Is the likelihood of getting caught while fixing lower than we assume?

[kingusama92]

There was a discussion on piracy (i.e. pirating copyrighted content) a while back which illustrated the chances of getting caught is minimal. The penalities are harsh for those who do but it's so rare people carry on doing it.

This relates back to spot fixing.

It might be the case where 100 players are doing it with the odd one getting caught here and there.

This gives them enough motivation to keep going.

Could this be the case for why players continue to test their luck? It seems quite unlikely the PCB/ICC are 100% on catching perpetrators considering their track record as organizations.

 

[Mamoon]

I believe it is. Spot-fixing is more common than people think, and it's probable that some of the 'clean' players have also done such things at some point. Obviously, you can't throw around names and as long as you don't get caught, you are okay.

That is why I now believe that a life ban is imperative. When players know that one slip-up and their career is literally over, they would be much more wary and careful.

PCB should adopt a zero-tolerance policy and not care what the law says. Juvenile or not, if you are caught, you are done. No player can force the PCB to select him.

This will not work 100% of the time, but it's much better than how the spot-fixing in 2010 was handled.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

it is really naive to think that life-time bans for cricketers will help stop match fixing. because

1. players have been life banned but fixing is still prevalent
2. there is death penalty in many countries but murders are still committed

so no matter how strong the deterrent is, at times the crime continues to happen.

the only possible way to eliminate match fixing from the sport is to track down the final beneficiaries of this trade. the rich and powerful who have the audacity to actually do that and make millions out of it. stop them if you can and the problem will go away. follow the money trail, see the actual beneficiaries, stop them, imprison them, make them poor enough so they can't actually do this stuff and maybe it will help the game remain clean for a small duration.

a life time ban will probably only increase the player payouts or ensure that players who are close to the end of their career will indulge in such practices. or most players will become smarter and avoid the casual pitfalls. a player receiving a diamond necklace as a gift or getting an apartment in dubai for a family member such that money trail is difficult to track or an offshore company are many ways to hide wealth.

 

[Mamoon]

it is really naive to think that life-time bans for cricketers will help stop match fixing. because

1. players have been life banned but fixing is still prevalent
2. there is death penalty in many countries but murders are still committed

so no matter how strong the deterrent is, at times the crime continues to happen.

the only possible way to eliminate match fixing from the sport is to track down the final beneficiaries of this trade. the rich and powerful who have the audacity to actually do that and make millions out of it. stop them if you can and the problem will go away. follow the money trail, see the actual beneficiaries, stop them, imprison them, make them poor enough so they can't actually do this stuff and maybe it will help the game remain clean for a small duration.

a life time ban will probably only increase the player payouts or ensure that players who are close to the end of their career will indulge in such practices. or most players will become smarter and avoid the casual pitfalls. a player receiving a diamond necklace as a gift or getting an apartment in dubai for a family member such that money trail is difficult to track or an offshore company are many ways to hide wealth.

No one has said that. Nothing can 'stop' match-fixing, but lifetime ban will/can certainly have a bigger impact than banning them for x number of years. A lot of risk-averse players will consider the opportunity cost and stay clear from such practices, knowing that one mistake and their career is literally down the drain.

By this logic, we should perhaps let the fixers roam around freely and only give them a small fine because of course, players will still do it no matter how strong the deterrent is.

If not ban them for life, what is the alternative solution? No matter how tight the security measures are, players and bookies will find loopholes, but as long as they know that if they do get caught, they will be banned for life, the chances are that they will not indulge in such practices.

 

[sensible-indian-fan]

I guess only recruiting is the hard part when it comes to spot fixing.

After that, its easy to make deals to play one or two dot balls....or bowl the odd no ball.

Not like phone/social media conversations of players are regulated.

