I have been profoundly surprised by the oversimplification of the debate in recent days, and by the consistent failure to ask the questions that have to be answered in order to formulate a coherent response.
The relevant questions are:
1. What actually happened in 2010 with Salman Butt, Kamran Akmal and Wahab Riaz?
2. What punishment did the ICC pass?
3. If that punishment is to be varied, what are the grounds for doing so?
4. What have the teams that Pakistan plays against done in terms of investigating and punishing their own alleged offenders?
QUESTION 1: What actually happened in 2010 in terms of Pakistan and fixing?
I will answer this solely by relying upon the ICC report which convicted Amir, Asif, Butt and their erstwhile agent Mazhar Majeed, and by the evidence given by prosecuting counsel in the court case which convicted them.
1. There were accusations that other members of the team had thrown 2 Test matches in Sri Lanka the previous year.
2. Mazhar Majeed gave evidence that players in the Pakistan team - but NOT Akmal, Amir, Asif or Butt - had taken bribes from him to lose the Sydney Test in January 2010.
3. The prosecution produced evidence in court that there were two fixing rings in the Pakistan dressing room in 2010, fixing matches, not no-balls, and that Amir, Akmal, Butt and Wahab were not part of either fixing group.
4. The prosecution alleged in particular that ODIs had been fixed in the West Indies 4 months earlier, but that it was outside the scope of a British criminal case so they had not interviewed any of the players about this.
5. The prosecution was clear that the News of the World video of Mazhar Majeed boasting about fixing was the basis of its case. The News of the World approached Majeed and asked him to get Asif and Amir - the only two famous players in the team - to bowl no-balls on demand to prove that he could control the players for a future match fix.
6. There was never any suggestion that the 3 no-balls were for betting purposes - they were ordered by the News of the World for the purpose of exposing corruption.
7. Amir and Butt readily accepted the fix. Asif repeatedly refused and in the end bowled one unpaid no-ball as a favour to the persistent Majeed.
8. Marked banknotes from the News of the World were found in the possession of Amir and Butt, but not Asif.
9. There is no evidence that anyone ever investigated the allegations of two matchfixing cliques in the Pakistan dressing room. The English Police had no inclination to do so because the NOTW videos of Majeed gave them a clear path to convictions for all parties.
10. It appears to have suited all parties to let the case be closed with the convictions of Asif, Amir and Butt, rather than trying to catch whoever Majeed used to fix the Sydney Test.
QUESTION 2: What punishment did the ICC pass?
The ICC Tribunal was at pains to state that this was not a matchfixing case, that the fixing was a newspaper sting which ordered that certain players be used - the captain and the two most famous players - and that a 5 year sentence was only passed because it was the mandatory fixed sentence.
The ICC report goes further, in section 242, by complaining that this minimum 5 year sentence led it to pass a longer sentence than the offences of Amir, Asif and Butt actually merited.
Section 231, relating exclusively to Salman Butt, explicitly comments upon his leadership skills, and his previous good record, and actually states that it would be a loss TO CRICKET if he should not resume his cricket career. It is extremely clear that the ICC intended for Salman Butt to resume his career once his sentence was served.
QUESTION 3: If the ICC sentence is to be varied (extended), what are the grounds for doing so?
As both the ICC Tribunal and the English court case observed, two fixing groups were in operation in the Pakistan dressing room in 2010 - and Amir and Butt were not members of either. Nobody appears to have ever made any attempt to investigate the real fixers.
It is effectively double jeopardy to add an extrajudicial additional punishment to any person without them being able to defend themselves. I cannot see why it should happen at all, but if it did, surely it should be when there are significant exacerbating aspects to the offence.
The eminent ICC Tribunal found no such exacerbating factors. Actually, it found the reverse - that the minimum sentence of 5 years suspension was excessively harsh for the relatively minor offences which were commissioned by a newspaper, not a fixing ring.
Salman Butt has just been obstructed from becoming a selector 13 years after he started a ten year suspension of which 5 years were suspended. (Which means that he was banned for 5 years and had to behave well for 5 more years, which he did.)
