Spot fixing by Sreesanth, two others of Rajasthan Royals

[Jayen]

Delhi Police badly damage the opening attack of Rajasthan Royals as
Sreesanth, Chandila and Chavan were arrested on charges of Spot
Fixing.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/news/S-Sreesanth-and-two-other-Rajasthan-players-arrested-Reports/articleshow/20080711.cms

Regards,
Jayen

[Tweedle Dee]

Alleged spot-fixing. Hoping against hope that this turns out to be untrue. One has to be extraordinarily dumb to indulge in this after the bans that were handed out to the Pakistan players.

-TD

[Ramapriya]

On May 16, 10:03 am, Tweedle Dee <k.va...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Alleged spot-fixing. Hoping against hope that this turns out to be untrue. One has to be extraordinarily dumb to indulge in this after the bans that were handed out to the Pakistan players.
>
> -TD

In a way, Sreesanth's involvement, even if alleged, doesn't surprise
me. Anyone who can be sold of the existence of God and be convinced of
adopting a religion *has* to be a simple enough dolt liable to be
manipulated. Sreesanth and his juvenile public religious displays have
for long revolted and embarrassed many as I'm sure those who sport
foot-long religious beards and tacky crosses have.

As someone said, albeit in slightly different words - show me a
religious bloke and I'll show you a hypocritical, cheating
sonofabitch.

Ramapriya

PS: It's interesting that you don't have anger against what has
allegedly happened but only think it extraordinarily dumb of the
players to have indulged in it, given the past bans.

[Tweedle Dee]

I would reserve judgement till they are proven guilty. Hence my emphasis on the word "alleged" in my post.

-TD

[Jayen]

On May 16, 11:03 am, Tweedle Dee <k.va...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:56:33 AM UTC+5:30, Jayen wrote:
> > Delhi Police badly damage the opening attack of Rajasthan Royals as
>
> > Sreesanth, Chandila and Chavan were arrested on charges of Spot
>
> > Fixing.
>

> >http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/news/S-Sreesant...

>
> > Regards,
>
> > Jayen
>
> Alleged spot-fixing. Hoping against hope that this turns out to be untrue. One has to be extraordinarily dumb to indulge in this after the bans that were handed out to the Pakistan players.
>
> -TD

Never mind the Pakistanis - there were five players banned in last
year's IPL too

http://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/sudhindra-banned-for-life/article3588687.ece

Regards,
Jayen

[jzfredricks]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:19:17 PM UTC+10, Ramapriya wrote:
> PS: It's interesting that you don't have anger against what has
> allegedly happened but only think it extraordinarily dumb of the
> players to have indulged in it, given the past bans.

Would it pain you to know that perfectly intelligent RSCer said "they were just no-balls" w.r.t. the 3 Pakistanis?
It did me.

[Ramapriya]

I've felt that some punishments in cricket are a bit OTT. I mean, one
orchestrated NB and 3 chaps do porridge for ages! The act was
undoubtedly wrong, but the punishment was awfully harsh, a bit like in
KSA where thieves' hands are chopped off, regardless (nearly) of what
was stolen.

Ramapriya

[Bharat Rao]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:19:17 AM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:

> In a way, Sreesanth's involvement, even if alleged, doesn't surprise
> me. Anyone who can be sold of the existence of God and be convinced of
> adopting a religion *has* to be a simple enough dolt liable to be
> manipulated. Sreesanth and his juvenile public religious displays have
> for long revolted and embarrassed many as I'm sure those who sport
> foot-long religious beards and tacky crosses have.

> As someone said, albeit in slightly different words - show me a
> religious bloke and I'll show you a hypocritical, cheating
> sonofabitch.

Show me someone who makes vast sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, and I'll show you a prejudiced git.

People who paint an entire group based on their beliefs, are NO different, from those who would discriminate against others based on their color, sexual orientation, religion.

You seem to be a reasonably intelligent person (you show the ability to put together cogent sentences in a newsgroup article), and yet the obvious inconsistency seems to escape you.

While I'm sure you would rage and protest at those who would discriminate against an entire class based on their beliefs (for instance, the zealots who condemn all non-believers as heretics and issue Fatwas), you are doing exactly the same thing. It's just seen as fashionable and cool to do it now -- but in my book, it's no different from the foam in the mouth street preacher, raining damnation and Holy Fire down upon the unbeliever.

Bharat

Mandatory Cricket: Sreesanth, if he did what he is alleged to have done (we do live in a system that guarantees the right of the accused to mount a defense), is a corrupt immoral venal scumbag -- that he happens to be a religious corrupt immoral venal scumbag has about generalization power as does "Name begins with S" corrupt immoral venal scumbag. All it shows is that there is no group, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, religious belief or lack thereof, first letter of name, nation, political affiliation, PhDs in political science, computer programmers, cricketers, -- there is no group without its share of corrupt immoral venal scumbags. Only bigots paint the entire group with the characteristics of the individual.

Bharat

[jzfredricks]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:59:54 PM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
> It's just seen as fashionable and cool to do it now

Nope.
"Safe" is the word you're looking for.

Prior to now (well, recent history) those very religious nutters would have you tortured and killed if you said anything bad about their religion.

Ramapriya was spot on - in the vast majority of cases faith == lack of intelligence. It's not an innate stupidity, though, as it's normally the result of brainwashing as a child.

[Ramapriya]

On May 16, 3:59 pm, Bharat Rao <rao.bha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Show me someone who makes vast sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people, and I'll show you a prejudiced git.
>
> People who paint an entire group based on their beliefs, are NO different, from those who would discriminate against others based on their color, sexual orientation, religion.

Oh I have my share of natural prejudices; I hope I've not claimed to
the contrary! Natural aversion to anything pink and noisy / unclean
folk, e.g.

The problem with the buffoons of the sort I mentioned earlier is that
the basis of their prejudices and actions - God/religion, etc. - is
completely man-made, yet they go about mindlessly and seriously acting
upon it. 95% of the believers and non-believers I've met have taken a
while to realize that there actually can be unattached, normal folk; I
love it when religious conversations with me routinely end with 'then
what are you?' after the usual 'Are you Hindu / Christian /.......'
tripe.

> While I'm sure you would rage and protest at those who would discriminate against an entire class based on their beliefs (for instance, the zealots who condemn all non-believers as heretics and issue Fatwas), you are doing exactly the same thing.  It's just seen as fashionable and cool to do it now -- but in my book, it's no different from the foam in the mouth street preacher, raining damnation and Holy Fire down upon the unbeliever.

Fashionable? Cool? Man didn't come into being with all these
believer / unbeliever sects. No popular present-day religion existed
10k years ago (give and take a bit). In evolutionary terms, that's
like milk teeth. In fact, there still are tribes like the Yawalapiti
around to prove my point, blissfully unattached with any of the
theological tosh and living pretty much frozen in time.

> Mandatory Cricket: Sreesanth, if he did what he is alleged to have done (we do live in a system that guarantees the right of the accused to mount a defense), is a corrupt immoral venal scumbag -- that he happens to be a religious corrupt immoral venal scumbag has about generalization power as does "Name begins with S" corrupt immoral venal scumbag.  All it shows is that there is no group, regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, race, religious belief or lack thereof, first letter of name, nation, political affiliation, PhDs in political science, computer programmers, cricketers,  -- there is no group without its share of corrupt immoral venal scumbags.  Only bigots paint the entire group with the characteristics of the individual.