 

[Jin Chacha]

Was watching a Tv show where and analyst made an interesting point about fixing in Pakistan. According to him Pakistani players are less likely to report being approached by bookies than western players because the law enforcement agencies in Pakistan cannot provide them and their extended families the same type of protection that the police of developed countries can. His point was that not all fixing is done out of greed. These mafias wield much more influence in a country like Pakistan and can actually threaten and pressure players into fixing instead of offering money only. He gave the example of the wicket keeper Zulqarnain and that he was physically threatened by the fixers. I dont know how accurate Zulqarnain's story is but this line of thinking doesn't seem too far fetched given the state of our society.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

No one has said that. Nothing can 'stop' match-fixing, but lifetime ban will/can certainly have a bigger impact than banning them for x number of years. A lot of risk-averse players will consider the opportunity cost and stay clear from such practices, knowing that one mistake and their career is literally down the drain.

By this logic, we should perhaps let the fixers roam around freely and only give them a small fine because of course, players will still do it no matter how strong the deterrent is.

If not ban them for life, what is the alternative solution? No matter how tight the security measures are, players and bookies will find loopholes, but as long as they know that if they do get caught, they will be banned for life, the chances are that they will not indulge in such practices.

more than half of my original post is about a bigger deterrent but anyway, here it goes again.

finding the money trails and actually catching the people who are financing such activities and punishing them rather than the pawns only.

in this recent case, there should be proper criminal investigation as who was the person who instigated the fix through interpol if that is required. catch the bookie, follow the leads, get to the source etc. etc. (you know the drill)

ultimately catch that saith, don, politician and make them an example to really enforce a deterrent in the circles who consider themselves above the law.

on the player front, create stronger protocols, and have a consistent policy no matter what it is. a five years ban, a ten, or life-ban doesn't mean much if there are exceptions to players based on their skill and importance to the team.

just assuming that life-bans will fix the fixing situation continues to remain a naive thought. hello kaneria, hello salim malik.

 

[kingusama92]

Spot fixing has definitely thrown a new twist to this.

I remember explanations when the trio fixed. People stated they weren't throwing the match and it was just an odd no ball/dot ball and nothing more.

This is what I fear has started to settle into the average player's mind. They're justifying it with that logic and it's very hard to stop a person in that state unless your surveillance is 100% bang on.

As for the life ban, I have to agree it's the bare minimum as a deterrent and should be implemented. Even if it stops 1-2 players then that's a start.

 

[Mamoon]

more than half of my original post is about a bigger deterrent but anyway, here it goes again.

finding the money trails and actually catching the people who are financing such activities and punishing them rather than the pawns only.

in this recent case, there should be proper criminal investigation as who was the person who instigated the fix through interpol if that is required. catch the bookie, follow the leads, get to the source etc. etc. (you know the drill)

ultimately catch that saith, don, politician and make them an example to really enforce a deterrent in the circles who consider themselves above the law.

on the player front, create stronger protocols, and have a consistent policy no matter what it is. a five years ban, a ten, or life-ban doesn't mean much if there are exceptions to players based on their skill and importance to the team.

just assuming that life-bans will fix the fixing situation continues to remain a naive thought. hello kaneria, hello salim malik.

Once again, no one has said that. The only debate is, is a life ban a bigger deterrent than an x years ban? Yes it is, because it is a bigger punishment.

You are are right about a consistent policy. No more hypocrisy and no more leeway for people like Amir because they were thumb sucking toddlers when they got caught and didn't know what they were getting into, which is completely BS anyway.

Any type of fixing, be it spot or match-fixing, regardless of your age, status, importance to the team etc., should be a life ban. Keep it simple and consistent. It is the only way forward. Even if it decreases the chance of players engaging in spot-fixing by 1%, it will be worth it.

Kaneria and Salim Malik are not the best examples anyway. Kaneria was out of favor with Pakistan when he got caught and didn't have much of an international future anyway, while Salim Malik was at the end of his career and was close to retiring. Same goes for Azharuddin, but he is Indian so he is an irrelevant example anyway, since we speaking from a Pakistani perspective.

The way PCB apologized for Amir throughout the 5 years and the fans hailed him as a fallen hero who is going to come back and redeem himself set a very wrong precedence. It gave the message that if you are a young and talented player, the PCB will bend backwards to accommodate you. Banning him for life would have sent a big message.

