgeable a bookie is on a sporting game the better off they'll be.

This is not matchfixing. I am arguing this according to the plain definition of the word. The simple definition of matchfixing is playing differently for money. The fact that Warne's giving the bookie information had no bearing on the events of the cricket field means it is not matchfixing. End of story.

 

[Ikki]

Funny as hell as well as ridiculous to present the statement of the 'accused' to question the reputation and reliability of the source.

Here is ACU's take on the source(From the link I posted) :-

The ACU have confirmed he is a reputable witness and originally contacted the unit through a third party.

When the businessman - his name cannot be published because of possible death threats - was traced by Outlook, he offered a verbal testimony which closely matched the three-page submission he had made to the ACU. He said he had been with Mehta at a bar in London in June 1999 when Mehta had rung up several players to fix one of the biggest matches in that World Cup.


Needless to take I will take ACU's statement over Mehta's anytime.

The link you posted is older than the one I did so disregarding the fact that the Sydney Morning Herald found out that he was in trouble for extorting.. There is still 0 proof it happened, regardless who said it.

 

[Sanz]

I skimmed the article, but what does that have to do with Warne? The WC matches did not even involve Australia. Furthermore, the article I posted is more recent than the one you did. The Sydney Morning Herald found out that the same businessman was in trouble for extorting money - intimidating people and threatening them to get money.

Not only That article confirms the reliability of the source but also backs the story that outlook broke in 2004 where Mehta said he "used to meet Warne in 5 star parties".

http://www.outlookindia.com/dossiersind.asp?id=11

SMH and its findings....are laughable at best. They dont even know the name of this businessman.

 

[Ikki]

Not only That article confirms the reliability of the source but also backs the story that outlook broke in 2004 where Mehta said he "used to meet Warne in 5 star parties".

http://www.outlookindia.com/dossiersind.asp?id=11

It said that Mehta says it. Why is he reliable all of a sudden? And even if he did meet him, how does that translate into Warne match-fixing?

SMH and its findings....are laughable at best. They dont even know the name of this businessman.

That's hilariously ironic. You DO know that it was the Sydney Morning Herald who blew the lid on Warne and the whole John the Bookie story in the first place, right?

 

[Sanz]

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Bookies want inside information to help them in betting, setting odds whatever. The more knowledgeable a bookie is on a sporting game the better off they'll be.

They also pass that information to the other teams, and the moment that information reaches the opposition team, it can be deemed fixing matches.

This is not matchfixing. I am arguing this according to the plain definition of the word. The simple definition of matchfixing is playing differently for money. The fact that Warne's giving the bookie information had no bearing on the events of the cricket field means it is not matchfixing. End of story.

And that is the difference in your and my definition then..It is your assumption that the confidential information that came out of Warne is used solely for betting. What is the guarantee that the information was not passed by the bookie to the opposing captain ?

 

[Sanz]

It said that Mehta says it. Why is he reliable all of a sudden? And even if he did meet him, how does that translate into Warne match-fixing?

It is reliable because it is backed by ACU.

"When the businessman - his name cannot be published because of possible death threats - was traced by Outlook, he offered a verbal testimony which closely matched the three-page submission he had made to the ACU."

 

[Ikki]

They also pass that information to the other teams, and the moment that information reaches the opposition team, it can be deemed fixing matches.

If Warne supplied information himself then that'd be at least something...but still not match-fixing. If the bookies did it, then that'd be something, but still not match-fixing.

Match-fixing:

In organized sports, match fixing or game fixing occurs when a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result. Where the sporting competition in question is a race then the incident is referred to as race fixing. Games that are deliberately lost are sometimes called thrown games. When a team intentionally loses a game to obtain a perceived future competitive advantage rather than gamblers being involved, the team is often said to have tanked the game instead of having thrown it.

And that is the difference in your and my definition then..It is your assumption that the confidential information that came out of Warne is used solely for betting. What is the guarantee that the information was not passed by the bookie to the opposing captain ?

It still wouldn't be match-fixing. Whether a team knows that x player's knee is hurting does not mean the match is fixed. If anything, it can enhance the competition in a way.

 

[Ikki]

It is reliable because it is backed by ACU.

"When the businessman - his name cannot be published because of possible death threats - was traced by Outlook, he offered a verbal testimony which closely matched the three-page submission he had made to the ACU."

That doesn't make his testimony reliable(true) at all. All that it is trying to say is that his character is reliable. It still doesn't mean anything.