Sorry for straying so much away from cricket (I began it too,
unwittingly, and apologies are due) but I'm no bigot. I actually love
the believers, non-believers and other jokers. They all make me feel
much more intelligent than I know I am ;)

Cheers,

Ramapriya

[Unknown]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 03:42:54 -0700 (PDT), Ramapriya
<d.ram...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 16, 2:15=A0pm, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:19:17 PM UTC+10, Ramapriya wrote:
>> > PS: It's interesting that you don't have anger against what has
>> > allegedly happened but only think it extraordinarily dumb of the
>> > players to have indulged in it, given the past bans.
>>

>> Would it pain you to know that perfectly intelligent RSCer said "they wer=

>e just no-balls" w.r.t. the 3 Pakistanis?
>> It did me.
>
>
>I've felt that some punishments in cricket are a bit OTT. I mean, one
>orchestrated NB and 3 chaps do porridge for ages! The act was
>undoubtedly wrong, but the punishment was awfully harsh, a bit like in
>KSA where thieves' hands are chopped off, regardless (nearly) of what
>was stolen.
>
>Ramapriya
>

They didn't go jail just for bowling no balls.

max.it

*********************************


R v Mazhar MAJEED, Salman BUTT, Mohammad ASIF and Mohammad
AMIR
Southwark Crown Court
Sentencing remarks of Mr Justice Cooke
3 November 2011
1.
The gravamen of the offences committed by all four of you is the
corruption in which you engaged in a pastime, the very name of which
used to be associated with fair dealing on the sporting field. It�s
not cricket was an adage. It is the insidious effect of your actions
on professional cricket and the followers of it which make the
offences so serious. The image and integrity of what was once a game,
but is now a business is damaged in the eyes of all, including the
many youngsters who regarded three of you as heroes and would have
given their eye teeth to play at the levels and with the skill that
you had. You procured the bowling of 3 no balls for money, to the
detriment of your national cricket team, with the object of enabling
others to cheat at gambling. Now, whenever people look back on a
surprising event in a game or a surprising result or whenever in the
future there are surprising events or results, followers of the game
who have paid good money to watch it live or to watch it on TV, in the
shape of licence money or TV subscriptions, will be led to wonder
whether there has been a fix and whether what they have been watching
is a genuine contest between bat and ball. What ought to be honest
sporting competition may not be such at all.
2.
In Pakistan, where cricket is the national sport, the ordinary
follower of the national team feels betrayed by your activities, as do
your fellow countrymen in this country. You Butt, Asif and Amir have
let down all your supporters and all followers of the game, whether
suborned by you, Majeed, or more than willing co- conspirators. Whilst
those involved in unlawful betting in this country where the market is
regulated, may not deserve much sympathy, and the evidence was that
betting on no balls only occurred in unlawful markets, mostly abroad,
where betting on cricket may not be allowed at all, the effect of what
you were seeking to do was to defraud bookmakers, whether licensed or
unlicensed and whether carrying out lawful or unlawful bookmaking in
the country in question, where public policy may differ from this
country. If other fixes were to be done on less esoteric events than
no balls, such as brackets, then it is certain that they would
affect lawful betting. Your motive was greed, despite the high
legitimate rewards available in earnings and prize money.
3.
I bear in mind that this was a sting by the NOTW, but that does not
render your culpability any the less, once it is recognised that you
were involved in discussing such activities outside the scope of the
sting, as it is clear that you Majeed, Butt and Amir were. Though no
cheating bets were placed by reason of the information given to the
journalist, the intention was that they should be and if information
was supplied to others, as it was, that could only have been for one
purpose.
4.
These offences, regardless of pleas, are so serious that only a
sentence of imprisonment will suffice to mark the nature of the crimes
and to deter any other cricketer, agent or anyone else who considers
corrupt activity of this kind, with its hugely detrimental impact on
the lives of many who look to find good honest entertainment and
good-hearted enjoyment from following an honest, albeit professional
sport.
Mazhar Majeed
5.
You have pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy:
5.1. first � conspiracy corruptly to give Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif
and Mohammed Amir money as an inducement to identify in advance
occasions during the Test Match series between Pakistan and England
when they would play in a specified manner.
5.2. Secondly �conspiracy to do acts to enable others to cheat at
gambling by identifying those occasions to others including the NOTW
journalist so that those individuals you thought were part of his
betting syndicate could win money by betting on the occurrence of
those events.
6.
In your basis of plea, you asserted that your actions related solely
to the arrangement of the bowling of no balls and that some of what
you said to the journalist with regard to previous spot or match
fixing was untrue and merely designed to impress him and attract his
confidence. I refused to accept that basis of plea.
7.
In consequence I gave you the opportunity to give evidence in a Newton
hearing on these issues, but you have since accepted that your part in
the conspiracy covered not just the no balls actually bowled at Lords
but wider events at Lords and the Oval.
8.
Whilst others have described you as a blagger and your own counsel now
says, along with other defendants, that much of what you said to the
Journalist is not to be believed, the fact remains that, in your
meetings with him, you spoke of your involvement in spot fixing and
match fixing and of the players you managed in the Pakistan team and
your ability to use the three players before me in such activities,
naming others also who are not before the court. You said it had been
going on for years. The fact that of the �150,000 that you actually
received, only
�2500 in marked notes was found in Butt�s possession and �1500 in
Amir�s possession, together with the evidence of payment of �13,000
into Butt�s bank account and some �23,000 into your company�s
accounts, suggests that you took the lion�s share of the cash paid by
the journalist, notwithstanding what, through your counsel, you have
now said about its distribution. Moreover, what the court has mostly
been concerned with here- the arrangement of three no balls- is only
part of the corrupt activities in which you have been involved.
9.
On the evidence, you were not only responsible for arranging with
Salman Butt, and directly or indirectly with Amir and Asif, for the 3
specified no balls in the Lord�s test which were actually bowled, (2
on the 26th and one on the 27th August 2010, but you also arranged
with Salman Butt:
9.1. for Salman Butt to bat out a maiden over at the Oval test match
on 21 August on the first full over that he faced that day
9.2. for a second no ball to be bowled by Amir on 26th August, when he
was first to bowl round the wicket, which did not occur that day, and
was then replaced by agreement that evening by the no ball actually
bowled by him on the third ball of the third full over that he bowled
on 27 August . You agreed this with Salman Butt and either directly or
indirectly with Amir.
10.
You told the journalist that you had been fixing things with the
Pakistani team for about two and a half years, though your counsel now
says that the suggestion of spot fixing first came up in June 2009. I
can give little credence to anything said by your counsel on your
instructions to this court and approach what you said to the
Journalist with more than a pinch of salt, as it was sales talk to
gain his confidence to part with money, of which you were short at the
time.
11.
What is clear however is that you were involved in fixing not only
with the journalist but with others during the period covered by the
Indictment. Whether or not what this court has had to consider is just
the tip of an iceberg, is not for me to say and lies beyond the scope
of the evidence I have heard, but, even allowing for your �sales talk�
to the journalist, I am sure that there was an element of truth in
what you said about past fixing.
11.1. You were paid �150,000 for information given and to be given in
the future.
11.2. It was agreed that the journalist would pay you �10,000 for each
no ball identified to him in advance � or at least �20,000 for 3 no
balls, of which he paid �10,000. Bets could be placed on these no
balls in unlawful markets, mostly abroad, based on inside advance
knowledge of what was going to happen.
11.3. It was agreed that he would pay �150,000 as a deposit (of which
he paid �140,000) from which you would draw down for information to be
given to him in respect of brackets � the number of runs to be scored
or wickets taken (or rather runs or wickets given away) in a specified
number of overs and information about the scoring rate involved, on
which bets could be placed, in both lawful and unlawful markets.
11.4. It is clear from the telephone schedules that you were in touch
with contacts in India and Dubai and were passing on information
relating to the Oval and Lord�s test matches in relation to gambling
activity there. I find that
this was all part of your corrupt activity because you were intent on
passing the same information about fixed events to different people so
they could place bets based on it in different markets- Dubai, India,
and as you thought, the Far East where the journalist said his punters
were involved. There is evidence of a telephone call, conducted in the
presence of the journalist where there was discussion of $1m changing
hands. You told the journalist that it would cost �50-80,000 to fix a
bracket, �400,000 to fix a 20/20 match result, anything between
�300,000-�450,000 to fix a one day international and �1m to fix a test
match. The fact that you could talk in these terms to someone who was,
as you thought, prepared to put up that sort of money, lends credence
to your knowledge or involvement in matters of that kind and your
confidence in your ability to do so for him. You were not seeking
simply to con him out of money but to start a long term corrupt
relationship with future exchanges of money for information given, in
the same way as you must have made arrangements with your Dubai and
Indian contacts. On your say-so, individuals in India were making
�40,000-�50,000 on each identified no ball. On three no balls
therefore the bookmakers stood to lose �150,000 on each bet by a
cheating punter.
12.
Your position as manager to half a dozen members of the Pakistan team
and your close friendship with Salman Butt, who became the captain on
July 16th 2010, meant that you and he together were in a position to
influence other players in the team as you did. Whereas the defendant
players present have already been the subject of an ICC arbitration
and have suffered bans which significantly affect their cricket
playing careers and their future earnings, which I will bear in mind
when I come to sentence them, you stand alone as a non player, who
decided, according to an email exchange with your brother in February
2010, to make as much money as you could from the game of cricket- by
corrupting those involved.
13.
I take into account everything said on your behalf and the character
references produced which speak well of you as a good family man and a
man who has made significant contributions to your local community.
14.
You were agent of the players and to that extent were trusted by them,
and obtained for them legitimate contracts of sponsorship as well as
being the source of illegitimate earnings for them. It was through
Salman Butt that your influence over them was largely gained and you
and he were the architects of the fixing of which the court has heard,
procuring the other two defendants to do what they did.
15.
I give you full credit for your plea, which the Prosecution accepts
was entered at the first effective opportunity.
16.