Sharjeel at the moment is in a similar situation. He just became a star and is our main opener in Limited Overs, banning him for life would show that PCB is not going to tolerate this nonsense anymore irrespective of your important and value to the team. It will not eliminate match-fixing, but it will have a bigger impact than banning him for 5 years and then welcoming him back like a hero. That much is beyond dispute.

Finding money trails and catching agents, bookies etc. is beyond PCB's jurisdiction and power, but it does have full authority and control over its players and as I said, adopting a zero-tolerance-no-exceptions policy is the only way this situation can be controlled to a certain degree. Once again, no one is suggesting that it is going to eliminate it, because that is not possible.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

[/b]

Once again, no one has said that. The only debate is, is a life ban a bigger deterrent than an x years ban? Yes it is, because it is a bigger punishment.

You are are right about a consistent policy. No more hypocrisy and no more leeway for people like Amir because they were thumb sucking toddlers when they got caught and didn't know what they were getting into, which is completely BS anyway.

Any type of fixing, be it spot or match-fixing, regardless of your age, status, importance to the team etc., should be a life ban. Keep it simple and consistent. It is the only way forward. Even if it decreases the chance of players engaging in spot-fixing by 1%, it will be worth it.

Kaneria and Salim Malik are not the best examples anyway. Kaneria was out of favor with Pakistan when he got caught and didn't have much of an international future anyway, while Salim Malik was at the end of his career and was close to retiring. Same goes for Azharuddin, but he is Indian so he is an irrelevant example anyway, since we speaking from a Pakistani perspective.

The way PCB apologized for Amir throughout the 5 years and the fans hailed him as a fallen hero who is going to come back and redeem himself set a very wrong precedence. It gave the message that if you are a young and talented player, the PCB will bend backwards to accommodate you. Banning him for life would have sent a big message.

Sharjeel at the moment is in a similar situation. He just became a star and is our main opener in Limited Overs, banning him for life would show that PCB is not going to tolerate this nonsense anymore irrespective of your important and value to the team. It will not eliminate match-fixing, but it will have a bigger impact than banning him for 5 years and then welcoming him back like a hero. That much is beyond dispute.

Finding money trails and catching agents, bookies etc. is beyond PCB's jurisdiction and power, but it does have full authority and control over its players and as I said, adopting a zero-tolerance-no-exceptions policy is the only way this situation can be controlled to a certain degree. Once again, no one is suggesting that it is going to eliminate it, because that is not possible.

the crux of my argument is that harsher deterrents only make criminals smarter. educate the pawns, stop the masters and maybe we will have less of this stuff.

more than life bans or anything, i want consistency in punishments and that's about it.

pcb's jurisdictions are restricted and that is why i said that it should involve other organizations including but not limited to interpol. since gambling is illegal in pakistan police and other intelligence agencies already track down betting syndicates (albeit sporadically and with limited success). the government relations department of pcb has to up their game over here.

basically, i am not against your argument, i am only stating that life bans simply aren't going to cause a real dent in this malaise. even a 50% decrease in corruption will be useless if every 10 years one pakistani cricketer would be involved in this and we undergo through the same pain and feelings that we are going right now.

comprehensive actions undertaken by competent individuals to target the real hot spots of match fixing.

also, i do believe that players need to be offered proper security and protection because once they are unable to buy them, the crooks may focus their attention of blackmailing players and whatnot through other means.

 

[Yossarian]

I believe it is. Spot-fixing is more common than people think, and it's probable that some of the 'clean' players have also done such things at some point. Obviously, you can't throw around names and as long as you don't get caught, you are okay.

That is why I now believe that a life ban is imperative. When players know that one slip-up and their career is literally over, they would be much more wary and careful.

PCB should adopt a zero-tolerance policy and not care what the law says. Juvenile or not, if you are caught, you are done. No player can force the PCB to select him.

This will not work 100% of the time, but it's much better than how the spot-fixing in 2010 was handled.

