viii.) Received from another person any money, benefit or other reward (whether financial or otherwise) for the provision of any information concerning the weather, the teams, the state of the ground, the status of, or the outcome of, any match or the occurrence of any Event unless such information has been provided to a newspaper or other form of media in
accordance with an obligation entered into in the normal course and disclosed in advance to the Cricket Authority of the relevant Member Country
Penalty
Ban for a minimum period of 2 years and a maximum period of 5 years for any such individual if the Member carrying out the investigation or the Official Enquiry constituted by the ICC Code of Conduct Commission (as the case may be) is satisfied that the information was given for a bet to be placed directly or indirectly for the benefit of the individual against whom the charge was found. Otherwise, a ban for a minimum period of 12 months. In addition, a fine may beimposed, the amount of which shall be unlimited and left to be assessed in the light of the actual circumstances.
AWTAIf found guilty of anything corrupt/to do with bookies, a player should face just one sentence - a life ban. Minimum and maximum both. No deviations. IF ICC is serious about getting rid of this plague.
Yep. It's sad for the person, such as Samuels, who's been a victim of his own carelessness. But the game of cricket has far, far more to lose by being lenient on such people than they have to gain by said leniency.If found guilty of anything corrupt/to do with bookies, a player should face just one sentence - a life ban. Minimum and maximum both. No deviations. IF ICC is serious about getting rid of this plague.
Haha, right. Sure.Samuels was in India for a few extra days after the WI left. Was to pursue some modelling and reality show business opportunities. Didn't pan out and his credit card wasn't working and he called Kochar to pay for him. That according to one of his lawyers. Legitimate really. Guessing there was other stuff as that's really circumstantial based on him giving Kochar info. That was the bare bones of it.
Doesn't really matter if you can prove he got benefit. Giving information alone is enough for the maximum possible punishment.TBF the panel who made the ruling are calling it excessive and suggesting probation. There's not much evidence to show he got benefit for any information he gave to this guy he knows. So layoff the attacks on him unless you know more.