I have considered the guidelines for any analogous offences such as
fraud on insurers and the sums of money involved here. You, of the
four defendants, gained the most from these offences-it would appear,
well over �100,000, quite apart from the $1m referred to in the phone
call, which may or may not ever have materialised. Notional punters
stood to gain sums in excess of �150,000 from cheating when gambling
on 3 no balls and more in respect of a maiden over. It is hard to
assess the amounts of money of which persons might have been but were
not defrauded in the gambling industry, by virtue of information given
to the journalist and to say whether or not any money was made as a
result of the information given to the Indian and Dubai contacts, of
which there is no evidence. The extent of your gain remains unclear.
17.
There is no distinction to be made in respect of the two charges you
face and the sentences I impose will be concurrent sentences in
respect of each, limited to the period of the indictment, but bearing
in mind the fact that the journalist� sting was not an isolated event.
18.
If you had not pleaded guilty the sentence would have been 4 years on
the first count of conspiracy and the maximum of 2 years on the
gambling count, to run concurrently. In the light of your pleas, the
sentence on the conspiracy to make corrupt payments is 2 years and 8
months and on the gambling count 16 months, to run concurrently.
Salman Butt
19.
You have been convicted by the jury on two counts:
19.1. First- conspiracy to accept corrupt payments for identifying in
advance occasions when 3 no balls would be bowled in the Test match at
Lords on 26 and 27 August last year and procuring the bowling of those
no balls by your two fast bowlers, Amir and Asif
19.2. Secondly � conspiracy to do the same acts in order to enable
others to cheat at gambling.
19.3. I sentence you for matters covered by the narrowed indictment
alone, relating to the no balls in the Lord�s test match, but I cannot
ignore the fact that these were not isolated incidents.
20.
It is clear to me that you were the orchestrator of this activity, as
you had to be, as Captain, in arranging for these bowlers to be
bowling the overs which were identified in advance to Majeed and which
he identified to the NOTW journalist. You were a natural captain,
picked out as such from the age of 17 for national teams, and had the
advantage of a good education. You were a man of status. As I have
already said, you bear the major responsibility for the corrupt
activities, along with Majeed. The evidence of the text exchange
between you and Majeed in the West Indies in May 2010 shows your
involvement in such activities outside the scope of the period covered
by the indictment.
21.
I sentence you in respect of the no balls bowled at Lords alone but
bear in mind your prior agreement in respect of the maiden over at the
Oval, of which telephone evidence was heard, as well as the West
Indies exchanges.
22.
Because of your leadership status, your direct involvement with Majeed
and your key role in directing the corrupt activities, you are more
culpable than either of your two bowlers.
23.
I consider that you were responsible for involving Amir in the
corruption � an 18 year old from a poverty stricken village
background, very different to your own privileged one, who, whilst a
very talented bowler, would be inclined to do what his senior players
and particularly his captain told him, especially when told there was
money in it for him and this was part of the common culture. For an
impressionable youngster, not long in the team to stand out against
the blandishments of his captain would have been hard. It appears that
the corruption may have been more widespread than the defendants here
before me, and may have permeated the team in earlier days, though I
have seen no direct evidence of that. If that is the case, you, as
Captain, perpetuated such an atmosphere of corruption and would be
responsible for it and for the desire to use Majeed and his contacts
to make money for yourself and others in the team.
24.
In the words you used to the jury- what you did was a terrible thing-
it is bad for the game of cricket, bad for the country and shows the
character of the man involved. Not only were you involved but you
involved others and abused your position as captain and leader in
doing so, bringing to bear your considerable influence on Amir at the
very least.
25.
I have taken account of all the matters I referred to when sentencing
Majeed and the difficulties in assessing the amounts of money of which
persons might have been defrauded, as well as the gain to you from
what you did, which remains unclear.
26.
You do not have the advantage of a plea. You have been subjected to a
ban on playing cricket for 10 years, of which 5 are suspended. You
will be 31 or so, when the active part of that ban comes to an end and
you will have lost some of the best years of a batsman�s life as well
as the years of captaincy. Your playing career may well be at an end
for all practical purposes.
27.
I bear in mind all that has been said on your behalf and the domestic
circumstances outlined to me. You have been very good to your family
and you have now a second child, born the day before yesterday to your
wife in Pakistan. I have well in mind the financial support you have
given to your family and all the other matters raised in the letters
produced to the court.
28.
I take fully into account the ICC ban and the effect it has on you,
which in itself is a considerable punishment for a man in your
position. This enables me to take a more lenient course, than I
otherwise might. But for that ban, the sentence would have been of the
same order as that which I would have imposed on Majeed if he had not
pleaded guilty. You do not have the benefit of a plea but the effect
of the
ban on you is such that I can reduce the sentence I would otherwise
have imposed to 30 months imprisonment on the conspiracy corruptly to
accept money and 2 years on the gambling conspiracy, both to run
concurrently. .
Mohammed Asif.
29.
You have been convicted of the same 2 offences as your captain Salman
Butt. You do not have the benefit of a plea but your culpability is
less than his, both because of his key role as captain and
orchestrator along with Majeed and because your participation in this
conspiracy was limited to the bowling of one no ball.
30.
Whilst no marked NOTW money was found in your possession, the jury
have found that you conspired to accept money in the same way as your
captain. You bowled a no ball in order to obtain payment and in order
to assist others to cheat at gambling. If it was �10,000 for a no
ball, you would have got a share of that sum, allowing for a cut for
Salman Butt and Majeed. The sums of money of which others could have
been defrauded, for the reasons I have already given cannot be
accurately calculated.
31.
There is no evidence of any prior involvement on your part in such
activities but it is clear that Majeed had every confidence in you
playing your part when identifying the no ball that you would bowl on
the 26th August. It is hard to see how this could be an isolated
occurrence for you either.
32.
I sentence you in respect of your agreement to bowl that no ball,
again bearing in mind all the factors I have mentioned before in
sentencing today.
33.
I take account of all that is said on your behalf and in particular I
bear in mind the 7 year ICC ban imposed last year, of which 2 years
are suspended, and its effect on your career as a fast bowler now aged
28, which means that your cricketing career is effectively over. This
in itself is a considerable punishment for a man in your position.
This enables me to take a more lenient course, than I otherwise might.
That is the punishment imposed by the cricket authorities but these
crimes of which you have been convicted require that a sentence be
imposed which marks them for what they are and acts as a deterrent for
any future cricketers who may be tempted.
34.
In your case there will be concurrent sentences of 1 year�s
imprisonment on each count.
Mohammed Amir;
35.
You have pleaded guilty to the same two offences as those of which
Asif has been convicted. I give you full credit for that plea, which
the Prosecution accepts was entered at the first real opportunity.
Following the ICC arbitration in Doha, where you contested the
allegations, you made it clear to the cricket authorities that you
accepted your responsibility for what you had done, despite the
situation in which you found yourself where, it seems, activity such
as this was widespread. It took courage to do so, as appears from the
information I have been given about pressures you faced.
36.
You pleaded on a basis which I refused to accept- namely that your
only involvement in spot fixing was at Lords on 26th and 27th August
and that you only became involved as a result of pressure (not
amounting to physical threats) and influence to the effect that if you
did not become involved, it would have serious professional
implications for your future career.
37.
I therefore gave you the opportunity of a Newton hearing but you
decided not to give evidence of the pressure to which your basis of
plea referred. You have referred, in material presented to the court,
to threats to yourself and your family, saying that there are
significant limits to what you can say in public. The reality of those
threats and the strength of the underworld influences who control
unlawful betting abroad is shown by the supporting evidence in the
bundle of documents, including materials from the Anti Corruption and
Security Unit of the ICC.
38.
You agreed to bowl 2 no balls on the 26th August, of which you bowled
one, before the rain set in and then agreed that evening to bowl
another on 27th, which you duly did. They were the largest
infringements of the front foot rule seen by experienced test cricket
observers. The Umpire could not have missed them.
39.
I take into account all the factors I have already mentioned when
sentencing Asif and all that has been said on your behalf
40.
You come from a village background where life has been hard and you
struggled with serious back problems to reach the peak you did when
bowling for Pakistan. Compared with others, you were unsophisticated,
uneducated and impressionable. You were only 18 at the time and
readily leant on by others. I am clear that you bear less
responsibility than your captain who influenced you in the manner to
which I have earlier referred.
41.
But you agreed to do this for money and �1500 of NOTW marked money was
found in your possession.
42.
Moreover the fact remains, that there is evidence, in the shape of
texts and telephone calls with a Pakistani number of your involvement
in discussions about
fixing brackets at the Oval during the period of the indictment,
though there is no evidence that such fixing actually occurred. That
discussion did not relate to Majeed. The 2 no balls you actually
bowled cannot be seen in isolation from this prior discussion.
43.
I take account also of the 5 year ICC ban imposed last year, and its
effect on your career as a fast bowler now aged 19, which will create
problems for you in returning to play when the ban expires. That is
the punishment imposed by the cricket authorities but these crimes of
which you have been convicted require that a sentence be imposed which
marks them for what they are and acts as a deterrent for any future
cricketers who may be tempted, notwithstanding the mitigation which I
have heard.
44.
If you had not pleaded guilty you would have received concurrent
sentences of 9 months� detention in a Young Offenders� Institution on
each offence. As you did plead the sentence will be 6 months in each
case, to run concurrently.
45.
Each of you will serve half the time imposed in custody and then you
will be released on licence. If you breach your licence or commit any
other offence, you may be brought back to serve the remainder of your
sentence. Your counsel will explain the effect of this to you, if you
do not understand.
46.
I make no orders for compensation as I consider that the NOTW got what
it bargained for when paying the �150,000 in question.
47.
I order each of the defendants to make the following contributions
towards the costs of the Prosecution:
47.1. Amir �9,389 - payable forthwith as it is in the possession of
the police
47.2. Asif �8,120 -ditto
47.3. Butt �30,937 - ditto
47.4. Majeed �56,554 - payable within 6 months of today�s date.

