NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Part II -- a moratorium on cricket

Ever since the storm broke, fans have been writing in saying it is time we stopped playing cricket, and following cricket, until the game is thoroughly cleaned up, and measures are put in place to ensure against a relapse.

There are two issues in here -- one, should we stop playing cricket altogether, as the fans and, recently, Dean Jones in a signed article, insist? Secondly, can we really ensure against thuggery from here on in?

My personal view -- and at the outset, this is just my view, put up here for discussion and debate -- is that there should be a partial moratorium, starting now.

I'd like to see the ICC announce a few measures: One, until further notice, there will be no more one day cricket in non-traditional venues such as Sharjah, Dhaka, Toronto, whatever. Official, ICC-sanctioned cricket between any and all of the nine-Test playing nations can only be held in the respective countries themselves.

Second, there will be no more stand-alone triangulars, even in the Test-playing countries, sponsored by colas and gutkas and soda-makers and all the rest of them.

Instead, Test-playing nations can only schedule one dayers as part of their home or away tours. And even then, there has to be a co-relation to Test cricket. Thus, if you schedule two Tests (as India did recently) against South Africa, then you are permitted to have only two one dayers. If it is a five-Test series, fine, you can have a five ODI series at the end of it, between the same teams.

What this does, first, is ensure that there aren't too many of these meaningless one day tournaments, which make it easy for bookies to get their fingers into the pie, and for cricketers, knowing there is no real value on the outcome, to line their pockets. After all, who among us remembers who won the last Pepsi Cup? Or the last Coca Cola Cup? There have been so many of them, that they have lost all meaning. And when the game loses meaning, it becomes easier for the player to fiddle around. For instance, India and South Africa were initially slated to play three Tests and three ODIs. That was revised to two Tests, so that two more ODIs could be squeezed in to the schedule. And we all know what happened, we all know how serious the South African captain and some of the players were about those matches.

I am not suggesting that scheduling bilateral one dayers as part of a Test series will eradicate the evil of betting and fixing altogether. However, it will be a start in the right direction -- cricket began to get its pristine flannels dirty the day mindless one day extravaganzas proliferated, and stopping that is surely a first step towards a solution?

Now for the question of whether there is any means of ensuring that the game stays clean, from here on. I think yes -- and to make sure that the game gets clean and stays clean, I would take one leaf from the book of Justice Malik Mohammad Quayyum, and one from the world of professional baseball.

Quayyum, in his report, suggested that before the respective teams next play, each player should place on file with their respective boards details of their various bank accounts, their income tax statements throughout their playing careers, and all other documents relating to their financial dealings -- and sign an agreement that they are willing for these records to be examined at any and all times. And from that point on, they are expected to report all their earnings, immediately, to their board. With the ICC mandatorily receiving copies of all these documents.

I'd add, to that, a further codicil -- all players are expected to place on file all telephones they own and operate, whether mobile or land line, in their names and those of their dependents. And sign an agreement that if at any point they are found to have a phone they haven't disclosed, that alone is grounds for their summary suspension from the team, pending investigation. And this should also be extended -- as should the previous clause -- to all administrators as well.

My second point of reference is baseball -- a game that, way back in the Twenties (ironically, the game's 'golden age', studded wth the likes of Babe Ruth), was tainted by allegations of bribery and betting and all the rest of it.

It was in 1919 that the Chicago White Sox threw the World Series to the unfancied Cincinnati Reds. The game's administrators promptly appointed a grand jury to probe the allegation (please note, not a retired judge, nor a completely defanged investigative agency).

The Joe 'Shoeless' Jackson and Eddie Cicotte, two of the stars of the White Sox, confessed to a fix -- and they, plus six others they named, were immediately suspended. Again, please note, immediately suspended pending enquiry.

A year later, the grand jury had completed its investigation, and the eight players were officially charged for match-fixing. They were acquitted through lack of conclusive proof -- but they were never allowed to play again. (So much, incidentally, for those who hold the 'until they are proved guilty, let them play' line of thought).

As a next step, the game appointed an independent, all-powerful commissioner -- former federal court judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis being the first to hold that office. And what did Landis do, first crack out of the box? He laid down a draconian law for all ballplayers: ''Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ballgame, no player that undertakes or promises to throw a ballgame, no player that sits in conference with a bunch of crooked players and gamblers where the ways and means of throwing the game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will never play professional baseball.'

