The ICC has promised Prompt and Decisive action against corruption. It has said it has Zero Tolerance of corruption. Just what the public and media want to hear.
Here’s the wiggle room. The players bowling no balls may be considered a lesser crime. The ICC can also be fairly sure that there may be no criminal convictions as the UK authorities may not have a crime. Deliberately bowling a no ball! It’s not something you can bet on legally. The guy the police have taking money is of course in a he said she said if he accuses the players and they can dismiss him as a fantasist. It could quite easily result in no inquiry and no bans.
Here’s what they are not saying they will do. Root out corruption in the game. They have zero tolerance. They will respond swiftly. Translates as they are not looking to get to the bottom of anything as that would require a long and considered response. They will ban one or two scapegoats and leave everyone under suspicion but able to carry on as before.
The correct approach is to say OK it’s happening and encourage people to explain how they became corrupted and who else is. That is not done swiftly.
The more draconian sanction on offer the more people will deny and be less likely to put anyone else in the dock. Even if you do ban someone for life or threaten to that taints them as a whistle blower only doing so to avoid a long ban. It gains nothing but arbitrary justice on the unlucky within that culture.
We should be lift the lid but that could mean finding out that Pakistan and other people’s cricket is corrupted from top to bottom and that is not something as spineless and grasping an organisation like the ICC will contemplate. They banned Cronje for life and let every one else off without a real investigation outside South Africa.
The ICC also have form for conniving results from inquiries. They had Harbhajan Singh bang to rights a couple of years ago. 4 spontaneous and consistent accounts of a racist slur. Singh offered no defense bar denial. 4 weeks later he comes up with a new story that he said something that sounded like a racial slur but in a 3rd language. A New Zealand House Judge threw out the case. The point being it’s hard to imagine any court not convicting in such a case but the ICC wanted beyond reasonable doubt proof. That is going to be impossible and indeed they do not need such indisputable proof or anywhere near it as a civilian body.
I want an end to corruption the ICC want to PR their way through this with slogans. The tougher people sound in this world the weaker they really are it seems.
So I am calling for slow and indecisive action and maximum tolerance. That is the tough stance.