That's the same type of argument used to justify capital punishment (not that I'm completely against it. But that's a separate discussion). And yet, the countries that carry out the death penalty have, by and large, far higher murder rates than those countries that do not have the death penalty. Prime example USA versus European countries. Because the killer knows that the penalty is the same whether he kills one person in a moment of madness or whether he kills many more by trying to evade capture knowing that he'll get the death penalty if caught.

A life-time ban is crickets equivalent of the death penalty.

 

[Junaids]

Exactly!

It would not surprise me if 90% of all international cricketers of the period 1993-99 fixed.

And I am convinced that I could name 2-3 fixers from every "white" national team now.

The point is not that sentencing is too soft. It's that fixers and fixing have enjoyed something somewhere between protection and patronage, and most cricketers know that they can do it with impunity tantamount to immunity.

 

[Yossarian]

Exactly!

It would not surprise me if 90% of all international cricketers of the period 1993-99 fixed.

And I am convinced that I could name 2-3 fixers from every "white" national team now.

The point is not that sentencing is too soft. It's that fixers and fixing have enjoyed something somewhere between protection and patronage, and most cricketers know that they can do it with impunity tantamount to immunity.

I'm convinced that at least one of the recently retired currently playing in the PSL has a dodgy history. If I recall correctly, you even alluded to the fact that his retirement was hastened just so that the powers-that-be could avoid dirty linen being washed in public.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Fixing happens in all sports in all nations. I remember a football match where the player kicked the ball out of play right from the kick off. It was a spot bet for the first throw in.

In cricket it's even more difficult to police, the patterns aren't easy to see. But spot fixing isn't as common as people think, no sane person would put a bet on a dot ball on a certain ball in a certain over, as this is too obvious to be a fix.

 

[Yossarian]

Fixing happens in all sports in all nations. I remember a football match where the player kicked the ball out of play right from the kick off. It was a spot bet for the first throw in.

In cricket it's even more difficult to police, the patterns aren't easy to see. But spot fixing isn't as common as people think, no sane person would put a bet on a dot ball on a certain ball in a certain over, as this is too obvious to be a fix.

My understanding it's more along the lines of spread betting. Scoring less than X number of runs in a particular over (batsman) or (bowler) conceding more than Y number of runs in a paticular over.

 

[Moiza]

Fixing happens in all sports in all nations. I remember a football match where the player kicked the ball out of play right from the kick off. It was a spot bet for the first throw in.

In cricket it's even more difficult to police, the patterns aren't easy to see. But spot fixing isn't as common as people think, no sane person would put a bet on a dot ball on a certain ball in a certain over, as this is too obvious to be a fix.

Bhai sooch hai aap ke.

I have personally been with people in real time as they placed bets over the phone to some guy in Karachi, the bets were exclusively placed on what would happen on the upcoming ball or any specific ball of an upcoming over. This type of betting is extremely common, the people I was with placed bets in thousands but it's understandable for the guys who deal in millions to placed bets of similar amounts. There are other types of bets too which are quite common, as [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] has mentioned that bets are placed on a particular number of runs being scored in an over is also a betable option.

 

[KingKhanWC]

My understanding it's more along the lines of spread betting. Scoring less than X number of runs in a particular over (batsman) or (bowler) conceding more than Y number of runs in a paticular over.

Yes this is very much possible but it's more difficult in cricket to pull off. In football, even though it's a team sport one player has control of the play (ball at feet), he can kick it out of play, shoot, score own goal, or without the ball foul the opposition (yellow or red card) etc.. In cricket while batting or bowling you have to rely on the opponent. So if you have fixed to concede or score 10 runs in an over, you have to rely on the opponent to help you out. I think it would be more a case of scoring <20 before getting out but even this isn't so easy to pull off.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Bhai sooch hai aap ke.