Check that edict out, to get an idea of just how tough the game got with its players. First, it says that as far as the game is concerned, whether a case is proved with sufficient evidence to satisfy a jury is immaterial. That is a matter for the criminal courts. As far as the game was concerned, one breath of scandal, and you were out. You were out if you participated in a fix, you were out if you had any dealings with bookmakers, you were out if you even discussed fixing (that yardstick, applied to cricket, would among other things mean that the entire South African team, that in three meetings discussed whether or not to throw a one day game in India, would be summarily sacked, and none of the players would ever get to play again. With that kind of law in place, do you think any two players would even breathe the word 'fix' in their conversations, let alone seriously contemplate taking money to throw a game? I suspect not.)

After putting out that edict, Landis went on to show that he meant what he said (a contrast to the ICC, which keeps coming up with codes of conduct that it does nothing to enforce). Thus, the eight White Sox players were sacked. A further 11 players from various teams were also banned outright or made persona non grata. Four past players were implicated in past scandals (shades of what is now happening to Kapil Dev?). A further 12 were suspended for varying periods for either consorting with bookies, or knowing of attempts to fix but keeping quiet about it. (To cite a case in point: Did Azhar know about the alleged offer from Kapil to Prabhakar? Did Wadekar know? Mongia? Dalmiya? Bindra? Lele? Ali Irani? Out -- all of them, for life, for concealing knowledge -- it doesn't need to be proved that the offer was made. Once a player reports an offer, it is the duty of the senior management to immediately report it to the authorities, and for the latter to investigate; failure to do the one or the other is cause enough for immediate suspension.)

The message was clear. There is a line drawn, nice and clear, between what is permissible and what is not. Do as much as get your little toe across that line, and you were dead in the water.

Since that time, baseball has gone on to become one of the cleanest games on record.

Because baseball continues to toe the tough line. Take the recent case of Pete Rose, the Cincinnatti Reds player who in a little over two decades had more hits than any other player in the history of the game, a player who at the turn of the millennium was named for the game's team of the century.

On the field, he was brilliant. Off the field, he was a compulsive gambler. In 1989, he was investigated for tax evasion (this, after he had retired from active participation in the game -- shades, by the way, of the cricketer who declared Rs 16 crore through VDIS?). The baseball commissioner of the time hired a special prosecutor to investigate. It was found that Rose knew bookmakers and had consorted with some of them. It also was revealed that Rose had bet on baseball. Interestingly, he bet on his own team -- in other words, he backed himself to win.

But Rose had bet. And that was enough. He was banned for life from any association with the game (Rose at the time had become a manager). He was excluded from baseball's Hall of Fame. And today, he lives in disgrace, shunned by the fans who once cheered him to the skies. (The same rules, applied to cricket, would have meant that Dennis Lillee and Rodney Marsh would have been history -- and no player would have ever dared emulate their example and place a bet on cricket)

These rules would have a lot of folks yelping about how they infringe on some of their basic freedoms. Tough -- the greater good of the game, and the fans who follow and support it, demand such tough measures, since the cricketers, left to their own devices, show no sign of wanting to play the game by the rules.

And one thing would be for certain sure -- the risk involved with even being in the same room as a bookmaker would be so immense, that no cricketer would ever want to get his flannels dirty. And isn't that just what we are looking for?

Will all this happen? Ah -- that's the million dollar question. And the one rupee answer to that one is, I suspect not.

For why? Simple -- for it to work, cricket will have to appoint a commissioner, with powers independent of the governing body, and a free-ranging brief. In other words, the ICC will have no control over the cricket commissioner, nor will any of the member boards. The commissioner can go anywhere, investigate anyone, take action on his own without reference to the ICC. The commissioner, what is more, can even investigate the boards, the ICC itself.

Do you seriously see the ICC deliberately stripping itself of its powers? Do you believe the administrators of the game love it enough to do the right thing by it?

I don't. And that to my mind is the real tragedy of this game -- that it is most in danger from the very people who are supposed to be safeguarding it.

Postscript: To all readers who have been writing in, and there have been incredible amounts of mail these last few days, apologies for not responding directly. We are working on a package designed to make cricket-viewing more interesting, and the resulting time constraints have meant that a lot of your mails have been left unanswered. Normal service on the replying front resumes next week.

Prem Panicker