[Ramapriya]

On May 16, 8:26 am, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Delhi Police badly damage the opening attack of Rajasthan Royals as
> Sreesanth, Chandila and Chavan were arrested on charges of Spot
> Fixing.
>

> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/news/S-Sreesant...
>
> Regards,
> Jayen


Saw some news coverage of this. The evidence that the Delhi police say
they have when corroborated with the explanatory TV footage makes the
arrests seem prima facie quite legit.

Sreesanth's dad's statement, even allowing for the normal lack of
objectivity that close family members are prone to suffer at such
times, is bewildering, to say the least.

Ramapriya

[CaraMia]

On 5/16/2013 9:35 PM, Ramapriya wrote:
> Sreesanth's dad's statement, even allowing for the normal lack of
> objectivity that close family members are prone to suffer at such
> times, is bewildering, to say the least.

His brother was even better - he alleged that this was being done to
sabotage Sreesanth's marriage plans.

[Rahul Tyagi]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:05:04 AM UTC-5, Ramapriya wrote:
> Sreesanth's dad's statement, even allowing for the normal lack of
>
> objectivity that close family members are prone to suffer at such
>
> times, is bewildering, to say the least.

He has since taken it back and apologized for it. It was quite bewildering, indeed. perhaps just shows Sreesanth's equation with Bhajji and Dhoni. He probably believes that his career has been sabotaged by Dhoni, who doesn't give him the opportunities he deserves. Can't think of any other reason why his father would think of such a weird thing.

