Trescothik Admits England Cheated in 2005 To Reclaim Ashes
Marlik Samprosa
sensationally confirmed by Marcus Trescothik
The England side used Murray Mints to produce saliva when sucked on that
allowed the ball to keep its shine for longer. Using artificial
measures to shine the ball is illegal according to IOC rules.
Simon Jones out and out lied when Nathan Bracken raised the issue
publically.
What a pathetic way to win a test series.
More here: >
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/story/366150.html?CMP=OTC-RSS
dechucka
"Marlik Samprosa" <mar...@harlin.com> wrote in message
news:sHqsk.550657$I42.2...@fe04.news.easynews.com...
So what it is ancient history. The world was returned to normal after the
last Ashes series. Anyhow it was a fantastic series most enjoyable.
R. Spanditt
It is pretty disappointing to know they were cheating when Jones and
Flintoff bowled all those unplayable balls though.
Watching the DVD of that series won't be the same anymore.
will_s
"Marlik Samprosa" <mar...@harlin.com> wrote in message
news:sHqsk.550657$I42.2...@fe04.news.easynews.com...
hey it made the following 5 to nil series in Oz a hell of a lot more
enjoyable
Marlik Samprosa
http://www.smh.com.au/news/cricket/tresco-reveals-how-poms-cheated-in-the-ashes/2008/08/24/1219516264596.html
All those OBEs and MBEs as a reward for cheating. Makes a mockery of
the Britain's Honours System
Jan Buxton
> What has been widely suspected since that test dseries has now been
> sensationally confirmed by Marcus Trescothik
>
> The England side used Murray Mints to produce saliva when sucked on that
> allowed the ball to keep its shine for longer. Using artificial
> measures to shine the ball is illegal according to IOC rules.
Isn't this very old news? Everyone knows Trescothick sucked mints in
order to shine the ball, and I was sure other England players had openly
talked about it. No?
--
Jan
will_s
"Jan Buxton" <ja...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:AJednWkDw-GZGS_V...@posted.plusnet...
I am not sure that they actually admitted it especially in such black and
white terms.
anyway its ancient history, well until the next Ashes tour
kenh...@hotmail.com
> "Jan Buxton" <j...@eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
I think it's fairly common knowledge that all teams have their own
methods of shining the ball, that's why they designate a person to
specifically look after that.
Higgs
will_s
<kenh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:37633aeb-cf03-4fd5...@a2g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
I remember Keith Miller , well I remember the story that he always ran his
fingers through his hair before shining the ball and in them days they sure
liked using poppy oil :-)
Also have heard that players used zinc cream
Really the only solution is that the players are not allowed to lick / rub
/pickattheseam/pickanypart the ball anytime. To compensate make new ball
available every 50 overs
Luke Curtis
wrote:
It was well know well before 2005, let alone after - at least we
didn't wander down the pitch and scuff up the pitch in the middle of a
bomb scare like Afridi a couple of years ago or claim a blatently
grounded catch like DeVilliers earlier this year...
-
XBox 360 GT: Broton69
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
johnwesley...@gmail.com
Australia. If the only way cricket can become more competitive is
cheating, then I am all for legalizing it - not to mention how much
the game favours the bat in the first place.
Bob Dubery
> What has been widely suspected since that test dseries has now been
> sensationally confirmed by Marcus Trescothik
Cheating? At worst it's exploiting a gray area in the rules. Consider
this. On most days of Test match play the teams are going to go off
field and will eat and drink. Now as the players are human their
saliva must be effected by whatever foodstuffs they take into their
body.
And putting saliva, or sweat, on a ball is not cheating.
So what do we do now? Insist on mandatory saliva content tests - and
require all players to declare all sweeties, gums and any other
foodstuffs in their pockets when they take the field for cross-
checking against a list of ICC-approved comestibles.
Besides, if you think anybody can suck a mint, spit on a ball and then
start bowling reverse-swinging yorkers at high speed then you really
don't know much about bowling.
