- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,523
The life ban verdict of the ECB Disciplinary committee constituted to investigate the allegations that Danish Kaneria “knowingly induced or encouraged” another player to deliberately underperform in exchange for money has undoubtedly sent shock waves throughout the cricketing community. However, in reality, it simply represents yet another failure by the authorities to stamp out corruption from the gentleman’s game.
Whilst many observers of the game may have only started to pay attention to this menace as a result of the events of the Summer of 2010 when a tabloid newspaper in the UK exposed corrupt dealings involving 3 of Pakistan’s top cricketers, the fact remains that “fixing” within cricket games had been identified as a serious challenge to the future of the game as far back as a decade ago.
Convicted in court and disgraced by the ICC, Ex Pakistan Captain Salman Butt’s latest protestations of innocence may well gain popularity in the airwaves in 2012 but he is not the first to be accused or condemned in this manner. Salman Butt thus finds himself in the company of other notorious “hall of famers”, consisting of some well known names such as the late South African Captain Hansje Cronje or closer to home, the Ex Pakistani Captain Saleem Malik.
Fortunately, the fight against corruption in Cricket has not always been a losing proposition. Whereas whistleblowers and sting operations may have made the news, other institutional attempts at eradication of the evil of corruption in cricket have and continue to do their bit.
The ICCs ASCU is one example of such an organization but the one that made headlines in its day for its bold approach to facing this once taboo subject was a one man judicial commission headed by Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum. Tasked with a difficult remit to probe and unmask instances of “match fixing” and to identify its perpetrators, the commission began its work in 1998 and took nearly 2 years to reach its conclusions. During this period, over 55 witnesses recorded their testimony including some famous players and journalists. The commission delivered its finding in April 2000 to the then Chairman of Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), General Tauqir Zia.
The commission’s findings were to prove an eye opener for those who had hitherto ignored allegations of corruption in Cricket as a “nasty” rumour used to undermine Pakistan’s progress in the world of cricket. For the first time, Pakistani cricketers were put to the sword for their conduct and the world of cricket shown that Pakistan could recognize and take care of corruption on its own. Salim Malik was found guilty of “match” fixing and banned for life. Other major names of Pakistan cricket handed hefty fines and some damning written indictments including recommendations to remove them from all forms of cricket.
Gen. Tauqir Zia’s name, thus, became forever associated with The Qayyum report as he was presented with the unenviable task of implementing its many findings – some of which were politically contentious. History and historians may well judge him differently, but speaking in an exclusive interview with PakPassion.net, the Ex Chairman of PCB defended his actions in response to The Qayyum Report and credited his tenure with the near eradication of the “match” fixing phenomena from Pakistani cricket.
Given the gravity of the recommendations made by the commission, it has always troubled observers of Pakistani cricket as to why no firm actions were taken to implement these during Zia’s tenure as Chairman. In his defence, Zia stated the lack of “bench strength” as the prime reason for the delay
“The first time I thought of removing the players was when I initially took over and when there was the Qayyum Commission Report. I took over in December 1999 and the Qayyum Report came to me in April-May 2000. So I had just spent about 4-5 months by then. When I looked at the report, I thought of removing the offending players from Pakistan cricket. I went to the President of Pakistan to say “look, I do not know much about Pakistan cricket because I’ve just worked there for three or four months. If you ask me, I’d like to get rid of all these characters.” The practical man that he was, he asked ‘do you have the backup squad?’ At that time, I didn’t have a backup squad so most of them were called straight back. But since there was also only suspicion on some of those players, they were not proven. “
The publication of the Qayyum report, as commendable as it seemed, was a step in the right direction but it was by no means an end to itself. The Report demanded action to protect the future of Pakistani cricket, specifically stating “To suggest measures to avoid any future incidence”. Surely, if the recommendations of the report had been followed to the letter and its spirit respected by the administrators of the game then the future of the game was undeniably in safe hands. Almost a decade later, this utopian notion was blown to bits when video evidence of Pakistani cricketers accepting bribes were flashed around on TV screens around the world. ECBs verdict on Kaneria further emphasised the lack of progress almost 12 years after the publication of the Qayyum Report.
In retrospect, it could be argued that harsher punishments for players named in the Report could have set the right precedents for all future generations of Pakistani cricketers. For his part, Gen. Tauqir Zia does not accept that his administration was lax in its implementation of the Commission’s findings. He argued that the menace of “match” fixing as identified by the Report had been dealt with effectively by his regime and the current nature of corruption (spot/fancy fixing) was a newer challenge requiring a different approach by the authorities
Tauqir added “There are two things about it. Firstly, there was only suspicion – there was nothing concrete about any player. All the recommendations and leniency were shown by the commission, not by the cricket board. The fact is that 100 per cent of the recommendations of the Qayyum Commission – I would say 99.9 per cent – were implemented. One recommendation that was not implemented was that they had suggested that at least three people should visit with the team and look after the security aspect. At that particular point in time, the ICC had already made the anti-corruption unit with Lord Condon as their boss, so there was no point in getting on with it. Therefore, hundred per cent of the recommendations were implemented.
Secondly, as far as 2010 is concerned, do you know the difference between 1994/5? Match fixing, sport fixing and fancy fixing. Today, I do not think you really have many examples of match-fixing but you do have examples of spot-fixing or fancy fixing. So Amir, Asif and Salman Butt are actually involved in fancy fixing and not in match-fixing. If an agreed no-ball results in a loss, then that is a separate point.