Rahul

[Rahul Tyagi]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:41:27 AM UTC-5, CaraMia wrote:
>
> His brother was even better - he alleged that this was being done to
>
> sabotage Sreesanth's marriage plans.

Huh? really? It would be quite funny if it wasn't so sad...

Rahul

[Ramapriya]

Jeez. Btw, this gem from former India opener Chetan Chauhan: "Such
incidents bring bad name to the game and those found indulging in spot-
fixing should be given life imprisonment". Life imprisonment!!

Ramapriya

[CaraMia]

I am pretty sure chemical castration would also feature in the
discussion in the next few days.

[Bharat Rao]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:28:55 AM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:59:54 PM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
>
> > It's just seen as fashionable and cool to do it now

> Nope.
>
> "Safe" is the word you're looking for.

No it is not. If you said that about people of color or of some ethnic origin, you would be (rightly) excoriated as a racist. You wouldn't be burned at the stake.

If you say that about people of faith, you get lauded.

> Prior to now (well, recent history) those very religious nutters would have you tortured and killed if you said anything bad about their religion.
>

Irrelevant. My point is that today you can make vastly prejudicial sweeping statements about people of faith that you could not make against other groups without getting roundly criticized.

Bharat

[Bharat Rao]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:28:55 AM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:

> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:59:54 PM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
>
>> Ramapriya was spot on - in the vast majority of cases faith == lack of intelligence. It's not an innate stupidity, though, as it's normally the result of brainwashing as a child.

I'm sorry; the "vast majority" qualification doesn't buy you anything. I'm surprised jz, because while you and I have disagreed on rsc, there is little I have found about you to be "innately stupid," as you put it.


I absolutely abhor vast sweeping generalizations -- it is the basis used by tyrants and bigots from Hitler and Sadaam to persecute people. Individuals are stupid, prejudiced, fanatical, discriminatory, immoral, venal, etc. based upon their actions; classes of folks, are not associated with the same qualities, based upon the actions of others.


You may as well just as easily conclude the financiers with the last names beginning with "M" are crooks (or even worse that all Wall Street traders are greedy immoral scumbags). The actions of a highly-publicized minority or even of a majority does not mean the entire community is cut from the same cloth.


Based on the actions of a few on this ng, it would be easy to conclude that people from your nation are nutjobs -- you've even called them out yourself. That doesn't mean you are, any more than the next person from your country is. (The same applies to loonies from my nation, I hasten to add.)


Bharat


ObQuote: "If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WAS MUSIC" Kurt Vonnegut, Jnr.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:27:54 AM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
> > "Safe" is the word you're looking for.
> No it is not. If you said that about people of color or of some ethnic origin, you would be (rightly) excoriated as a racist. You wouldn't be burned at the stake.

Being religious is a choice one makes (see below for more on this). Being brown is not.

I would happily say "people who engage in (self) body mutilation are complete idiots". Again, this is a choice, that they are making, that is stupid.

There are obvious caveats to my broad statement, some of which I've just touched on, for example;

1. If a child is brainwashed into following a religion, on fear of eternal damnation (torture, watching Trott bat, etc), by the parents they love and trust.. am I being too harsh in expecting the adult version of that child to easily snap out of that brainwashing? Perhaps I am.

2. I'm also pushing aside for now any innate or evolutionary reason to believe in fairies. There might be one, but I can't think of its purpose. Perhaps it's an inbuilt desire to understand how things work (and as life is so complex we just made something up)?

3. I've also not touched on insanity (although defining that is something I that I think is worth discussing - this is one of the reasons I'm so anti-capital punishment[almost violently so, lol]). The body mutilation might not actually BE a choice, but rather a compulsion brought on by the person's mind etc. In these cases I withdraw my 'idiot' statement.

I added the "vast majority" qualifier. I'm happy with that. I do think for most people of faith it IS a significant and stupid choice that they continue to make.
The WORST part of it is that most of them don't even follow their own religions. They seem to cherry pick some of the good stuff, and most of the bad stuff.
If they just cherry picked the nice stuff I'd have zero problem with religion.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:28:58 AM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
> there is little I have found about you to be "innately stupid," as you put it.

Perhaps this proves my point :)
I'm clearly 3 parts atheist, 1 part anti-theist.

[Unknown]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 15:24:21 -0700 (PDT), jzfredricks
<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, May 17, 2013 5:27:54 AM UTC+10, Bharat Rao wrote:
>> > "Safe" is the word you're looking for.

>> No it is not. If you said that about people of color or of some ethnic o=
>rigin, you would be (rightly) excoriated as a racist. You wouldn't be burn=
>ed at the stake.
>
>Being religious is a choice one makes (see below for more on this). Being b=
>rown is not.
>
>I would happily say "people who engage in (self) body mutilation are comple=

>te idiots". Again, this is a choice, that they are making, that is stupid.
>

>There are obvious caveats to my broad statement, some of which I've just to=
>uched on, for example;
>
>1. If a child is brainwashed into following a religion, on fear of eternal =
>damnation (torture, watching Trott bat, etc), by the parents they love and =
>trust.. am I being too harsh in expecting the adult version of that child t=
>o easily snap out of that brainwashing? Perhaps I am.=20
>
>2. I'm also pushing aside for now any innate or evolutionary reason to beli=
>eve in fairies. There might be one, but I can't think of its purpose. Perha=
>ps it's an inbuilt desire to understand how things work (and as life is so =

>complex we just made something up)?
>

>3. I've also not touched on insanity (although defining that is something I=
> that I think is worth discussing - this is one of the reasons I'm so anti-=
>capital punishment[almost violently so, lol]). The body mutilation might no=
>t actually BE a choice, but rather a compulsion brought on by the person's =

>mind etc. In these cases I withdraw my 'idiot' statement.
>

>I added the "vast majority" qualifier. I'm happy with that. I do think for =
>most people of faith it IS a significant and stupid choice that they contin=
>ue to make.
>The WORST part of it is that most of them don't even follow their own relig=
>ions. They seem to cherry pick some of the good stuff, and most of the bad =
>stuff.=20
>If they just cherry picked the nice stuff I'd have zero problem with religi=
>on.

Somebody someplace, with a face like a bulldog chewing a wasp, and
breath to match, probably said this.
Information is not knowledge, indoctrination is not teaching,
tradition is not evidence, and belief is not truth.


max.it

[Uday Rajan]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:17:50 PM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:
>
> Jeez. Btw, this gem from former India opener Chetan Chauhan: "Such
> incidents bring bad name to the game and those found indulging in spot-
> fixing should be given life imprisonment". Life imprisonment!!

I'm unsure why it's a criminal matter at all. Despite British law and the prosecution of Salman Butt, et al., I am far from convinced that there is a market failure here that requires the government to step in. I have no trouble with cricketing authorities trying to ban players for match-fixing (or spot-fixing) or indeed with anyone suing players in civil suits to recover financial damages from them. I'm not sure why the government should prosecute a player for this.