I have personally been with people in real time as they placed bets over the phone to some guy in Karachi, the bets were exclusively placed on what would happen on the upcoming ball or any specific ball of an upcoming over. This type of betting is extremely common, the people I was with placed bets in thousands but it's understandable for the guys who deal in millions to placed bets of similar amounts. There are other types of bets too which are quite common, as [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION] has mentioned that bets are placed on a particular number of runs being scored in an over is also a betable option.

Look im not saying it doesn't happen and you have shown it does, of course I take your word for it. But from a fixing and betting point of view it's not guaranteed to be pulled off. I.e A batsmen is told to not score on the 5th ball of the over, but it could be a no-ball, wide, wicket or even if a forward defence is played the ball could come of the edge and fly away down to the third man boundary for 4. Now if a bookie has paid 2 lakh for one particular ball, he is a brave man to know his fix would come through in the game of cricket. Perhaps they put 10 bets on and if 6 come through, they are still in the black?

 

[Yossarian]

Yes this is very much possible but it's more difficult in cricket to pull off. In football, even though it's a team sport one player has control of the play (ball at feet), he can kick it out of play, shoot, score own goal, or without the ball foul the opposition (yellow or red card) etc.. In cricket while batting or bowling you have to rely on the opponent. So if you have fixed to concede or score 10 runs in an over, you have to rely on the opponent to help you out. I think it would be more a case of scoring <20 before getting out but even this isn't so easy to pull off.

A bowler wouldn't be asked to concede less than a certain number of runs - he'll be asked to conceded more than a minimum number.

And if he's facing a half-decent batsman, that should be easy. A wide or two, a no ball + free hit, a ball that could be whacked to the boundary by even a no. 11 never mind a half-decent batsman, and hey presto, you have 10 - 12 runs conceded in just 2 legal deliveries out of 6, even if the remaining 4 balls were dot balls.

Throw in the factor of the bet involving, say $1,000 for each run scored over and above 5 in that over, and immediately there is a $5,000 to $7,000 return on the bet. Place the same bet with a dozen or so other bookies, and get one or two co-conspirators to make similar bets, and suddenly you're looking at upwards of $200,000 guaranteed winnings. Allowing a $50,000 cut for the bowler still leaves $150,000 in winnings. And that's just with one dodgy bowler, one fixer and a couple of assistants helping to place bets.

Imagine if this was done by a syndicate. A dodgy over bowled by a bowler could be worth many $millions!

 

[Pure Evil]

Fixing happens in all sports in all nations. I remember a football match where the player kicked the ball out of play right from the kick off. It was a spot bet for the first throw in.

In cricket it's even more difficult to police, the patterns aren't easy to see. But spot fixing isn't as common as people think, no sane person would put a bet on a dot ball on a certain ball in a certain over, as this is too obvious to be a fix.

Probably you have never bet before but this is the most common form of betting. And frankly the returns usually are much better than the W/L bets

 

[Pure Evil]

You can specifically bet if there will be a no ball or wide in the current or next over. The odds on these usually on a test match are much better than the rest. If you are a bookie and if you can influence 10 such balls in a match you easily make a lot of money

 

[jazbati]

This makes you think was it the first time these guys were spot fixing? or have they done it before and got away with it? These guys played in the Asia Cup, WC T20, Eng and Aus Tour so makes me wonder if they were involved before as well. Same goes with the trio case earlier.

 

[itsme]

Fixing is far more common than what people think,especially spot fixing who is relatively easy to do.
And this isn't just in cricket,it's in every sport.

 

[JaDed]

Dont know but Im not sure but feel my mind is conditioned to think these things happen often in UAE.

 

[Mamoon]

the crux of my argument is that harsher deterrents only make criminals smarter. educate the pawns, stop the masters and maybe we will have less of this stuff.

more than life bans or anything, i want consistency in punishments and that's about it.

pcb's jurisdictions are restricted and that is why i said that it should involve other organizations including but not limited to interpol. since gambling is illegal in pakistan police and other intelligence agencies already track down betting syndicates (albeit sporadically and with limited success). the government relations department of pcb has to up their game over here.

basically, i am not against your argument, i am only stating that life bans simply aren't going to cause a real dent in this malaise. even a 50% decrease in corruption will be useless if every 10 years one pakistani cricketer would be involved in this and we undergo through the same pain and feelings that we are going right now.

comprehensive actions undertaken by competent individuals to target the real hot spots of match fixing.

also, i do believe that players need to be offered proper security and protection because once they are unable to buy them, the crooks may focus their attention of blackmailing players and whatnot through other means.