I personally feel that its difficult to control "fancy fixing", but if you educate your boys and have proper monitoring and supervision, we can reduce it quite a bit.”
Whilst many observers of the game may have only started to pay attention to this menace as a result of the events of the Summer of 2010 when a tabloid newspaper in the UK exposed corrupt dealings involving 3 of Pakistan’s top cricketers, the fact remains that “fixing” within cricket games had been identified as a serious challenge to the future of the game as far back as a decade ago.
Convicted in court and disgraced by the ICC, Ex Pakistan Captain Salman Butt’s latest protestations of innocence may well gain popularity in the airwaves in 2012 but he is not the first to be accused or condemned in this manner. Salman Butt thus finds himself in the company of other notorious “hall of famers”, consisting of some well known names such as the late South African Captain Hansje Cronje or closer to home, the Ex Pakistani Captain Saleem Malik.
Fortunately, the fight against corruption in Cricket has not always been a losing proposition. Whereas whistleblowers and sting operations may have made the news, other institutional attempts at eradication of the evil of corruption in cricket have and continue to do their bit.
The ICCs ASCU is one example of such an organization but the one that made headlines in its day for its bold approach to facing this once taboo subject was a one man judicial commission headed by Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum. Tasked with a difficult remit to probe and unmask instances of “match fixing” and to identify its perpetrators, the commission began its work in 1998 and took nearly 2 years to reach its conclusions. During this period, over 55 witnesses recorded their testimony including some famous players and journalists. The commission delivered its finding in April 2000 to the then Chairman of Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), General Tauqir Zia.
The commission’s findings were to prove an eye opener for those who had hitherto ignored allegations of corruption in Cricket as a “nasty” rumour used to undermine Pakistan’s progress in the world of cricket. For the first time, Pakistani cricketers were put to the sword for their conduct and the world of cricket shown that Pakistan could recognize and take care of corruption on its own. Salim Malik was found guilty of “match” fixing and banned for life. Other major names of Pakistan cricket handed hefty fines and some damning written indictments including recommendations to remove them from all forms of cricket.
Gen. Tauqir Zia’s name, thus, became forever associated with The Qayyum report as he was presented with the unenviable task of implementing its many findings – some of which were politically contentious. History and historians may well judge him differently, but speaking in an exclusive interview with PakPassion.net, the Ex Chairman of PCB defended his actions in response to The Qayyum Report and credited his tenure with the near eradication of the “match” fixing phenomena from Pakistani cricket.
Given the gravity of the recommendations made by the commission, it has always troubled observers of Pakistani cricket as to why no firm actions were taken to implement these during Zia’s tenure as Chairman. In his defence, Zia stated the lack of “bench strength” as the prime reason for the delay
“The first time I thought of removing the players was when I initially took over and when there was the Qayyum Commission Report. I took over in December 1999 and the Qayyum Report came to me in April-May 2000. So I had just spent about 4-5 months by then. When I looked at the report, I thought of removing the offending players from Pakistan cricket. I went to the President of Pakistan to say “look, I do not know much about Pakistan cricket because I’ve just worked there for three or four months. If you ask me, I’d like to get rid of all these characters.” The practical man that he was, he asked ‘do you have the backup squad?’ At that time, I didn’t have a backup squad so most of them were called straight back. But since there was also only suspicion on some of those players, they were not proven. “
The publication of the Qayyum report, as commendable as it seemed, was a step in the right direction but it was by no means an end to itself. The Report demanded action to protect the future of Pakistani cricket, specifically stating “To suggest measures to avoid any future incidence”. Surely, if the recommendations of the report had been followed to the letter and its spirit respected by the administrators of the game then the future of the game was undeniably in safe hands. Almost a decade later, this utopian notion was blown to bits when video evidence of Pakistani cricketers accepting bribes were flashed around on TV screens around the world. ECBs verdict on Kaneria further emphasised the lack of progress almost 12 years after the publication of the Qayyum Report.
In retrospect, it could be argued that harsher punishments for players named in the Report could have set the right precedents for all future generations of Pakistani cricketers. For his part, Gen. Tauqir Zia does not accept that his administration was lax in its implementation of the Commission’s findings. He argued that the menace of “match” fixing as identified by the Report had been dealt with effectively by his regime and the current nature of corruption (spot/fancy fixing) was a newer challenge requiring a different approach by the authorities
Tauqir added “There are two things about it. Firstly, there was only suspicion – there was nothing concrete about any player. All the recommendations and leniency were shown by the commission, not by the cricket board. The fact is that 100 per cent of the recommendations of the Qayyum Commission – I would say 99.9 per cent – were implemented. One recommendation that was not implemented was that they had suggested that at least three people should visit with the team and look after the security aspect. At that particular point in time, the ICC had already made the anti-corruption unit with Lord Condon as their boss, so there was no point in getting on with it. Therefore, hundred per cent of the recommendations were implemented.
Secondly, as far as 2010 is concerned, do you know the difference between 1994/5? Match fixing, sport fixing and fancy fixing. Today, I do not think you really have many examples of match-fixing but you do have examples of spot-fixing or fancy fixing. So Amir, Asif and Salman Butt are actually involved in fancy fixing and not in match-fixing. If an agreed no-ball results in a loss, then that is a separate point.
I personally feel that its difficult to control "fancy fixing", but if you educate your boys and have proper monitoring and supervision, we can reduce it quite a bit.”
Last edited by a moderator:
Bad days. Azhar was in hot form.
