Whenever a major problem arises in world cricket, especially in identifying and punishing corrupt players, the tendency is to blame the international governing body and accuse its officials of being weak and inept. No doubt on some occasions certain allegations made against the International Cricket Council (ICC) have been justified, after all, no sports organisation this large can make the correct decision every time. It inevitably claims to be policing the sport efficiently and fairly, but does that self-proclaiming boast really stand up to scrutiny?
At no time in the history of cricket has the need been so great for authoritative control of the game to combat the appalling surge of wilful cheating and deception, gamblers and bookmakers, match-fixing and spot-fixing, and lack of integrity and credibility. The prying lenses of television cameras have infuriated the game’s cheats, especially those who had enjoyed universal acclaim as great bowlers capable of making the ball swing like a pendulum, only to be caught and exposed scraping it with fingernails and metal bottle-tops, and making it glisten with Vaseline and hair gel.
Even worse has been the arrival of ruthless gamblers and illegal bookmakers who have threatened players’ lives if they refused to bowl a no-ball or a wide at the precise time they requested so that a huge bet could be landed. Equal pressure has been applied on batsmen, who have been compelled to give their wickets away at pre-arranged times, in pre-arranged ways, and for a pre-arranged score. To be run out in the first over, for instance, can earn a player, and his bookmaker, a large sum of money.
Assembled together it makes a mockery of international cricket, and leaves millions of dedicated, and trusting, spectators wondering what is actually genuine, and what is false. That is the scary challenge facing the ICC in a new and frightening era, as scandal follows scandal, and which has caused what happens off the field to be of as much importance as what happens on it.
With all these difficulties and worries swamping the game, I set off in search of the ICC bosses at their headquarters in Dubai to learn as much as they would reveal about what they were doing to beat the cheats.
Sir Ronnie Flanagan had now succeeded Lord Condon as Chairman of its Anti-corruption and Security Unit, taking to the post the immense experience he acquired while Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. For some time he was also Chief Inspector of Constabulary for the United Kingdom, excluding Scotland, and was later appointed to review the police arrangements in Iraq, before he spent two years as strategic adviser to the Abu Dhabi police force.
It is an extremely impressive CV, but it came with no guarantee that he alone could solve problems that would be entirely new to him in the complicated world of sport, and it was blatantly imperative that, if he were to lead the way successfully, then he should receive maximum support and cooperation from colleagues – especially the national cricket boards that operate within the ICC, which covers a vast total of 104 countries.
Representatives from England, Australia and South Africa originally formed the ICC as the Imperial Cricket Conference, which was renamed the International Cricket Conference in 1965, and became the International Cricket Council in 1989. It is wholly responsible for the organisation and governance of cricket’s major international tournaments, appoints Test umpires and referees, enforces the ICC code of conduct, and coordinates action against corruption and match-fixing through its Anti-corruption Unit.
Interestingly, it does not govern domestic cricket in member countries, and does not compile the laws of the game, which are controlled by the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC).
My first question to those at the top of the ICC, in view of the ongoing bribery scandals, was what message could the ACSU give to those many millions of cricket followers all over the world who feared that corrupt and cheating cricketers could not be stopped.
Its response was clear and firm: ‘So long as human greed exists, then corruption in any sphere of society, including sports, is going to be a possibility, and it is, therefore, vital that we remain vigilant. Notwithstanding the current allegations [about three Pakistani players linked to spot-fixing at Lord’s cricket ground in 2010], and media attention, the significant progress made against corruption by the ICC means that corruption in the game is not widespread, and probably is as low as it has ever been.
‘Anything that tarnishes the image of the game is simply not acceptable, because the integrity of the game is absolutely fundamental. But it is important not to overstate a few incidents, as we do have in place robust anti-corruption protocols that prevent dishonest behaviour.’
These reassuring comments were made shortly before Pakistani wicketkeeper Zulqamain Haider fled from his Dubai hotel – ironically a short distance from the ICC offices – and landed in London seeking asylum, claiming that death threats had been made against him and his family because he refused to fix a match against South Africa, the situation being made even worse for him when he hit the winning run.