Hmm...perhaps there is a parallel to slander and libel laws. I agree with Chauhan that such incidents bring a "bad name" to the game. Most countries have laws against slander or libel. Perhaps the idea is that trust is a social good so trying to malign or slander someone destroys social capital as well, which is harder to recover via financial damages. Much as I love cricket, I can't quite see the social value argument here.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:50:34 PM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
> I'm unsure why it's a criminal matter at all.

Are you kidding? It's clearly criminal.

The spot fixer has helped defraud someone of money. The victims are the other punters and/or the owners/shareholders of the betting companies.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:55:59 PM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
> The spot fixer has helped defraud someone of money. The victims are the other punters and/or the owners/shareholders of the betting companies.

Hmm... is betting legal in India? That muddies the water somewhat. Then it becomes a question of how many rights do people have when they're committing a crime?
They == other (illegal) gamblers and bookies.

As a rule, I say yes.

[Uday Rajan]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:55:59 PM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:50:34 PM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
>
> > I'm unsure why it's a criminal matter at all.
>
> Are you kidding? It's clearly criminal.

To answer your other post, betting is illegal in India, but I also mention Britain and Salman Butt, so my query is more general than that.

> The spot fixer has helped defraud someone of money. The victims are the other
> punters and/or the owners/shareholders of the betting companies.

Yes, I agree there are victims. But is every victim entitled to a criminal case being brought on their behalf? I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in the US there are lots of lawsuits that are purely civil as opposed to criminal. That is, one party sues another to recover financial damages, without the government being a direct party to the suit. To the extent that the suit is heard in a government court, the government does act as a mediator, so some government resources are used. But in many such lawsuits, there is no threat of sending anyone to jail.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:17:21 PM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
> Yes, I agree there are victims. But is every victim entitled to a criminal case being brought on their behalf? I'm not sure how it works in other countries, but in the US there are lots of lawsuits that are purely civil as opposed to criminal. That is, one party sues another to recover financial damages, without the government being a direct party to the suit. To the extent that the suit is heard in a government court, the government does act as a mediator, so some government resources are used. But in many such lawsuits, there is no threat of sending anyone to jail.

The US is no benchmark, sorry. There you go to prison for 25 years if you carry 10g of coke, but if you admit to laundering $8,000,000,000 of drug cartel money you get half a day's revenue fine.

Should fraud, or theft, be a criminal matter? Yes. I've made no mention of the punishment, mind you.

Chauhan's "Life Imprisonment" is wrong. I'd be happy with a suspended sentence on the condition that the ICC bans them for 5 years to life.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:25:11 PM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
> Chauhan's "Life Imprisonment" is wrong. I'd be happy with a suspended sentence on the condition that the ICC bans them for 5 years to life.

I'm also anti-mandatory sentences, so let the judge decide, with a recommendation of 5 years. Each case should be judged on its merits.

[Uday Rajan]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:25:11 PM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
>
> The US is no benchmark, sorry. There you go to prison for 25 years if you
> carry 10g of coke, but if you admit to laundering $8,000,000,000 of drug
> cartel money you get half a day's revenue fine.

Since every country or society has its flaws, that's a strange argumentation device you are employing there. I don't know whether your example is correct or not, but since it's irrelevant to the thread, I don't see the point of getting into that right now.

Be that as it may. Australia too draws a distinction between criminal and civil law, as does the UK. From my lay point of view, criminal law relates to crimes against the state, whereas civil law to disputes between private parties. Spot-fixing appears to be a criminal matter in the UK, and possibly in Australia as well. My point is that I see it more as a civil matter (a matter between private parties --- gamblers and bookies or gamblers and players or cricket boards and players) rather than a crime against the state, and it's far from obvious to me why the state should prosecute people who indulge in it.

I think one argument that does bear some merit is that the government is particularly well-equipped to uncover evidence of match-fixing or spot-fixing. It's difficult for gamblers to prove that a no-ball was deliberate, as compared with a police force that is empowered to investigate crime. So suppose we never knew whether match-fixing had occurred, and just debated it endlessly on rsc or other cricket fora. So what? I still don't see a social loss that requires the government to step in.

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:57:07 PM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
> Be that as it may. Australia too draws a distinction between criminal and civil law, as does the UK. From my lay point of view, criminal law relates to crimes against the state, whereas civil law to disputes between private parties. Spot-fixing appears to be a criminal matter in the UK, and possibly in Australia as well. My point is that I see it more as a civil matter (a matter between private parties --- gamblers and bookies or gamblers and players or cricket boards and players) rather than a crime against the state, and it's far from obvious to me why the state should prosecute people who indulge in it.

Why is murder criminal? No crime has been committed against the state. It seems very civil (cough cough, uncivil).
Theft of my $$$, after my house in broken into?

[jzfredricks]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 1:57:07 PM UTC+10, Uday Rajan wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2013 11:25:11 PM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
> > The US is no benchmark, sorry. There you go to prison for 25 years if you
> > carry 10g of coke, but if you admit to laundering $8,000,000,000 of drug
> > cartel money you get half a day's revenue fine.
> Since every country or society has its flaws, that's a strange argumentation device you are employing there.

I was replying to your comment re the US justice system.

> I don't know whether your example is correct or not

Roughly correct, although if Elizabeth Warren gets her way that might change. Go Liz! She's a super star.

[Jayen]

On May 17, 7:58 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:55:59 PM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
> > The spot fixer has helped defraud someone of money. The victims are the other punters and/or the owners/shareholders of the betting companies.
>
> Hmm... is betting legal in India?

No, it isn't - at least not on cricket. Which means that match-fixers
can't be prosecuted, but the party deemed to be the victim in Britain
(the punters) can be.

However, the legal prosecution part shouldn't be taken too seriously.
I read somewhere that the typical punishment for bookies who were
arrested was a fine of Rs. 1000/- or around 19 US dollars. Hardly a
deterrent, when one considers the money at stake.

Regards,
Jayen

[Dechucka]

"Uday Rajan" <uday...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6806cccf-fb0c-4f9a...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 1:17:50 PM UTC-4, Ramapriya wrote:
>
> Jeez. Btw, this gem from former India opener Chetan Chauhan: "Such
> incidents bring bad name to the game and those found indulging in spot-
> fixing should be given life imprisonment". Life imprisonment!!

I'm unsure why it's a criminal matter at all. Despite British law and the
prosecution of Salman Butt, et al., I am far from convinced that there is a
market failure here that requires the government to step in. I have no
trouble with cricketing authorities trying to ban players for match-fixing
(or spot-fixing) or indeed with anyone suing players in civil suits to
recover financial damages from them. I'm not sure why the government should
prosecute a player for this.

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

because others suffer

[Jayen]

Begin Rant

"(My) son would never indulge in ball tampering": Tendulkar's mother

http://www.rediff.co.in/cricket/2001/nov/23sachin.htm

"Harbhajan's mother says he is innocent"

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/TopStories/Harbhajan-s-mother-says-he-is-innocent/Article1-267655.aspx

"My son has been trapped, says Sreesanth's mother"

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/sreesanth-mother-on-allegation-ipl-match-fixing/1/271457.html

Can we just agree that Indian journalists are a bunch of third-rate
incompetent morons? Exactly why do they need to go get a statement
from the cricketer's mother? If a business honcho were to be arrested
and charged with insider trading, is their idea of journalism that
they go get a statement from his mother? What would she say anyway -
"From childhood he's been an unsocial hoodlum and a boil on society's
backside. Please lock him up and throw away the key"?

