The Rediff interview/ Asif Iqbal

I would request that the following letter may kindly be published in the appropriate Letters section or that the points mentioned below may be given due coverage in an appropriate column. Berry did not speak to me when he did his article but has asked me to clear my name. That I am doing now and feel that in view of his challenge, it would be unfair if I was denied the opportunity.

(Asif Iqbal)

Dear Sir,
I write to protest strongly at the one-sided and biased article 'Onus on Iqbal to clear his name' by your cricket correspondent Scyld Berry. Statement have been twisted by Berry to suit his own line, which has nothing to do with the facts. I think this is both unethical and unprofessional and my misgivings are based on the following grounds:

1.Berry did not speak to me while doing the article although I live in the UK, I would think that is a violation of fundamental journalistic practise.

2.He mentioned the Salim Malik tapes story of the News of the World stating that I did not deny the existence of the tapes and now, after a lapse of one year, has decided to quote the press release I send him then, which at that time he did not even acknowledge. My statement says that I am no part of Malik's statement which is a third person speaking about me without any collaboration. I had mentioned that subsequently, The News of the World sent a mole duly wired who made a proposition to me and I told him that he had come to the wrong man and that I did not want to know about it. The transcript of that conversation is with me, the ICC and the Pakistan Cricket Board and I refuse to believe that Berry is unaware of it. He has chosen to ignore that because it gives a picture opposite to the one ha has so painstakingly tried to paint, irrespective of the facts. I do not think such one-sided coverage is what any serious publication of repute should be encouraging. I may also add here that I believe the tapes with Berry refer to carry allegations by Malik of having paid huge sums of money to certain other cricketers. But Berry has chosen to ignore that much more serious charge.

3.He has mentioned a 'confidential' Emirates Cricket Board inquiry. It mey be of Interest to him that thus far the inquiry committee has not even spoken to me.

4.He has mentioned the incident of the loss in Calcutta in the 1980-81 serious. He quotes Vishwanath as saying: "I flicked the coin as the home captain. I saw the coin roll and Asif said: you've won the toss." The (false) impression conveyed is that I picked up the coin while it was rolling and told Vishwanath that he had won the toss. Vishwanath has laughed at the suggestion and said that of course, I picked up the coin after it had come to rest and told Vishwanath that he had won, which was truth, Vishwanath has also reconfirmed to a Pakistani journalist, Mr Shahed Sadullah of Jang Publications in London, that that was what happened and that he does not have, nor has ever had, any misgivings about the incident. I also find it odd, to say the least, that while Berry spoke to Vishwanath in Bangalore, India, he chose not to speak to me in Petts Wood, Kent.

5.Berry states that I declined to give evidence to the Qayyum inquiry, stating that I could not make myself available on the required date but that I would be available later. I had written to the inquiry commission that I would be available in about three weeks time after fulfilling my commitments to the CBFS and Asian Test Championships. Berry has omitted to mention that the inquiry committee never got back to me and therefore his conclusion that I 'declined' to give evidence is false.

6.While discussing the role of the cricketing ambassadors with reference to Sir Paul's comment that the ICC may like to re-examine the list, Berry has quoted Mr Ehsan Mani Chairman of the ICC finance committee as saying that the people at the ICC meeting will want to know to want who the suspected ambassadors are. Since the article is about me, the obvious inference is that the reference by Mr Mani is to me. Mr Mani has confirmed that his discussions with Berry on the subject were entirely is general terms and no specific names were taken. He has also confirmed that my name was never mentioned during the entire conversation. The insertion of a general conversation to support a specific contention, is, in my view, plainly wrong.

7.Berry's heading for his piece 'Onus on Iqbal to clear his name' reflects the concept that I am guilty unless I prove myself to be innocent. The 'Onus' has been put on me only by Berry, not by the Emirates Cricket Board, the ICC, the ACU, the Pakistan Cricket Board or any other cricketing organization that I know of. Other players against whom even more grave charges have been laid of having actually accepted payments, have not been placed under a similar onus by anyone, including Berry.

8.The Condon report mentions 'neutral venues' as being more vulnerable to match fixing and in this regard, Sharjah, along with Toronto and Singapore have been mentioned. There is nothing in the published report to suggest that any of this has anything whatsoever to do with me. Of the 54 matches under suspicion in the Condon report, there are more matches in England than in Sharjah under question.

9.Of the many individuals whose name have been mentioned in what has been a journalistic free for all indulged in by practicioners of the sort that Berry obviously belongs to, I know of no one except myself who has written to the ICC/ACU offering to help their inquiries in any way possible. This communication was made by me to the ICC more than a year ago.

Signed
Asif Iqbal

Back to the interview

Interviews

Mail Cricket Editor