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

Sound and fury

At the end of day one of the ICC deliberations into match-fixing, the big news is that Chief Executive David Richards has handed out a clean chit to ICC president Jagmohan Dalmiya.

Dalmiya, Richards solemnly assures us, "has not been involved in negotiations with any of the four companies bidding for the television rights for that tournament."

'That tournament' is the ICC knock-out Cup of 1998, involving the nine Test-playing nations in a one-day, knockout-style clash.

On March 4, 1998, Prasar Bharti's Deputy Director General (C&S) Rakesh Bahadur signed and sent out an official letter, on Prasar Bharti letterhead (a copy of which is in our possession), an official application for acquiring global television and radio rights for the event.

The letter is addressed to Jagmohan Dalmiya, president, ICC Ltd.

The first paragraph of the letter says: "This refers to the bid submitted by Prasar Bharti (Doordarshan) against the invitation of bid for ICC knock-out tournament 1998 and subsequent discussions held with you at Calcutta yesterday and today."

Please note, the letter is in pursuance of an earlier bid submitted, and clearly refers to discussions held with Dalmiya, who is the recepient of the letter.

Yet, Richards says Dalmiya was at no time involved in negotiations with any of the concerned parties?!

Had the ICC chief executive merely said that to the best of his knowledge, Dalmiya is not guilty of any wrongdoing with regards to the sale of television rights for the tournament in question, that would have been a different ball game altogether. What he says, however, is that Dalmiya was never involved in the negotiations, which is just not true.

What we have here is a case of one ICC bigwig being a bit too zealous, and going that bit over the top, in his defence of another. And that raises the question -- why?

Interestingly, para three of the letter reads thus: "1. Minimum Guarantee: DD agrees to pay IDI a minimum guarantee amount of US $10.0 million net of taxes for worldwide television rights....."

And what is IDI, the recepient of the payment in question?

IDI is ICC Development (International) Ltd, a company duly incorportated in the Territory of the British Virgin Islands, as per the International Business Companies Act (CAP.291), on July 14, 1993.

That in turn raises further questions. This is an ICC tournament. The ICC presumably has bank accounts in its own name, for the making and receiving of official payments. What then is this company, named ICC Development International? Why the Virgin Islands? What is the management structure of this company? Who are its directors? What is its connection with the ICC?

>Over, yet again, to Mr David Richards....

Meanwhile, you wonder, at times, if there is some college course in this, that you can major in. You wonder if administrators go through some specialised training in making statements that seem to say everything, that slake the public's appetite for constructive action, while remaining delightfully ambigous and, in effect, doing nothing at all.

If there is in fact such a course, the bigwigs of the ICC must have majored in it, with high honours -- or so one would assume at the halfway stage of the meeting of the governing body of the game, to discuss match-fixing allegations.

What has the ICC said, at the halfway stage of the two-day deliberations that David Richards described as 'excellent'?

Firstly, it has said that it is against corruption, and determined to root it out from the game. Which comes as news, doesn't it? I mean, was it even remotely likely that the body would say it doesn't consider corruption a major issue?

So that particular statement, the result of "excellent" deliberations, means nothing at all.

The ICC in its meeting also obtained signatures from the 18 directors, on an undertaking that says that they have no financial interests other than those known by their respective boards.

Which sounds like an open declaration of assets -- but is nothing of the kind. It is a bit as if I were to sign an undertaking saying I have no dealings as a journalist other than those known to my editor.

Ah, but what are these dealings that are known to the editor? Or, in this case, to the respective boards? And further, will the editor -- or, in this case, the respective boards -- sign similar, and legally binding, agreements saying they are aware of all financial dealings of the respective directors, and vouch for them?

Without such certificates from the boards concerned, the undertaking signed by the ICC directors is not really worth the paper used up in the process of drawing it up.

The ICC, we are told, has mooted life bans on players found to be corrupt, and to have illicit dealings with bookmakers.

Oh really? Starting when?

Item: You cannot have a licit dealing with an Indian bookmaker, because bookmaking (other than on racing) is illicit in India.

Item: Mark Waugh and Shane Warne of Australia, and now Hansie Cronje of South Africa, have admitted taking money from Indian bookmakers. Whether the monies were paid for meterological forecasts, as Warne and Waugh claim, or for playing Nostradamus, as Cronje has said, is immaterial -- the fact is that the players named did have transactions with bookies, these transactions are illicit, and as such, they qualify for the ICC's much-talked-about life ban.

So will the ICC impose those bans?

Don't hold your breath waiting.

The ICC, we are further told, will announce an amnesty for all players coming forward to reveal details about illicit dealings with bookmakers. And this is the wildest one yet.

The first question that occurs is this: If a player comes forward and says, I have been a naughty boy, I took money from bookie X to tell him that the sun is shining in India (or whatever), I straightaway get an amnesty? How does this jell with the ICC's desire to impose life bans on players having dealings with bookies?

The argument put forward is that the deal is a bit like the ones drug enforcement agencies use, to nail the big fish in narcotic trafficking -- namely, provide amnesty to the small dealers if they will finger the big ones.

But the situation here is not the same. If a small dealer does a sweetheart deal with a drug enforcement agency that helps said agency to nail a big player, the DEA can then take legal and punitive action against that major dealer.

In this case, suppose a player reveals a bookmaker's involvement in return for amnesty, what then? Can the ICC proceed legally against the bookie? No, sir -- the ICC has no policing powers, outside the cricket field. In other words, what the ICC is really saying is it will give amnesty to the player, and cannot do anything to the bookie.

And by the way, just what does amnesty mean? Does it mean the player concerned can continue to play cricket? In that case, someone should tell Hansie Cronje about this deal, it's just perfect for him. He can now go before the ICC and say he took X amount from X bookie, and he is so sorry, and lo -- he gets an amnesty and can go back to playing cricket again. What does he have to lose? What he did is already public knowledge, so he can 'fess up -- it is a win-win situation.

From another angle, what does amnesty mean? Suppose for the sake of argument, an Indian player confesses before the ICC that he has taken money from a bookmaker. The ICC grants amnesty. From what? Can the ICC ensure that as soon as the player lands back in India, he will not be proceeded against by the IT authorities, and the enforcement directorate?

The ICC can do no such thing, because it has no locus standi in the courts of this land -- or indeed, any land including England, where it is headquartered.

So when the ICC talks of amnesty as part of its efforts to clean up the game, what we are getting is 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.

Prem Panicker