Compare this with the cases of the former England and Australia Chairmen of Selectors David Graveney and Trevor Hohns.
Both Graveney and Hohns had been banned from international cricket for violating the Commonwealth's Gleneagles Agreement by participating in Rebel Tours to Apartheid South Africa. At the fall of Apartheid we learned what was common knowledge all along - they were paid by the Apartheid government, using money which should have been spent on the Black population which suffered from minimal investment in healthcare, education and anything else.
Graveney and Hohns both profited at the expense of impoverished South Africans who died prematurely because of their taking resources from them. Their offences are clearly vastly more serious than those of Salman Butt, yet nobody bats an eyelid at their being promoted to chair their national selection panels.
QUESTION 4: How do other countries manage such situations?
Pakistan seems to have a weirdly puritanical approach to cricketing crime and punishment.
Does anybody seriously believe that Mark Waugh and Shane Warne simply gave weather descriptions to the Indian bookie they met with? Does anyone believe that Shane Warne took a thiazide diuretic to make his double chin look smaller?
More to the point, Pakistan is about to encounter an Australian bowling attack of Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins and Lyon. I wrote a match report from Durban on PakPassion in 2018 - two Tests before the team was caught ball-tampering - in which I effectively accused them of ball-tampering. But Cricket Australia was going to really struggle commercially for years if it had to ban its entire bowling attack which had been bowling the doctored balls. Cricket Australia ended up electing to set Terms of Reference for its investigation which started only at the lunch break on the day in question when Cameron Bancroft was caught with sandpaper in Cape Town.
Australia's bowlers have never been formally questioned about any tampering which took place prior to the Cape Town Test, and indeed they were only ever asked formally if tampering was discussed with them on that day. They have gone on to win the Ashes twice and the World Test Championship and the 50 over World Cup.
The spotfixing debate in Pakistan gets dumbed down to "they sold their country", with no attempt being made to get to the bottom of who was actually fixing matches. Meanwhile other countries appoint selectors who did much worse things, and deliberately craft toothless investigations so that they can continue to pick their strongest teams.
The relevant questions are:
1. What actually happened in 2010 with Salman Butt, Kamran Akmal and Wahab Riaz?
2. What punishment did the ICC pass?
3. If that punishment is to be varied, what are the grounds for doing so?
4. What have the teams that Pakistan plays against done in terms of investigating and punishing their own alleged offenders?
QUESTION 1: What actually happened in 2010 in terms of Pakistan and fixing?
I will answer this solely by relying upon the ICC report which convicted Amir, Asif, Butt and their erstwhile agent Mazhar Majeed, and by the evidence given by prosecuting counsel in the court case which convicted them.
1. There were accusations that other members of the team had thrown 2 Test matches in Sri Lanka the previous year.
2. Mazhar Majeed gave evidence that players in the Pakistan team - but NOT Akmal, Amir, Asif or Butt - had taken bribes from him to lose the Sydney Test in January 2010.
3. The prosecution produced evidence in court that there were two fixing rings in the Pakistan dressing room in 2010, fixing matches, not no-balls, and that Amir, Akmal, Butt and Wahab were not part of either fixing group.
4. The prosecution alleged in particular that ODIs had been fixed in the West Indies 4 months earlier, but that it was outside the scope of a British criminal case so they had not interviewed any of the players about this.
5. The prosecution was clear that the News of the World video of Mazhar Majeed boasting about fixing was the basis of its case. The News of the World approached Majeed and asked him to get Asif and Amir - the only two famous players in the team - to bowl no-balls on demand to prove that he could control the players for a future match fix.
6. There was never any suggestion that the 3 no-balls were for betting purposes - they were ordered by the News of the World for the purpose of exposing corruption.
7. Amir and Butt readily accepted the fix. Asif repeatedly refused and in the end bowled one unpaid no-ball as a favour to the persistent Majeed.
8. Marked banknotes from the News of the World were found in the possession of Amir and Butt, but not Asif.
9. There is no evidence that anyone ever investigated the allegations of two matchfixing cliques in the Pakistan dressing room. The English Police had no inclination to do so because the NOTW videos of Majeed gave them a clear path to convictions for all parties.