Referring directly to the three Pakistani players named in the spot-fixing scandal, the ICC candidly said: ‘This is about spot-fixing rather than match-fixing. Instead of the entire match being fixed, which would clearly be devastating, this seems to be isolated parts of the match being fixed by a few dishonest individuals.
‘Regardless, we still take this very seriously. We do have a stated zero-tolerance approach to any sort of corruption. Our Anti-corruption and Security Unit is the most advanced, and successful, of its sort in the world. We will stop at nothing to make sure cricket is protected against those who seek to damage it in this way.
‘Another factor in our fight against corruption has been the deterrent effect. Players know the penalties they face if found guilty under the ICC Anti-corruption Code. They are considerable, ranging up to, and including, life bans.
‘But most important is the education of players, the role of Member Boards, and team management. The ACSU also has a visible presence at every Test match, One-day International and Twenty/20 International that is played, so players and player-support personnel know that any suspicious activities will be monitored. The more effective our policing and monitoring of international cricket have become, the more effective the deterrent.’
The ICC officials also revealed that a wide network of undercover informants was now actively assisting in the fight to stop the cheating. This is a major step forward and it reminded me of another sports governing body that paid a handful of trustworthy players from a private fund to act as ‘moles’ to pry on and report unsuspecting colleagues who sat next to them in the dressing room. I also discovered that security chiefs at the Jockey Club had placed undercover investigators in a large north of England racing stable to gather information on a trainer suspected of cheating.
The ICC understandably would not talk precisely about its intelligence-gathering, although, with so many former high-ranking police officers in its elite squad, it would be disappointing to find that it fell short of the best investigatory standards. Above all else, the ICC was keen to stress that the ACSU had stepped in and actually prevented cheating from taking place, though again it firmly declined to divulge where and when, and gave no clue as to whether it had acted on advice from one of its cloak-and-dagger informants.
A senior ICC spokesman – who also asked to remain secret – said: ‘It is impossible to say how many times the ACSU has prevented any sort of corrupt practice. Through its education programme, which every single international player must undergo before taking to the field, the ACSU has prevented corruption at an early stage, and from taking hold.
‘Every time a player, or wider squad member, reports a suspicious activity to the ACSU, as they are required to do, then a potential fix has been thwarted. In addition, the ACSU investigators prevent fixing by their presence at all international matches. We also are able to prevent corruption by stopping known corruptors from entering stadiums, and advising team managements to keep their players away from such individuals.’
To monitor, let alone control or destroy, the odious cheating in cricket is clearly a mammoth task. It is nothing short of a war, which the ICC bosses would like everyone to believe that it is winning; that would be truly fantastic, but we have to ask, where is the evidence to support this statement?
Many highly respected cricket commentators and international players, past and present, have publicly ridiculed the ACSU by claiming that it is an expensive waste of time and money, with no decisive powers to punish the guilty. The anonymous ICC spokesman hit back fiercely, insisting: ‘That is clearly not a fair and informed view. We have arguably the most proactive and effective anti-corruption unit of any sport, and this is widely acknowledged by other sporting codes. It is important to note that we can only do what the law allows us to do, and what our members mandate us to do.
‘We do not have powers to arrest, we cannot conduct sting operations, we cannot seize possessions, and we cannot get a warrant to search players or premises. But we do have robust, cutting-edge anti-corruption protocols, which other sporting codes acknowledge to be the best, and seek to learn from.
‘If any player is guilty of corruption, we will not hesitate to take severe action. Also, do not underestimate the success we have achieved to date through our awareness and prevention initiatives. The ACSU in its current form is well placed to fight the battle against corruption. What is more, it is winning that fight. The number of suspicious approaches reported to us, and the information we hold that we know prevents corrupt practice, is hugely significant.
‘Unless every single player, or official, behaves with absolute integrity, it may never be possible to remove the threat of corruption altogether. We must, therefore, always be vigilant to the threats.’
The ICC spokesman was particularly adamant that international cricket is not infested with crooks and cheats, but in reality his emphatic, and heartening, claim seemed at odds with the frequency of allegations, and with the evidence of serious wrongdoing.