End Rant

Regards,
Jayen

[CaraMia]

On 5/17/2013 11:12 AM, Jayen wrote:
> On May 17, 7:58 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:55:59 PM UTC+10, jzfredricks wrote:
>>> The spot fixer has helped defraud someone of money. The victims are the other punters and/or the owners/shareholders of the betting companies.
>>
>> Hmm... is betting legal in India?
>
> No, it isn't - at least not on cricket. Which means that match-fixers
> can't be prosecuted, but the party deemed to be the victim in Britain
> (the punters) can be.

The punters in Britain can be prosecuted in India for betting in Britain?

[CaraMia]

The mother's interview wasn't the fun part - it was pretty routine as
you have shown above.

However, I think it's the father's interview which I think Ramapriya was
commenting on. And the brother-in-law (not brother as I wrote in an
earlier post) who said this has been done to wreck Sreesanth's impending
marriage was even funnier.

[Ramapriya]

On May 17, 12:08 pm, CaraMia <c...@mia.com> wrote:
>
> The mother's interview wasn't the fun part - it was pretty routine as
> you have shown above.
>
> However, I think it's the father's interview which I think Ramapriya was
> commenting on. And the brother-in-law (not brother as I wrote in an
> earlier post) who said this has been done to wreck Sreesanth's impending
> marriage was even funnier.

Reminded me a bit about the Boston bombers' Chechen parents and their
interviews. Kasab's folks also maintained that their son was a model
boy.

Jayen has a point - why should the hacks even bother to quiz the kin?
Lack of objectivity aside, even if the chaps are proven guilty, how
are their families either responsible or answerable for it?

Ramapriya

[CaraMia]

On 5/17/2013 1:58 PM, Ramapriya wrote:
> On May 17, 12:08 pm, CaraMia <c...@mia.com> wrote:
>>
>> The mother's interview wasn't the fun part - it was pretty routine as
>> you have shown above.
>>
>> However, I think it's the father's interview which I think Ramapriya was
>> commenting on. And the brother-in-law (not brother as I wrote in an
>> earlier post) who said this has been done to wreck Sreesanth's impending
>> marriage was even funnier.
>
>
> Reminded me a bit about the Boston bombers' Chechen parents and their
> interviews. Kasab's folks also maintained that their son was a model
> boy.
>
> Jayen has a point - why should the hacks even bother to quiz the kin?

Entertainment - which is what the channels are about.

[Tweedle Dee]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 2:16:48 PM UTC+5:30, CaraMia wrote:

>
> > Jayen has a point - why should the hacks even bother to quiz the kin?
>
>
> Entertainment - which is what the channels are about.

Precisely. This is like a substitute to the daily soaps that are lapped up like crazy on TV. The tearful mother, the father with the absurd allegations, which then serve as the starting point for gossip and questions to the Delhi chief, who gives a quotable quote ("Dhoni did not put the towel in Sreesanth's pocket"). What's not to like?

I feel sorry for the rest of the RR team. They've done well in this IPL, regardless of all this stuff. Dravid and the rest of the guys didn't deserve this on the day they were basking in the glow of having made the playoffs (assuming that they're all innocent, of course).

-TD

[Uday Rajan]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 12:12:12 AM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
>
> Why is murder criminal? No crime has been committed against the state. It seems
> very civil (cough cough, uncivil).
> Theft of my $$$, after my house in broken into?

Theft affects ex ante incentives to innovate, which can have a large effect on human welfare. Without a good notion of property rights, Steve Jobs may not have invented the iPhone or Al Gore the internet, and where would we be then! (Not on rsc, presumably).

Murder robs the state of a potential innovator and at a more mundane level a tax-payer, so is IMO a crime against the state. One could argue that some lives are more valuable to the state than others, and I would not dispute that. But it's probably too hard to write statutes that try and make those kinds of distinctions, so we instead have a blanket statute against murder.

But in general with laws I think the degree or scale of the crime should also matter, over and above the underlying principle. We clearly seem to differ on this, but I don't see spot-fixing as a major crime. Cricket is entertainment, along the lines of a reality show on TV. I don't watch any reality shows, but it would hardly surprise me to learn that some of those are scripted rather than spontaneous. Suppose cricket were scripted --- would the human race be that much worse off? Possibly so. I'm not sure about it, though. Can't one script "glorious uncertainties"? Non-reality TV shows do it all the while, some successfully and others less successfully.

[Uday Rajan]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 4:46:48 AM UTC-4, CaraMia wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 1:58 PM, Ramapriya wrote:
>
> > Jayen has a point - why should the hacks even bother to quiz the kin?
>
> Entertainment - which is what the channels are about.

Indeed. And the public wants it too --- even on rsc, we have so many posts about it now (including this one).

[Mohan]

To treat it as a civil case, you would require every bookie to enter into a contract with every sport event organizer. Without a contract, there will be no basis for the bookies to sue the organizers if their sporting event is fixed. Since that would be cumbersome to the betting business, govt has provided a blanket contract covering all sporting events in the form of law against fixing.

In places like India, where betting is illegal, fixing is a crime because you are abetting another crime.

[Uday Rajan]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:37:33 AM UTC-4, Mohan wrote:
> To treat it as a civil case, you would require every bookie to enter into a
> contract with every sport event organizer. Without a contract, there will be
> no basis for the bookies to sue the organizers if their sporting event is
> fixed. Since that would be cumbersome to the betting business, govt has
> provided a blanket contract covering all sporting events in the form of law
> against fixing.

(Good to see your post again, Mohan. Been a while. Hope things are well).

Yes, I can see the logic behind that...it is in general the job of government to protect property rights, because in part that's hard to do using private markets alone. But I don't quite get the specifics when it comes to sports betting. If a bookie manages his books so that he has little at stake in the outcome (which a good bookie is supposed to do anyway), what difference does it make to a bookie whether the outcome is fixed or not? Gamblers and sports fans will be upset if the outcome is fixed, and they can take the fixers to court if they like; gamblers for financial damages and sports fans for emotional damages.

> In places like India, where betting is illegal, fixing is a crime because you
> are abetting another crime.

Of course, by that logic, the law mentioned above abets a crime (betting), and therefore is a crime.

[Mohan]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:15:25 AM UTC+5:30, Uday Rajan wrote:
> (Good to see your post again, Mohan. Been a while. Hope things are well).

Thanks. Yes, things are great. Just that between work, family and my new passion of cycling, haven't had much time for cricket/rsc.

> make to a bookie whether the outcome is fixed or not? Gamblers and sports fans > will be upset if the outcome is fixed, and they can take the fixers to court if > they like; gamblers for financial damages and sports fans for emotional damages.

Perhaps. I guess the only reason then is, as you pointed out earlier, it is tough for gamblers to catch the fixers and without the police actively trying to catch the fixers, betting industry won't survive. Sort of similar to why insider trading is a criminal offense rather than just a civil offense? Individual investors can't monitor every transaction, so you need a regulatory body and in cases of flagrant violations, even the threat of a criminal case. Of course, stock market is much more fundamental to an economy than the betting industry, but I guess whoever framed that law probably thought it is important to protect that industry.

