why forcing pcb to act is just a 'righteous' move...

there have been calls that cricket fraternity should force pcb to act so that the corrupt players are not let off with mild punishment making the mockery of cricket war against match or spot fixing given the past record of pcb...

well... i don't have issues with other boards forcing pcb to act decisively... but what would penalising three tainted players will achieve...? will cricket become immune to the fixing just by getting rid of three tainted players...?

what about all boards collectively forcing icc to make acsu not only capable enough to act proactively but accountable to such glaring lapses when they were literally caught with their pants down by NOTW...?

a classic example of how acsu function... first they cleared the kamaran's sydneygate test of any suspicion of match fixing but now they are reinvestigating the same test after the NOTW exposé... means either their inquiry into sydney test earlier was shoddy and hurried... or they just want to be seen on working sincerely gauging the prevalent sentiment now...

till we have these customary watch dogs that exists just for the sake of it... that take millions to sleep at work... i am sure we are not far behind from exposing another tainted players of match fixing coz if only stringent actions against the culprits would decidedly serve as the deterrent... we would never see a murder in life...

click to translate »

« back to original...

prem panicker on icc's anti corruption unit functioning...

pp's latest post on his blog smoke signal has this very interesting little passage about how icc anti corruption unit (ACU) function...

Said ICC president and his personally chosen successor are so invested in a ‘zero tolerance’ policy that they agreed to allow the ICC’s anti-corruption unit to monitor the 2009 edition of the IPL. Remember how that came about?

The ICC offered the services of its unit; the BCCI sat on the request for months, taking no action whatsoever. When the news hit the media, the BCCI pushed back, saying the ICC was charging an inordinate sum for its services. It turned out that the ICC’s bill for having its inspectors present at all venues, rigorously covering the games and off-field activities, was $1.2 million — a paltry sum when contrasted with what the BCCI was earning from the IPL. When its ‘exorbitant charge’ excuse began to look threadbare, the BCCI promised to ‘study the issue’ and ‘arrive at a solution’. It finally did — on April 17, 2009, it told the ICC that the Anti-Corruption and Security Unit was welcome to monitor the IPL.

The catch? The BCCI had green-lighted the ACSU late afternoon of the day before the IPL actually kicked off. In other words, by sitting on the proposal for months, the BCCI had effectively ensured that the ACSU would not have the time to deploy its personnel to provide adequate safeguards [typically, the ACSU works on a series or tournament two to three months before the start deadline].

so is it safe to assume that icc's acsu that charges millions for its services... would have deployed it's inspectors two to three months in advance and during the england pakistan 'spot fix' series...?

is that right mr. prem panicker...?

recommended story: hatchet on...

click to translate »

« back to original...