The ICC will always need to keep well clear of spotlighting the number of corruption allegations levelled against players of particular countries, as this would land the Council in a disastrous political minefield. Extreme circumspection is called for, and the ICC has managed that side of the problem extremely well, even though it must be tempting at times to respond to their ‘it’s not that bad’ assertion by releasing a list of known perpetrators, and the countries they come from.
The ICC spokesman insisted: ‘What we do know through the ACSU protocols is that corruption is not widespread in the game. Also, let us not underestimate the role of the players. They have equal responsibility to uphold the integrity of the game and, fortunately, the vast majority of them do just that.
‘It is true that the ICC and ACSU are acknowledged worldwide as the leaders. We would not presume to speak for other sports, but it is clear that the issue of corruption is not unique to cricket. Some sports have taken measures to combat it, while others have not.
‘In the past ten years or so, cricket has certainly taken a lead in this area, and it is telling that many other sports are now coming to us for advice on how to deal with the issue. Because of its nature, which is a series of mini-events, cricket could be seen as being more susceptible than some other sports, but it would be foolish of any sport not to be aware of the potential for corruption.’
The ICC, along with the governing bodies of many other sports, has formed a strong, and direct, link with British bookmakers and large betting exchanges by setting up a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which amounts to a guaranteed promise that confidential information received about a possible corrupt action, or evidence of suspicious betting on an event, would be relayed to the governing body immediately.
In particular, this close and positive arrangement works well for the British Horseracing Authority by spotlighting gamblers who might be linked to licensed individuals – such as jockeys and trainers – who are passing on inside information for betting purposes, but the help it could provide to those investigating cricket corruption could be much less effective.
International cricket is bedevilled by illegal bookmakers and gamblers, which must not be confused with bona fide betting firms such as William Hill, Ladbrokes and Coral. Indeed, many of cricket’s illegal bookmakers are wealthy businessmen, or well-paid employees in vast companies, and are generally based in Asia and the Far East.
Although the ACSU had tracked down and interviewed bookmakers in India and Pakistan, the ICC spokesman confirmed that this was a highly frustrating problem, and said: ‘There are MoUs in place with relevant bodies. However, in some countries where betting on cricket is extremely popular, such as India and Pakistan, most gambling is illegal, so it is not easy to set up protocols, or agreements, like it is elsewhere.’
He also frankly admitted: ‘As long as people are weak, and there is a thing called human greed, it may never be possible to remove spot-fixing from the game entirely. We, of course, depend on the integrity of individual players.’
For the ICC’s strict code of conduct to function properly, it is imperative that the boards of every country that participates on the international cricket scene are fired with the same interest, energy and enthusiasm about identifying the cheats, and are prepared to charge players, and apply the correct punishment, when they are found to be guilty.
However, there are numerous cases of lengthy – even lifetime – bans being overturned and quickly reduced to a minimum penalty, or in some instances to nothing at all, by a lenient national board, which makes the so-called punishment system a complete laughing stock. Too many times, players who have been found guilty of taking drugs or under-performing in suspicious circumstances have escaped with pathetic penalties that fall way below what was required for the offence in question.
Cooperation with the ICC is vital, but its spokesman went on to admit that at least one board had not followed up on advice that it had been given about a player who might be cheating. Condoning offenders like this is outrageous, but it comes as no surprise. The player, and those who shield him, should be named and shamed, but the ICC spokesman found himself in a difficult political position, and was forced to honour the code of confidentiality, although he did admit that the ACSU had been ‘disappointed’ by the lack of cooperation.
In conclusion, the ICC spokesman said: ‘The success of the ACSU in educating players, preventing corruption and, where necessary, prosecuting cases against players means they are much less likely to risk fixing matches these days and, when they do attempt it, it is much more difficult to get away with.
‘The entire landscape is different, and the problem is much less widespread than in the past. A major part of the ACSU’s work is in the form of education and awareness programmes in order to prevent corruption, so no player can claim ignorance. The role of Member Boards, team management and players – along with the ACSU – should not be underestimated.’