Dave (SA)
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:06:00 +0100, Jan Buxton <j...@eidosnet.co.uk>
at least we didn't blatantly grounded catch like DeVilliers earlier
this year...
Really?
Michael Vaughn in the same match as I recall
Luke Curtis
..caught a perfectly good catch.
It may have been ruled out (as many are) because of the limitations of
technology but the deVilliars one rolled 6 inches along the ground
before he picked it up again!
johnwesley...@gmail.com
>
> Besides, if you think anybody can suck a mint, spit on a ball and then
> start bowling reverse-swinging yorkers at high speed then you really
> don't know much about bowling.
That is hardly an argument. Same can be said about picking the seam or
deliberately scuffing the ball.
James Farrar
wrote:
>What has been widely suspected since that test dseries has now been
>sensationally confirmed by Marcus Trescothik
>
>The England side used Murray Mints to produce saliva when sucked on that
>allowed the ball to keep its shine for longer. Using artificial
>measures to shine the ball is illegal according to IOC rules.
Law 42.33. The match ball - changing its condition
(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and
that such polishing wastes no time.
Saliva is not an artificial substance.
dechucka
"will_s" <wil...@losbey.com> wrote in message
news:6hfn0eF...@mid.individual.net...
and goodbye the spinners.
The answer is for umpires to make frequent inspections of the ball and if
they suspect it is tampered with award a 5 run penalty and replace the ball.
That should work shouldn't it?
jzfredricks
> at least we didn't blatantly grounded catch like DeVilliers earlier
> this year...
>
> Really?
>
> Michael Vaughn in the same match as I recall
Didn't we have this discussion? IMO anyone who thinks Vaughan's was as
bad DeViles is kidding themselves.
R. Spanditt
Murray Mints are a natural substance then too, are they?
Mango
"dechucka" <dech...@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
news:48b31a1e$0$15388$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Should work beautifully. Whilst I don't have much sympathy for the way
Pakistan behaved when they got caught, I did think it astounding that in a
test match involving England it would be the opposition that got done for
ball tampering.
>
subi...@notmail.com
> "dechucka" <dechu...@vomithotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48b31a1e$0$15388$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "will_s" <wil...@losbey.com> wrote in message
> >news:6hfn0eF...@mid.individual.net...
>
imagine this was a eng-pak test match, and darrell hair was
officiating. what are the odds he would have seen trescothick's spilt
mints, charged england with ball tampering and awarded the match to
pakistan, and the icc would have charged tresco and vaughn for
bringing the game into disrepute? NONE. that is the way the icc works:
players of some countries go scott free for serious offences and
others are punished without evidence.
Rodney Ulyate
Really? How do Murray Mints aid ball-scuffing?
Best,
Rodney Ulyate
Rodney Ulyate
yesterday: "Yes, he got away with it: good luck to him. You can't
change the result of the Test series."
http://content-rsa.cricinfo.com/england/content/story/366225.html?CMP=NLC-DLY
Rather underestimating the value of a few protracted whimpers, that.
Kindest,
Rodney Ulyate
jzfredricks
> Really? How do Murray Mints aid ball-scuffing?
well, the ICC can't test every substance known to man to see how
effective it is.. so isn't it just best to ban ALL artificial
substances?
realising ofc that 'artificial' probably needs defining for the
pedantic wanna-be-cheats
Gerrit
"subi...@notmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c3e21ea-cb24-48d6...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
imagine this was a eng-pak test match, and darrell hair was
officiating. what are the odds he would have seen trescothick's spilt
mints, charged england with ball tampering and awarded the match to
pakistan, and the icc would have charged tresco and vaughn for
bringing the game into disrepute? NONE. that is the way the icc works:
players of some countries go scott free for serious offences and
others are punished without evidence.
Two thoughts here:
1 If Hair had seen that he would not have hesitated to dock England 5 runs.
2 Whether England would have spit :-) the dummy is another matter, so it is
not certain that Hair (and the other umpire) would have been faced with the
English refusing to come out onto the field after tea. If England did std I
have no doubt Hair would have reacted the same way. And Pakistan and the
rest of the Asian block would have lauded him!
