Your last sentence is ridiculous, how by supporting Amir does it imply you are supporting Butt ?
Pretty simple. Two players commit the same crime, one is supported, the other is given more flack because one was seen as more of a puppet master or in control (never proven), and the other was seen as a naive 18 year old.
Both committed the same crime but that doesn't you charge them with the same yardstick as you look at all the whole picture and then make a judgement according to the circumstances - point being you can not label it as a black and white issue.
Actually committing the same crime should be seen with the same yardstick, otherwise there would be a lack of congruence.
Salman Butt had more responsibilities, he was the damn captain and he was encouraging this activity. There was a reason why he got a stiffer sentence - both by the ICC and legally
Once again, for that he got a higher sentence by the ICC, but when it comes to now, they are both on equal playing ground. The offense was the same, the circumstances a tad bit different, but again given Amir's age, Pakistan fought for him, as they thought by the time Butt could play he would be of no use. Responsibility is irrelevant to me when it comes to playing for Pakistan under this rule. I don't condone either of their behaviour, but one cannot say Amir yes, Butt no, as they are arguing justification for them playing. As of now both are on equal ground to play internationally. Choosing not to play is again one's personal preference, but they did the same crime. If someone plans to steal a bank, calls on a friend to join, the friend agrees, they will both be charged relatively the same. The first may get an inducing charge, or solicitation, but most likely both will be charged together with the inchoate offense of conspiracy to commit, and committing. Whoever acts on the thoughts of another are just as guilty as they accepted it. They may be charged slightly different as a result, but in the end, a future employer will see them both as relatively the same, as they should.
However since he has completed his sentence and if he has proven he's good enough (I have major doubts about Tests since he was always average there) then he too can make it back
Agreed. I see no reason why there should be different rules. The ICC handed out their bans, bans are over, now they are no different barring a few semantic differences.
Asif was one of my favourite Test bowlers post 2006 -2010 but I will say the same thing, he too should be judged accordingly and not because you support one means automatically supporting the other.
No, he should be judged on the fact that he is now able to play, and his crime was the same as the other two. If one actually wants to go deeper into Asif, he actually was the one with the least evidence against, which again, I am not arguing. They are all the same to me who have slight differences here and there, but in reality Amir's age was his saving grace. Had he been the same age as the other two, no one would say anything about his sentence being different. If you are old enough to play for Pakistan, you are old enough to be judged by all ICC rules equally.
The sentence by ICC was a subjective one, but the crime was the same one. Being captain and all that was again, ICC making a subjective change, but the crime if looked at specifically was exactly the same.