You want to kill the source of this corruption, which is well and good, but it is unfortunately not practical or possible. The only thing PCB can do is to deal with its players more strictly.

Your solution seems to be that we should do nothing because no matter what we do, these things will continue to happen. Unfortunately that is not a solution at all.

 

[Mamoon]

That's the same type of argument used to justify capital punishment (not that I'm completely against it. But that's a separate discussion). And yet, the countries that carry out the death penalty have, by and large, far higher murder rates than those countries that do not have the death penalty. Prime example USA versus European countries. Because the killer knows that the penalty is the same whether he kills one person in a moment of madness or whether he kills many more by trying to evade capture knowing that he'll get the death penalty if caught.

A life-time ban is crickets equivalent of the death penalty.

Firstly, banning a cricket for line is not equivalent to a death penalty. Yes it is the harshest punishment a cricketer can have (which is probably the reason for your analogy), but the player is still allowed to integrate in the society and even play domestic cricket (if we ban them for life from international cricket only).

Similarly, in most cases, an employee is not re-hired by an organization if he commits a crime that destroys the integrity of his job, the trust of his employers and all the stakeholders in the organization. Similarly, a cricketer who is involved in match-fixing should not be allowed to play international cricket. This is particularly important if the player is centrally contracted with the cricket board, because then he becomes directly responsible for maintaining the integrity and abiding by the rules.

The problem with banning players for x number of years is that it is arbitrary in nature. For example, why was Amir banned for 5 years? Yes he got leeway because he was a thumb-sucking toddler who didn't know what he was getting into, but what was the significance of 5 years? Why not 4? Why not 6? Why not 3?

Looking at each case individually and looking at ways that the punishment can be reduced is exactly what should not happen from now onwards. PCB were very protective of Amir and continuously tried to accelerate his comeback. That should not happen anymore.

Young or old, good player or mediocre player. Vital part of the team or not, you get caught for fixing, you can no longer play under any competition that is within PCB's jurisdiction. This in my opinion, should be the only way forward and judging by the comments of Shahryar and Sethi, it seems like if the evidence is conclusive enough, Sharjeel and Latif will be banned from international cricket for life.

 

[GoUgandaCranes]

You want to kill the source of this corruption, which is well and good, but it is unfortunately not practical or possible. The only thing PCB can do is to deal with its players more strictly.

Your solution seems to be that we should do nothing because no matter what we do, these things will continue to happen. Unfortunately that is not a solution at all.

i do not know how you have deduced this from whatever i said but sure mamoon

life ban penalty or whatever you say

 

[Zahid87]

There was a discussion on piracy (i.e. pirating copyrighted content) a while back which illustrated the chances of getting caught is minimal. The penalities are harsh for those who do but it's so rare people carry on doing it.

This relates back to spot fixing.

It might be the case where 100 players are doing it with the odd one getting caught here and there.

This gives them enough motivation to keep going.

Could this be the case for why players continue to test their luck? It seems quite unlikely the PCB/ICC are 100% on catching perpetrators considering their track record as organizations.

For what its worth, speaking to a few people who have a better idea of how this whole thing works, this is what they believe to be the case.

Spot fixing is widespread, and often the actions are so seemingly insignificant that it is difficult to pin point in happening during the game. Players from every team, and every country have done it. Its just a question of getting caught, but as it is so common, even involving administers/selectors in certain countries/teams, no one fears getting caught.

Before anyone jumps at me, I am just passing on the opinion of people more clued in on this matter than most on this forum - I am an optimist who has watched cricket since I was 6 years old, so I guess I chose to ignore it, and hope its not true.