Gerrit
"jzfredricks" <jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fed32709-9f4d-41bb...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Maybe as someone else has already said the best thing is ban the application
of anything to the ball except good hard rubbing on trousers. Then we won't
have to worry about a new industry starting up to discover "natural"
substances which give ones side a decided advantage. We will then only have
to worry about players impregnating their crotches with a shining agent.
R. Spanditt
Surely it's obvious enough, isn't it? Anything not natural ie. Sweat,
buggerall else.
It does get a bit hard when you think of oil from your hair or
anything you can wipe through your eyebrows etc. Brett Lee is
regularly wiping the ball on his brow - presumably to use his sweat to
shine it up, but how can he prove that he doesn't have something
through his eyebrows? This one might be impossible to police when it
comes down to it. Either you can use absolutely anything to shine the
ball or nothing at all. Anything in between might be a bit too
contentious
James Farrar
They were not applied to the ball, from what I understand.
Unknown
Glucose syrup, sugar, hydrogenated vegetable fat, molasses, salt,
emulsifier (soya lecithin), flavouring.
arahim
The solution is to use bottled spit only
http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2008/03/shine-on-risiing-star.html
> max.it- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mango
"subi...@notmail.com" <sub...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c3e21ea-cb24-48d6...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
You are reinventing history a bit. Pakistan were penalised 5 runs for ball
tampering, which is the penalty. Their captain was charged (and found
guilty) of bringing the game into disrepute for the petulant act of refusing
to carry on with a game and subsequently forfeiting it. They didn't lose
the game because of ball tampering, it was because they acted like children
and refused to continue the game. If you want av refresher here is what
happended.
1. Umpire believes condition of ball is changed
2. Umpire consults with fellow umpire who agrees
3. Pakistan captain told and five penalty runs awarded.
4. Game continues until next scheduled break
5. Pakistan refuses to continue play unless penalty is withdrawn
6. Pakistan told by both umpires that continued refusal to return to the
field would result in a forfeit being awarded
7. Pakistan refuse to return to the field.
8. Umpires award match to England on forfeit.
9. Pakistan decide they want to continue the match after it is already too
late
10. Pakistan captain found guilty of brinmging the game into disrepute
11. Pakistan cleared of ball tampering
12. One of the umpires suspended from international duties
13. The umpire takes the ICC to court on discrimination charges
14. The discrimination charges withdrawn
15. The suspended umpire returns from international duties
16. The result of the match is changed to a draw.
A pretty sorry episode in cricket history all round.
jzfredricks
> 3. Pakistan captain told and five penalty runs awarded.
> 4. Game continues until next scheduled break
don't forget;
3b. The tampered ball is replaced by one of England's choosing
just for the sake of accuracy
Unknown
<arahim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 26, 1:26=A0pm, (max.it) wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:03:10 +0100, James Farrar
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <james.s.far...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:54:02 -0700 (PDT), "R. Spanditt"
>> ><dnarmstr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Aug 26, 6:34=A0am, James Farrar <james.s.far...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 04:38:48 GMT, Marlik Samprosa <mar...@harlin.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>>
>> >>> >What has been widely suspected since that test dseries has now been
>> >>> >sensationally confirmed by Marcus Trescothik
>>
>> >>> >The England side used Murray Mints to produce saliva when sucked on =
>that
>> >>> >allowed the ball to keep its shine for longer. =A0Using artificial
>> >>> >measures to shine the ball is illegal according to IOC rules.
>>
>> >>> Law 42.33. The match ball - changing its condition
>> >>> (a) Any fielder may
>> >>> (i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used and
>> >>> that such polishing wastes no time.
>>
>> >>> Saliva is not an artificial substance.
>>
>> >>Murray Mints are a natural substance then too, are they?
>>
>> >They were not applied to the ball, from what I understand.
>>
>> Glucose syrup, sugar, hydrogenated vegetable fat, molasses, salt,
>> emulsifier (soya lecithin), flavouring.
