The frequency with which match-fixing, or its newfangled brother spot-fixing, rears its ugly head, one wonders if this monster is destructible, or whether it shares the attributes of a phoenix. Arguably its greatest victim and perpetrator, Pakistan, had just come out of the shadow of the 2010 spot-fixing scandal, when its showpiece event, the Pakistan Super League (PSL), was marred by the news of involvement of Sharjeel Khan and Khalid Latif in attempting to influence cricket matches on instructions from bookmakers.
Thankfully, one did not have to scour for a silver lining amidst an otherwise grim landscape with prompt steps taken by the Pakistan Cricket Board in suspending the players indefinitely. It signposted the noble intentions of those in charge of the tournament. For once, a strong public stance against corruption was backed by tangible action. Talking the talk and walking the walk, the chairman of PCB’s executive committee and the head of PSL, Najam Sethi, pronounced a zero tolerance policy against corruption.
“The PSL belongs to the people of Pakistan. We have to protect it from corrupt practices that ruin the game. We knew beforehand that some of these corrupt people would try and approach us. We informed each and every player about these things. If even after that some players thought they could get involved then we want to send a message.”
Poor precedent
History is replete with instances of administrators living in denial, brushing aside irrefutable allegations against their own players, or covering their tracks. When three international players were imprisoned for this contemptible cricket crime in 2010, it was thought to be greatest example set by the sport. And it may well have been so, had the three of them not been greeted with garlands upon completion of their respective sentences. But cricket treats its problems like temporary illnesses, notwithstanding the cancerous symptoms.
Ironically, Mohammad Amir returned to Test cricket at the scene of the erstwhile crime, at Lord’s. A poorer precedent, nullifying the consequences of the imprisonments and bans as deterrents, could not have been set. Now, Salman Butt, considered the ring leader of the scandal and Mohammad Asif, who was publicly repentant only as an afterthought despite incontrovertible evidence, also find themselves in the reckoning for a national recall, especially Butt, who scored runs by the dozen in the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy, including hundreds in both innings of the final last year.
If it wasn’t for the leniency shown to Amir, it is probable that Butt and Asif would not have staged a comeback. After all, for the same crime, the culprits could not have been held to completely different standards. An exception was being made on grounds of Amir’s age, supposed naivety and humble upbringing that a misdemeanour of this nature should not have allowed for. It was somehow missed or conveniently forgotten that a few days before he was caught cheating on camera, he had reportedly rejected a county deal, on grounds that required a thorough understanding of money matters. And making that exception meant cricket’s integrity was to be compromised further, with Butt and Asif’s reinsertion, even if only domestically.
Amir’s return was threatening to divide a settled Pakistan team, except the voices of protest were muzzled by buzz words such as education, rehabilitation and reformation. An excerpt from the statement issued by the PCB read, “After serving his sentence the ICC allowed Amir to resume his cricket career at all levels. Nevertheless, PCB insisted on Amir going through a further rehabilitation programme for six months.
“There are a few players and commentators who are opposed to his selection. We are reminding them that even Islam calls for forgiveness in such cases. In the past spot fixers and drug cheats have been permitted re-entry into international arena after serving their sentence. They include Marlon Samuels, Hershelle Gibbs and Tyson Gay (American sprinter).”
Only a fan stricken with amnesia would consider this the first time that cricket, and all its stakeholders, had failed to put its house in order. The sport’s incorrigible knack to self-destruct has repeatedly manifested through its limp attitude towards practices that threaten to erode the faith of the public. The roadblock that impedes concrete action is to normalise these practices, by suggesting that they are rampant in other sports, too. Or resigning to it as an inevitable reality of life. Both are equally powerless approaches to fighting cricket graft.
BCCI’s vehemant denial
Four years ago, when the Indian Premier League suffered a similar ignominy, the initial reaction from the Board of Control for Cricket in India was of vehement denial. The administrators continued to meander in that groove till the Supreme Court, in what was a watershed moment in Indian cricket, took control of the situation. As though falling through a series of trapdoors, muck was discovered at every level of investigation.
While the three Rajasthan Royals players accused of spot-fixing were handed out bans by the BCCI, Gurunath Meiyappan (son in law of the then BCCI president N Srinivasan) and Raj Kundra, who were Chennai Super Kings and RR team officials, were also accused of placing bets and passing on information to bookmakers. However, both were let off the hook by an internal probe conducted by the board. The Bombay High Court then dismissed the probe on a Public Interest Litigation filed by the secretary of the Cricket Association of Bihar, Aditya Verma, which led to the BCCI moving Supreme Court. That’s precisely the moment when the story turned a page, as the BCCI unknowingly dug up its own grave. The cat-and-mouse tussle finally reached a crescendo with an unprecedented step that led to the suspension of both Chennai Super kings and Rajasthan Royals for two years.
But the fact that the matter took more than two years to resolve and, moreover, required the Supreme Court’s intervention because the custodians of the game were either too incompetent or unwilling to clear the mess was disgraceful. In comparison, the PSL can be proud of its handling of a situation that can at best be controlled, through constant vigilance. Perhaps it had the advantage of having learned from its predecessors, but the urgency and transparency on view is a lesson cricket can learn from.