No resolution but plenty of intrigue at ICC tribunal
The ICC spot fixing tribunal investigating corruption claims against the three Pakistan players might have left us all waiting a little longer to discover the outcome of this crucial case but there were still two interesting developments on Tuesday.
The first was the admission from Michael Beloff QC, the chairman of the independent three man panel, that in addition to the alleged deliberate no balls at Lord's last August, they were also asked by the ICC's prosecution team to investigate claims relating to the preceeding Test at the Oval.
I first reported the fact on Monday night that the tribunal was looking at the Oval as well as Lord's but on Tuesday all but one of the charges relating to that game was dropped.
The exact nature of the Oval charges remains unknown, but in the full transcripts from the News of the World investigation the players' agent Mazhar Majeed is recorded making similar predictions to the ones he made in relation to Lord's.
But, unlike the Lord's Test, these ones didn't come off.
The alleged fixer is caught on tape telling an undercover reporter that two no balls will be bowled at the Oval on the but does not specify who will bowl them.
When the no balls fail to happen Majeed explains the bowlers had been warned about bowling extras by a member of the Pakistan coaching team, making it difficult to go through with the fix.
Majeed is then quoted claiming Test captain Salman Butt will play out a maiden during Again this fails to materialise.
At face value it would seem there is nothing for any of the players to answer here. relating to the Oval against Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir suggest the Oval claims are now irrelevant.
However, one outstanding charge remains against Butt - presumably because he is the only player named by Majeed in connection with the unfulfilled Oval predictions.
![Salman Butt [right]](/staticarchive/c9958ced84ee17ec14dab53d5f6326a47cf6470b.jpg)
Salman Butt [right] will have to wait to discover his fate [AFP]
And that could be a sign that the ICC believes the alleged conspiracy involving Majeed and the Test captain goes beyond an isolated incident at Lord's.
But did the ICC make a mistake by including the Oval charges only to drop them on the last day of the six-day hearing? Did they waste time and ultimately rob themselves of the chance of getting a verdic there?
The second interesting development on Tuesday was the tribunal's decision to drop one of the lesser charges against Asif.
The charge relates to 2.4.1 of the ICC anti corruption code which "prohibits providing or receiving any gift, payment or other benefit......in circumstances that might reasonably have expected could bring him or the sport of cricket into disrepute".
This is thought to relate to the fact that the ICC was unable to prove that Asif received payment from Majeed in connection with the alleged conspiracy.
While it is understood police found money linked to the News of the World sting in Amir's and Butt's London hotel rooms, none of the cash was found to be in Asif's possession.
The more substantive and serious charges against all three players relating to Lord's remain undecided, however, and it's hard to read a great deal into the fact that one lesser charge against Asif has been dropped.
As you might expect the players and the ICC all left the commercial and civil court here in Doha on Tuesday evening claiming they were happy with the way the hearing had gone.
Over the last six days, the panel considered eight volumes of written evidence and sat through 45 hours of hearings. Some people might feel that is more than sufficient time to deliver a verdict on these three players.
But having come this far the ICC tribunal does not want to do anything which might leave them open to accusations of failing to follow proper process.
With their futures on the line, the players asked them to provide a full and considered judgment and, as Beloff explained, this wasn't "feasible" in the time set aside here.
So while the ICC will be extremely disappointed not to have been handed the guilty verdicts, their lawyers will be more than happy to wait another few weeks.
They know how much is at stake here - not just for these players or for the reputation of the ICC - but for the sport as a whole.
I'm David Bond, the 91热爆's Sports Editor. This blog will give you an insight into the big stories and issues in sport. 
Comment number 1.