>>
>
>The solution is to use bottled spit only
>http://voiceandview.blogspot.com/2008/03/shine-on-risiing-star.html
>
Didn't some team have whites that had a buffing point made from a
different fabric?
Some the items already allowed by law to shine the cricket ball are in
fact artificial anyway.
My idea on the minties is the peppermint oil in the sweet. It would
cause the ball to shine, but it is also very sticky and this would
pick up the dust very quickly , lose the shine and create a false
rough side to the ball - then the ball will reverse swing.
That's not too crazy even by Pakistani standards - is it?
kenh...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't believe Murray Mints were applied to the ball.
My understanding was that saliva (albeit from a mouth previously
sucking on Murray Mints) was the substance used
Higgs
Mango
>don't forget;
I would suppose they would have to make sure it wasn't one that they'd used
previously
R. Spanditt
>
That would be correct, but the mint induced saliva was.
R. Spanditt
Well pointed out, I'm not sure if that makes a difference to the fact
that an artificial substance has been used in the process.
James Farrar
Saliva can be induced by the act of sucking, even if the mouth is
empty.
Rodney Ulyate
> "jzfredricks" <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fed32709-9f4d-41bb...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 26, 4:56 pm, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Really? How do Murray Mints aid ball-scuffing?
> well, the ICC can't test every substance known to man to see how
> effective it is.. so isn't it just best to ban ALL artificial
> substances?
Emphatically not, for it would mean depriving players of almost all
forms of nutrition while and before games are in progress. Murray
Mints are no doubt not alone in aiding swing bowling, an art
mysterious enough without our striving to determine and regulate those
substances which react best with saliva to accentuate it. How, one
feels justified in asking, are Trescothick's mints any less legal than
the contents of the drinks trolley or the luncheon platter?
<snip>
Rodney Ulyate
alvey
> What has been widely suspected since that test dseries has now been
> sensationally confirmed by Marcus Trescothik
And in late breaking (swinging?) news.... Trescothick has handed back his
gong. A spokeslackey from Buckinghuge Castle said that they had to send it
to a jewellers to get the shine back on the correct side.
alvey
alvey
>
> Saliva can be induced by the act of sucking, even if the mouth is
> empty.
Filthy pervert. There's no need to bring that sort of disgusting perversion
into this family newsgroup.
alvey
Michael Banner
news:b09dc589-6594-4c85...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
"How, one
feels justified in asking, are Trescothick's mints any less legal than
the contents of the drinks trolley or the luncheon platter?"
I've never seen a player take their lunch or drinks out on the field with
them and continuosly munch/drink them between deliveries.
I daresay the, um, ball polishing benefits of a murray mint are short lived
due to the natural digestive processes intiated in saliva. Likewise the ball
polishing benefits (if any) of your lunch and drinks. The difference being,
while you are eating your lunch or taking drinks the umpire has possession
of the ball.
dechucka
"alvey" <al...@play.com> wrote in message
news:19x8cbuljcj62.1pfe12m839l0i$.dlg@40tude.net...
why, couldn't the Queen just suck a mint and lick it?
Rodney Ulyate
[...]
> I've never seen a player take their lunch or drinks out on the field with
> them and continuosly munch/drink them between deliveries.
If that's where the problem lies, then why in IVAR's name does no-one
have a problem with chewing gum?
> I daresay the, um, ball polishing benefits of a murray mint are short lived
> due to the natural digestive processes intiated in saliva. Likewise the ball
> polishing benefits (if any) of your lunch and drinks. The difference being,
> while you are eating your lunch or taking drinks the umpire has possession
> of the ball.
Without proof that this makes a difference, however, the only course
of action for those hell-bent on taking it appears to be to prohibit
eating altogether. This tempest in a teacup is laughable even by the
standards of RSC.
Best,
Rodney Ulyate
Rodney Ulyate
Trescothick's confession concerned not the 2005 Ashes which England
won, but rather the 2001 Ashes in which England was mercilessly
sodomised. In the words of Patrick Kidd, "As cheating goes, we suck."