> > In places like India, where betting is illegal, fixing is a crime because you
>
> > are abetting another crime.
>
>
>
> Of course, by that logic, the law mentioned above abets a crime (betting), and therefore is a crime.

The above mentioned law is only in places where betting is legal (England, for example). I don't think you will find any specific law against fixing in India. Here, the fixers can be tried only for dealing with and helping bookies.

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:54:17 PM UTC+10, Mohan wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:15:25 AM UTC+5:30, Uday Rajan wrote:
> > (Good to see your post again, Mohan. Been a while. Hope things are well).
> Thanks. Yes, things are great. Just that between work, family and my new passion of cycling, haven't had much time for cricket/rsc.

Cycling? Excellent sport. Doctor's orders? That's why I got back into it, and I'm loving it. Brisbane has some nice routes, but I'd like to see more. Poor city planning, sadly.

[Unknown]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:54:17 -0700 (PDT), Mohan
<mohandas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:15:25 AM UTC+5:30, Uday Rajan wrote:

>> (Good to see your post again, Mohan. Been a while. Hope things are well).=
>=20
>
>Thanks. Yes, things are great. Just that between work, family and my new pa=

>ssion of cycling, haven't had much time for cricket/rsc.
>

>> make to a bookie whether the outcome is fixed or not? Gamblers and sports=
> fans > will be upset if the outcome is fixed, and they can take the fixers=
> to court if > they like; gamblers for financial damages and sports fans fo=
>r emotional damages.=20
>
>Perhaps. I guess the only reason then is, as you pointed out earlier, it is=
> tough for gamblers to catch the fixers and without the police actively try=
>ing to catch the fixers, betting industry won't survive. Sort of similar to=
> why insider trading is a criminal offense rather than just a civil offense=
>? Individual investors can't monitor every transaction, so you need a regul=
>atory body and in cases of flagrant violations, even the threat of a crimin=
>al case. Of course, stock market is much more fundamental to an economy tha=
>n the betting industry, but I guess whoever framed that law probably though=

>t it is important to protect that industry.
>

>> > In places like India, where betting is illegal, fixing is a crime becau=
>se you=20
>>=20
>> > are abetting another crime.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Of course, by that logic, the law mentioned above abets a crime (betting)=

>, and therefore is a crime.
>

>The above mentioned law is only in places where betting is legal (England, =
>for example). I don't think you will find any specific law against fixing i=
>n India. Here, the fixers can be tried only for dealing with and helping bo=
>okies.

Surely India has laws against fraud and deception??

max.it

[jzfredricks]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 9:17:07 PM UTC+10, unk...@googlegroups.com wrote:
> Surely India has laws against fraud and deception??

You don't read the papers much, do you?

[Gilly's Danda]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 1:37:33 AM UTC-4, Mohan wrote:

<snip>

> To treat it as a civil case, you would require every bookie to enter into a
> contract with every sport event organizer. Without a contract, there will be
> no basis for the bookies to sue the organizers if their sporting event is
> fixed. Since that would be cumbersome to the betting business, govt has

> provided a blanket contract covering all sporting events in the form of law4
> against fixing.

That's not entirely correct. There are civil cases that arise outside the contract sphere. The bookies could theoretically sue the BCCI/ICC in tort - perhaps some theory of misrepresentation or negligent misstatement arising from an implied or express undertaking that the match will be played fairly and by each player to the best of his ability.

But the theory as to why this is criminal is, as you imply, a bit more like that against insider trading or fraud. If each person who's potentially harmed by fixing/insider trading were to bring a case against the perpetrators (a) the cost would be prohibitive; and (b) the potential rewards from bringing cases would be far too small on an individual basis to make it worthwhile for any individual to prosecute. (And, fortunately, the commonwealth countries haven't yet opened the door to the painful spectre of class-action litigation in the same way as they have in the United States.)

But the government does still see some need to regulate and prevent the behaviour in question if at all possible, so the criminal law is intended to serve as a deterrent as much as it is a purely punitive measure. If the state's resources are against you, the hope is that a Raj Rajaratnam or an Azharuddin will think several times about defrauding the market via improper means. Some unknown plaintiff who may or may not bring a case is seen as less of a deterrent.

> In places like India, where betting is illegal, fixing is a crime because
> you are abetting another crime.

Yes, like solicitation when it comes to prostitutes.

<snips>

A

[aditya...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, May 18, 2013 3:45:25 PM UTC-4, Uday Rajan wrote:
>
> Yes, I can see the logic behind that...it is in general the job of government
> to protect property rights, because in part that's hard to do using private
> markets alone. But I don't quite get the specifics when it comes to sports
> betting. If a bookie manages his books so that he has little at stake in the
> outcome (which a good bookie is supposed to do anyway), what difference does
> it make to a bookie whether the outcome is fixed or not?

While there are analogies, a bookie isn't quite like a hedge fund. Lillee and Marsh may bet on 500/1 odds, but not every average Cricket punter will. So not every payout has a complete hedge; some bookies may insist on taking enough bets the other way, but not all are in markets where that will happen.

Moreover, a payout on a big event ("India will reach the semi-finals of the World Cup"; "Tendulkar will score a century") may be hedged with enough people who are betting on Pakistan making the semis instead or SRT getting out for a duck, but spot-fixing gets at the incremental results. How many runs will Sreesanth concede? How many no-balls will the Royals have in their innings? If a bookie *knows* or has reason to know that things are going to one way, he has an incentive to stack the odds in his favour - make it very attractive to bet on Sreesanth giving less than five no-balls when he knows that he'll deliberately give at least ten, or whatever.

> Gamblers and sports
> fans will be upset if the outcome is fixed, and they can take the fixers to
> court if they like; gamblers for financial damages and sports fans for
> emotional damages.

Again, see my other post (and Mohan's very valid points) regarding the limited incentives for individual plaintiffs to go to court. This is especially so in a place like India, where the civil litigation system takes forever to achieve anything. The threat of a CBI investigation with quasi-judicial powers is far more likely to deter (and come to some sort of conclusion) than the courts.

A

[Mohan]

On Sunday, 19 May 2013 12:57:44 UTC+5:30, jzfredricks wrote:
> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:54:17 PM UTC+10, Mohan wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, May 19, 2013 1:15:25 AM UTC+5:30, Uday Rajan wrote:
>
> > > (Good to see your post again, Mohan. Been a while. Hope things are well).
>
> > Thanks. Yes, things are great. Just that between work, family and my new passion of cycling, haven't had much time for cricket/rsc.
>
>
>
> Cycling? Excellent sport. Doctor's orders?

No, for fitness/fun.

[Unknown]

Don't read papers at all, I'm not so keen on creative fiction.

max.it

[amit.ran...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 12:26:33 AM UTC-4, Jayen wrote:
> Delhi Police badly damage the opening attack of Rajasthan Royals as
>
> Sreesanth, Chandila and Chavan were arrested on charges of Spot
>
> Fixing.
>
>
>

> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/cricket/ipl/news/S-Sreesanth-and-two-other-Rajasthan-players-arrested-Reports/articleshow/20080711.cms
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Jayen


Does any one have the sex video of Sreesanth with the escorts? If so, please post a link.

-Amit