Typical of the abuse that the ICC has received was that which came from Pakistan’s captain Salman Butt and their 18-year-old left-arm seamer Mohammad Amir, after their appeals against suspension over the 2010 spot-fixing scandal were thrown out by Michael Beloff QC, who chaired a disciplinary hearing in Dubai.
Butt ranted on television: ‘They [the ICC] listened to us, but it felt that their decision had already been made from before. It was not based on a single piece of evidence.’ Butt, Amir and Mohammad Asif, who had also been suspended by the ICC but withdrew his appeal, had been banned from using training facilities at the Pakistan Cricket Board academy, as its administrators reacted to mounting private criticism from the ICC over the way in which it was handling anti-corruption measures.
Rumours were rife that ‘strong voices’ at cricket’s highest level were urging the ICC to take over the running of the Pakistan Cricket Board, and that the PCB was fighting for its future. As the strident ‘wake-up’ call echoed around the panicking PCB offices, a letter was hastily signed and sent to the ICC pledging a series of steps to improve the way in which it dealt with corruption issues.
By now Giles Clarke, Chairman of the England and Wales Cricket Board, had entered the conflict, specifically stepping in as Chairman of the ICC’s special Pakistan Task Force, and he needed very little time to convince the PCB that it should agree to a special eight-point anti-corruption initiative, which included measures that would bring it in line with the rest of the cricketing world.
Without delay the PCB agreed that it would implement an anti-corruption education programme for players and officials, which was just as well, as the ICC had strongly hinted at sanctions against the PCB should it fail to conform to new international guidelines.
Sharad Pawar, the ICC Chairman, stressed: ‘We will not tolerate any form of corruption in cricket, and we will work tirelessly to root out those who have acted in a way that brings cricket into disrepute. The matter of integrity is non-negotiable. Integrity and honesty are the bedrock of our game, and the ICC will protect that foundation stone with everything at its disposal.’
It was a resounding supportive statement, even if long overdue, and it left the hitherto hapless PCB doing everything in its power to remain in position. Pakistan players were instantly instructed to sign a new code of conduct – crucially before they left for Test matches and a One-day series against South Africa in the United Arab Emirates. They were also told that the new code would be introduced into Pakistan domestic cricket.
National team manager Intikhab Alam, a former Pakistan captain and coach, confirmed that this new code of conduct would bring in stricter standards of behaviour, and that players would be barred from addressing the media directly. Further restrictions included a clause that no player should carry a mobile phone into the dressing room, and that all unauthorised people should be prevented from entering the dressing room at any time before, during or after a day’s play.
Intikhab fully recognised the importance of the fresh measures, and said: ‘The new code of conduct is the first step towards fulfilling the ICC’s recommendations. There is a lot more stress on creating awareness among players about anti-corruption laws and regulations. We hope the new code will help us in dealing with the disciplinary and corruption problems.
‘The players have been briefed about their responsibilities, and about corruption in the game, as well as doping and discipline. I hope they will be responsible enough to show good conduct on tour and in home matches. The Board has made it clear in the new code that the manager will waste no time in stamping out indiscipline in the team. We do not want a repeat of what happened in England.’ (Here Intikhab was referring specifically to the 2010 spot-fixing scandal that involved two Pakistan bowlers and their captain.)
A few days after Intikhab’s stirring battle cry, the PCB announced that it had provisionally agreed not to select five named players for the World Cup tournament in 2011 as part of its 30-day pledge to clean up its image and cooperate with the ICC.
Three of the five – former Test captain Salman Butt, and bowlers Mohammad Amir and Mohammad Asif – were already suspended while the Lord’s spot-fixing probe continued, and wicketkeeper Kamran Akmal and leg-spinner Danish Kaneria were added to the blacklist, but the Pakistan Cricket Board quickly changed its mind, as it tends to do in cases of discipline, and cleared Akmal for selection, although there was no such reprieve for Kaneria.
Akmal had been under investigation for his part in Pakistan’s controversial defeat by Australia in Sydney in January 2010, and it is interesting to consider the extraordinary circumstances and facts of that match. Australia won the toss and chose to bat, but could manage only 127, having found Mohammad Asif (6-41) too hot to handle. Pakistan responded with 333. Australia rattled up 381 in their second innings, powered by Michael Hussey (134 not out) and Shane Watson (97). Kaneria ended with 5-151.