At 11th Jan 2011, Hugh wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 11th Jan 2011, tritiumking wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 11th Jan 2011, ThumbsUp wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 11th Jan 2011, charlie wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 11th Jan 2011, iblo60 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 11th Jan 2011, tritiumking wrote:I completely agree charlie.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 11th Jan 2011, GeoffreyTrueman wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 11th Jan 2011, Jack Bradshaw wrote:Check out my sports blog at
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 11th Jan 2011, Miles Chapman wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 11th Jan 2011, yakubusdiet wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 11th Jan 2011, laughingdevil wrote:Nice that you can write about it
Pitty the Mods are pulling any article on 606 with the message "it is against the rules to comment on an onging legal case"
Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 11th Jan 2011, McChoudhry wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 11th Jan 2011, topdawg wrote:your comment won't last too long laughingdevil. just you wait....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 11th Jan 2011, Messi4LFC wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 11th Jan 2011, Liam wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 11th Jan 2011, livershrew wrote:I just hope we get to Amir again, he was a joy to watch.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)
Comment number 17.
At 12th Jan 2011, Double886 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 17)
Comment number 18.
At 12th Jan 2011, myislandhome wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 18)
Comment number 19.
At 12th Jan 2011, neutral_lankan wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 19)
Comment number 20.
At 12th Jan 2011, kami05 wrote:Mr bond you have written and I quote "the ICC will be extremely disappointed not to have been handed the guilty verdicts,". I find it extremely disturbing that why should ICC be not happy if the players are found innocent. From where did you get this notion?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 20)
Comment number 21.
At 12th Jan 2011, hackerjack wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 21)
Comment number 22.
At 12th Jan 2011, Youn49 wrote:Please dont ba my remarks,Just beacuse i am agree with notio that every onne is innocentuntil proven guilty,nut saddend me to see at most of people here judge them guilty.Mr laken i am agree with hope they are inocent for the sake of icc lol reputation
Complain about this comment (Comment number 22)
Comment number 23.
At 12th Jan 2011, Parag wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 23)
Comment number 24.
At 12th Jan 2011, Deep-heat wrote:Please bear with me here - this is a request rather than a whinge. I realise that the 91热爆 has legal obligations regarding comments it chooses to publish on its blogs (though in my experience, they are a little more risk averse than might be absolutely necessary). That said, when a blog is written about an ongoing legal matter I think it would be helpful to have some more detailed guidance about what can and can't be published. If nothing else, this would save time for both contributors and moderators and lead to less frustration all round. The House Rules are not comprehensive on this issue.
This is a massive story affecting cricket, which many genuine fans would like the opportunity to discuss in a blog such as this. At present, it seems like a bit of a waste of time to make this article a blog as opposed to the more standard content of the website.
Is there any chance of some clarification from an appropriate person?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 24)
Comment number 25.
At 12th Jan 2011, cynicalyorkie2 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 25)
Comment number 26.
At 12th Jan 2011, Lancashirelad24D wrote:Well, well, well, What would be the point in even attempting to give an opinion on this blog, it would only get deleted, why not give us all some proper guidelines on what we can and cannot post, this is rediculous.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 26)
Comment number 27.
At 12th Jan 2011, Turab wrote:It would appear that the charge against Mr. Salman Butt with regard to the Oval Test is of some significance (regardless of whether it came true or not) since Article 2.4.2 of the ICC Code (which is attracted in this instance, i believe) states that 鈥渇ailing to disclose to the ACSU (without undue delay) full details of any approaches or invitations received by the Player or Player Support Personnel to engage in conduct that would amount to a breach of the Anti-Corruption Code鈥 is also an offence, which carries a maximum ban of 5 years.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 27)
Comment number 28.
At 12th Jan 2011, Denthrax wrote:Mr Bond, you seem more disappointed than the ICC that its not going in the direction you would have liked it too. Let it take its course. If they are guilty, they should face the punishment. If found innocent, they deserve respect. Speculating your wish-list isn't very professional for a 91热爆 reporter!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 28)
Comment number 29.
At 13th Jan 2011, chan23 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 29)
Comment number 30.
At 13th Jan 2011, Bullseye521 wrote:Big Jury went to ICC to get their approvAl of verdict
Complain about this comment (Comment number 30)
Comment number 31.