Ever,
Rodney Ulyate
Michael Banner
<snip>
"This tempest in a teacup is laughable even by the
standards of RSC."
Do you think so? It's a storm in a teacup, alright, but pretty much par for
the course...
I still think you are talking bollocks, BTW, but I lack the wherewithal and
care factor to argue further...
Mike Holmans
I agree.
The Laws state that the umpires shall make frequent inspections of the
ball, and if they think it's been deliberately ruined, they award a
five run penalty and change it.
What's irritating is that people will insist on taking this as some
kind of allegation of massive cheating, when its real effect ought to
be that you have to know how far you can "improve" the condition of
the ball without getting penalised.
And why do so many bowlers wear large amounts of zinc cream when there
is no chance of sunshine, I wonder? It's not a fashion in cloudy
England, but the warpaint the southern hemisphere bowlers wear is a
tad excessive at times.
Cheers,
Mike
Phil.
Yes some 'holier than thou' coming from the Antipodes! Also from the
'sub continent' Sambit's piece in cricinfo:
"it would also seem that hastening the deterioration of the ball is a
far greater crime than preserving the shine by artificial means."
Which is pretty much what the Laws say:(a) Any fielder may
(i) polish the ball provided that no artificial substance is used
and that such polishing wastes no time.
(ii) remove mud from the ball under the supervision of the
umpire.
(iii) dry a wet ball on a towel.
(b) It is unfair for anyone to rub the ball on the ground for any
reason, interfere with any of the seams or the surface of the
ball, use any implement, or take any other action whatsoever
which is likely to alter the condition of the ball, except as
permitted in (a) above.
Saliva has long been viewed as an acceptable means for ball polishing
and while one could argue about the use of sweets to produce saliva as
being artificial, it's quite clear that anything else is explicitly
termed 'unfair'.
Gerrit
"Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:1c803751-4102-4847...@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Saliva has long been viewed as an acceptable means for ball polishing
and while one could argue about the use of sweets to produce saliva as
being artificial, it's quite clear that anything else is explicitly
termed 'unfair'.
I have always thought that it is not so much the saliva itself that is the
problem, but what may be mixed in with the saliva.
So usinng something which increases the production of saliva is OK as long
as this does not alter the natural consistency of the saliva.
Any mint adds a sticky substance to saliva which (probably) affects the
aerodynamics of the ball if added to only one side of the ball.
alvey
Filthy pervert.
kenh...@hotmail.com
That's hilarious!
I wonder what the majority of the posters here who made such titys of
themselves will say now
Higgs
Rodney Ulyate
> On Aug 28, 9:11 pm, Rodney Ulyate <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For the record, it emerged yesterday that, contrary to media reports,
> > Trescothick's confession concerned not the 2005 Ashes which England
> > won, but rather the 2001 Ashes in which England was mercilessly
> > sodomised. In the words of Patrick Kidd, "As cheating goes, we suck."
> That's hilarious!
Indeed. And, if anyone is keen to test the veracity of the claim by
purchasing Trescothick's book -- I wouldn't recommend it myself, given
its sales-boosting reliance on this non-story --, I refer you to page
96.
<snip>
Rodney Ulyate
Mango
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:camdb4ljiekelrjj6...@4ax.com...
The sunlight has much more UV in it in Australia than in Europe. Even on
cloudy days you can get severe sunburn if unprotected (its actually more
likely as you don't feel the heat and stay out longer as a result). I could
wander around in Europe and North Africa on very hot sunny days on my recent
trip all day with little sunburn. If I'm out for more than an hour in
Australia my nose starts to blister.
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Andrew Dunford
"Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d2207107-d798-4e92...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
How about you type the whole thing out for us?
Andrew
Rodney Ulyate
> "Rodney Ulyate" <rodney.uly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I would, but I don't have it.
Rodney Ulyate
Andrew Dunford
"Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f86be7f-1f5b-4fa0...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Use your imagination.
Andrew