At one point, Australia were tottering at 257-8, a meagre 57 ahead, and seemed doomed to a huge defeat, but Pakistan captain Mohammad Yousuf decided to place eight men on the boundary when Hussey was on strike, and wicketkeeper Akmal dropped the incredibly ‘lucky’ batsman three times off Kaneria’s bowling, and also missed a straightforward run-out opportunity.
Hussey and novice batsman Peter Siddle added an unlikely 123 for the ninth wicket, and Australia had built a lead of 175 when dismissed for 381, though this was still too much for Pakistan, who were shot out for 139, leaving them 36 short of victory. An illegal bookmaker was reported boasting that ‘We made a real killing on that one.’
Pakistan lost all nine international matches in that dreadful series in Australia, which prompted a snap Cricket Board inquiry once the players had returned home. A disciplinary panel decided that Mohammad Yousuf and Younis Khan should be banned indefinitely for ‘in-fighting, which brought down the whole team’.
Rana Naved-ul-Hasan and Shoaib Malik were each banned for 12 months and fined the equivalent of £15,900 in rupees. Shahid Afridi, Kamran Akmal and Umar Akmal were also fined and warned that their conduct would be strictly monitored over a six-month period. At one stage the former PCB President, Tauqir Zia, alleged that the ICC had six Pakistan players under suspicion for fixing the Sydney Test, and that all six needed to be watched closely.
Zia had assumed that the ICC had gathered information on the six players by intercepting text messages, and he confidently added: ‘I know the ICC had told the PCB this year to monitor these players because it had got hold of some SMS messages that these players exchanged with suspected bookmakers. The ICC approached the PCB after the Australian tour and warned them to keep a watch on these players, as they went for the Twenty/20 World Cup and Asian Cup.’
Zia was in no doubt that match-fixing had existed for a long time, and he recalled the day when an illegal bookmaker asked him to select a particular player for a certain match. Although he refused to respond to the bookmaker’s request, he was satisfied that this approach indicated that the player had been involved in something shady before, and he was never selected for Pakistan again.
Despite taking this extreme action, it was followed by a disgraceful cover-up in which no information was released about whether the player had even been questioned and, worst of all, he was not identified. Zia attempted to explain why he, and the PCB, did not name and punish this player, saying: ‘We did not make a big deal out of it, as that player had been hauled up earlier.’ This admission made matters even worse, suggesting that the player had been grilled over a separate issue, and on that occasion allowed to remain in the Pakistan team.
World cricket has absolutely no chance of ridding the game of the appalling excrement that stains it from grass roots to the highest level when serial offenders like this anonymous character are allowed to stay unnamed. It is quite disingenuous for the ICC – the game’s ultimate police force – to sit back and allow these national boards to make seriously damaging decisions without stepping in and punishing them.
Anyone remotely passionate about cricket – from the school playground to the vast Test arena – is compelled to ask the vital question: ‘Is the International Cricket Council letting the game down?’ There appears to be a serious lack of leadership. Too often sleaze occurs without questions being asked or proper penalties being imposed. Name and shame must become a major policy if the battle against corruption is to be won.
Senator Enver Baig did not hold back while addressing a Pakistan government committee, when he said, scathingly: ‘The main problem in the Pakistan team is gambling and match-fixing. Most of the Pakistan team are involved in it.’ This devastating indictment by a front-line Pakistani politician emphasised the scale of what the ICC, and its ACSU, faced in their efforts to put a stop to a nation’s cricketers who, too often, could not resist saying ‘yes’ to a bribe.
Enormous psychological damage has already been done to public perception by perpetual Pakistani misdemeanours, so cricket fans no longer know whether a wide or no-ball is an accident, or if it has been perpetrated deliberately to satisfy a bookmaker or gambler.
*In May 2011, former police chief Yogendra Pal Singh, who had worked on corruption cases for more than 30 years in India, was appointed by the ICC to head its Anti-corruption Unit. Singh, aged 55, succeeded Ravi Sawani who, though he was officially retiring after four years in the job, agreed to stay on as a consultant.