At 13th Jan 2011, Henry Williams wrote:Far worse fraudulently claiming a grounded catch or a batsman denying that his bat touched the ball. That directly impacts out/not out.
Anyway just ignore corruption in sport and it will go away.
1) generate / maintain uncertainty in the match outcome and let it be assumed that the matches are fixed
2) nobody will bet if they believe in the possibility that matches are fixed against them
3) if nobody bets nobody will bribe players to fix matches
4) if there are no bribes then there will be no matches fixed.
5) problem solved by ignoring match-fixing not by dealing with it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 31)
Comment number 32.
At 13th Jan 2011, amigonumberone wrote:Wedwardes, just how naive are you? "Just ignore it an it will go away" is possibly the worst argument for anything I've ever heard in my life. If I was involved in an illegal betting scam, I wouldn't be put off if I thought a game was fixed; I'd be encouraged to bet more. Step 2 in your idiot's guide above is complete gibberish, and renders everything below it complete gibberish too.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 32)
Comment number 33.
At 13th Jan 2011, Aub123 wrote:#20 - the ICC have brought the charges; they are the prosecuting authority. Why is it disturbing that they would want their case to be upheld?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 33)
Comment number 34.
At 13th Jan 2011, matut wrote:#32 Wedwardes' reasoning is impeccable.
You say "If I were involved in an illegal betting scam, I wouldn't be put off if I thought the game was fixed.", but that is because you are assuming asymmetrical information - you know the outcome but you believe the one against whom you are betting doesn't. What Wedwardes' scenario results in is symmetrical availability of information: you know it is crooked, the bookie suspects it is, because that is the current way of the world, and so the bookie won't take your bet.
Gambling being at the heart of match/spot fixing, no gambling means no
match fixing.
Of course, after some time the suspicion will arise that games are no longer being fixed and the nefarious villainy will start again, at which time we simply make it known as widely as possible - the punters and bookies know the score (as it were) and the fixing stops again.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 34)
Comment number 35.
At 13th Jan 2011, rightroyalkneesup wrote:wedwardes - you're obviously proud of your reasoning because you posted it before, but as I pointed out then it's flawed:
1) generate / maintain uncertainty in the match outcome and let it be assumed that the matches are fixed
2) nobody will come to the matches if they believe that matches are fixed
3) if nobody comes there will be no one to pay the players
4) if there are no fans or players then there are no matches to fix.
5) problem solved by ignoring match fixing the sport ceases to exist.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 35)
Comment number 36.
At 15th Jan 2011, sportsfan101 wrote:The Pakistan trio don't really have much defence. The evidence is piling up against them and I just can't see how they aren't guilty. For me, the evidence is just so telling but maybe I am wrong. The judge will have all the evidence required to make a decision, so I expect the judge will make the right call.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 36)
Comment number 37.
At 15th Jan 2011, Stev wrote:" 2) nobody will bet if they believe in the possibility that matches are fixed against them"
This is clearly untrue as we already know there is a possibility that the matches or certain events are being rigged. Its not as if fixing is a unique and new thing to happen its probably as nearly as old as betting itself is, and its never stopped people betting before.
Also events being fixed doesnt necessarily mean they wont be fixed in your favour the majority might bet on outcome A, therefore the bookie adjusts the result to outcome B, the end result favours the bookie and undoubtedly some of the punters who would have bet on that outcome also.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 37)
Comment number 38.
At 15th Jan 2011, thefrogstar wrote:This a court report from some country near the Arabian gulf, and not a British court of Law. Right? I would have thought the moderators could lighten up a bit. The 91热爆 is making itself look spineless again, just like it's pitiful reporting of FIFA world cup-bid shenannigans. The bad guys will generally run away from the prospect of legal action in respected legal systems, so a fear of libel by the 91热爆 is misplaced.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 38)
Comment number 39.
At 1st Feb 2011, Charles_S wrote:Sketchy stuff!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 39)
Comment number 40.
At 1st Feb 2011, Charles_S wrote:A little more information on the pakistan players
Complain about this comment (Comment number 40)