Lifetime bans must be mandatory in effort to keep corruption at bay

THERE will always be MPs who fiddle expenses, journalists who hack phones, policemen who take bribes and sportsmen who fix matches.

That is the reality of the world in which we live – a world in which bad apples can never be eradicated from the basket of life.

What is important, in trying as far as is possible to control possible corruption in cricket, is that the punishment fits the crime.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

And in that respect the game has much to learn if it is to minimise the effect of its own tainted fruit.

Haroon Lorgat’s warning that the scourge of corruption could shift from international to domestic cricket in the wake of the Pakistan spot-fixing scandal is not the real issue.

Lorgat, the outgoing chief executive of the International Cricket Council, believes prison terms handed down to Pakistan players Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir for their part in the bowling of deliberate no-balls during the Lord’s Test of 2010 has led to a tightening of controls at international level and, as such, could tempt cricket’s illegal gambling industry to transfer its attentions to the less-policed pastures of county cricket.

That may be true, although spot-fixing has always been much easier to achieve in low-key county games televised on the Indian sub-continent in any case, as, unlike international matches, they are not played in the presence of anti-corruption officers.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Indeed, it was one such fixture in which Mervyn Westfield, the former Essex pace bowler, agreed to concede a certain number of runs during a Pro40 game against Durham in 2009, which has sparked concerns that more cases could follow.

However, there is nothing to suggest that Westfield – who himself faces jail after becoming the first English cricketer convicted of spot-fixing – was anything more than an isolated bad apple.

And the most pressing problem is not whether more county games could be targeted but whether the sport deals effectively with those minded to commit such offences in the first place, thereby ensuring adequate deterrents.

In my view, cricket is not doing enough to stamp out this problem.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

One only has to look at the punishments dished out to Butt, Asif and Amir to appreciate that fact.

In addition to jail sentences, the trio received bans from the ICC.

These amounted to just 10 years for Butt (with five suspended), five years for Asif (with two suspended) and five years for Amir.

Theoretically, it means Amir – the youngest of the trio at 19 – could be back playing international cricket in 2016.

And therein lies the root of the problem.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

For when talking of punishments fitting the crime, how are 10-, seven- or five-year bans sending out a message?

It is the cricketing equivalent of a slap on the wrist.

Butt, Asif and Amir committed a cardinal sin.

They cheated not only themselves but the game and its followers.

Surely the only appropriate punishment for spot-fixing or match-fixing of any kind is a life ban?

Yet cricket seems reluctant to impose that sanction as a matter of course.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Furthermore, and in spite of the welcome strides Pakistan have taken to put their house in order since 2010, the punishment should have extended to the team as a whole.

Pakistan – or indeed any country whose players are found guilty of fixing – should also have been banned for a period of years.

That way, players get a clear message that corruption of any sort not only has adverse consequences for them personally, but also the nation for which they play. The stigma attached to cheating would be far greater if it led to one’s country being temporarily suspended from international competition.

It is precisely because spot-fixing is easy to accomplish and difficult to prove that zero-tolerance is absolutely necessary.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Indeed, it was only the investigative prowess of tabloid journalists which uncovered the Pakistan spot-fixing scandal and the diligence of former Essex player Tony Palladino which resulted in Westfield’s conviction.

There were no feathers in the caps for cricket’s administrators.

Yet the game cannot afford to rely on investigative journalists to root out corruption any more than it can rely on cricketers themselves to ‘shop’ their team-mates.

And although the current amnesty which allows players to report any corrupt activity is admirable, it is ultimately futile if not matched by a determination to impose life bans on anyone found guilty of wrongdoing.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

So do not weep for Westfield or grieve for the likes of the impressionable Amir.

Cry instead that cricket’s administrators are sitting on their hands.

For until the message goes out that the likes of Amir will never play again, the feeling persists that fixing – although an incredibly serious offence – is still not serious enough to warrant an automatic life ban.

And that is music to the ears of bad apples everywhere.