10. It appears to have suited all parties to let the case be closed with the convictions of Asif, Amir and Butt, rather than trying to catch whoever Majeed used to fix the Sydney Test.
QUESTION 2: What punishment did the ICC pass?
The ICC Tribunal was at pains to state that this was not a matchfixing case, that the fixing was a newspaper sting which ordered that certain players be used - the captain and the two most famous players - and that a 5 year sentence was only passed because it was the mandatory fixed sentence.
The ICC report goes further, in section 242, by complaining that this minimum 5 year sentence led it to pass a longer sentence than the offences of Amir, Asif and Butt actually merited.
Section 231, relating exclusively to Salman Butt, explicitly comments upon his leadership skills, and his previous good record, and actually states that it would be a loss TO CRICKET if he should not resume his cricket career. It is extremely clear that the ICC intended for Salman Butt to resume his career once his sentence was served.
QUESTION 3: If the ICC sentence is to be varied (extended), what are the grounds for doing so?
As both the ICC Tribunal and the English court case observed, two fixing groups were in operation in the Pakistan dressing room in 2010 - and Amir and Butt were not members of either. Nobody appears to have ever made any attempt to investigate the real fixers.
It is effectively double jeopardy to add an extrajudicial additional punishment to any person without them being able to defend themselves. I cannot see why it should happen at all, but if it did, surely it should be when there are significant exacerbating aspects to the offence.
The eminent ICC Tribunal found no such exacerbating factors. Actually, it found the reverse - that the minimum sentence of 5 years suspension was excessively harsh for the relatively minor offences which were commissioned by a newspaper, not a fixing ring.
Salman Butt has just been obstructed from becoming a selector 13 years after he started a ten year suspension of which 5 years were suspended. (Which means that he was banned for 5 years and had to behave well for 5 more years, which he did.)
Compare this with the cases of the former England and Australia Chairmen of Selectors David Graveney and Trevor Hohns.
Both Graveney and Hohns had been banned from international cricket for violating the Commonwealth's Gleneagles Agreement by participating in Rebel Tours to Apartheid South Africa. At the fall of Apartheid we learned what was common knowledge all along - they were paid by the Apartheid government, using money which should have been spent on the Black population which suffered from minimal investment in healthcare, education and anything else.
Graveney and Hohns both profited at the expense of impoverished South Africans who died prematurely because of their taking resources from them. Their offences are clearly vastly more serious than those of Salman Butt, yet nobody bats an eyelid at their being promoted to chair their national selection panels.
QUESTION 4: How do other countries manage such situations?
Pakistan seems to have a weirdly puritanical approach to cricketing crime and punishment.
Does anybody seriously believe that Mark Waugh and Shane Warne simply gave weather descriptions to the Indian bookie they met with? Does anyone believe that Shane Warne took a thiazide diuretic to make his double chin look smaller?
More to the point, Pakistan is about to encounter an Australian bowling attack of Starc, Hazlewood, Cummins and Lyon. I wrote a match report from Durban on PakPassion in 2018 - two Tests before the team was caught ball-tampering - in which I effectively accused them of ball-tampering. But Cricket Australia was going to really struggle commercially for years if it had to ban its entire bowling attack which had been bowling the doctored balls. Cricket Australia ended up electing to set Terms of Reference for its investigation which started only at the lunch break on the day in question when Cameron Bancroft was caught with sandpaper in Cape Town.
Australia's bowlers have never been formally questioned about any tampering which took place prior to the Cape Town Test, and indeed they were only ever asked formally if tampering was discussed with them on that day. They have gone on to win the Ashes twice and the World Test Championship and the 50 over World Cup.
The spotfixing debate in Pakistan gets dumbed down to "they sold their country", with no attempt being made to get to the bottom of who was actually fixing matches. Meanwhile other countries appoint selectors who did much worse things, and deliberately craft toothless investigations so that they can continue to pick their strongest teams.