Custom Bats Cricket Forum
General Cricket => World Cricket => England => Topic started by: Manormanic on March 08, 2013, 09:47:33 AM
-
http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/623895.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/current/story/623895.html)
Be careful - when reading this, you might wish to encase yourself in ice as its liable to make your blood boil...
-
Another case of I've been caught but let's use every little loop hole to make sure I get away with t and pass the blame onto someone elsa.
Makes me really angry this kind of stuff.
-
What annoys me more than him trying to get off is that any team would play him!! Surely at some point clubs should start turning their back on these types of payers. Again, who can take any game any of these players are involved in seriously ever again?!?
-
I hope he loses the case but what surprises me is why is westfield (or whatever his name is) not cooperating....
-
I hope he loses the case but what surprises me is why is westfield (or whatever his name is) not cooperating....
Exactly, this case wouldn't even be an issue if Westfield simply testified. At least then there could be a definitive outcome.
Hopefully he stays banned. Match fixers a serious blight on the game!
-
Exactly, this case wouldn't even be an issue if Westfield simply testified. At least then there could be a definitive outcome.
Hopefully he stays banned. Match fixers a serious blight on the game!
When i read this first thing that popped in my head was did Kaneria call Westfield and say listen you are toast, help me out and I will give you a cut of what I get....wouldn't be beyond 2 cheaters to collaborate and cheat again...
-
Nothing like a fair justice system is there, to induce rage... Still, if the only source of evidence refuses to provide that evidence to a hearing, the ECB's hands are tied as, unfortunately, as they say, there is no evidence.
However...
The outcome of the disciplinary hearing was that he was guilty. Under other environments, while appealing a sentence (as when you are in prison) you are not allowed to return to work and live life as normal.
If this had been done under standard jurisprudence, at the "trial", cross examination of the witness would have been allowed, and therefore inconsistencies, if any, would have been raised at that point which may have changed the outcome. The ability to cross examine the only witness is therefore not an unfair request.
However, I don't agree with the disingenuous statement by the scum lawyer.
"It will be a victory for the game of cricket when Mr Kaneria is cleared," Naseem continued. "He is a young man with a promising career ahead of him and he could be utilised by Pakistan and other teams around the world. As a legspinner, he is the master of a dying art and it is in the interest of the game of cricket that he should play."
It will not be a victory for the game of cricket. Mr Kaneria is neither a young man with a promising career ahead of him nor can he ever now be considered "safe" property again, as he will have escaped on a technicality. I wonder whether this will be included as something that the plaintiff tries to claim in his damages...?
-
The article mentioned a lack of 'incentive' to Westfield.
Maybe it's him sticking two fingers up at those who caught him, jailed him, and finished his career.
The last hurrah maybe. A cheap shot I think.
-
The article mentioned a lack of 'incentive' to Westfield.
Maybe it's him sticking two fingers up at those who caught him, jailed him, and finished his career.
The last hurrah maybe. A cheap shot I think.
Again, hopefully no club side (top level or club level) will play him. I'm sure some club will of course but it would be better if the game completely kicked these people out.
-
The article mentioned a lack of 'incentive' to Westfield.
Maybe it's him sticking two fingers up at those who caught him, jailed him, and finished his career.
The last hurrah maybe. A cheap shot I think.
Pretty shameful act if that is the case. But the way this is playing out it may very well be the case.
-
If this had been done under standard jurisprudence, at the "trial", cross examination of the witness would have been allowed, and therefore inconsistencies, if any, would have been raised at that point which may have changed the outcome. The ability to cross examine the only witness is therefore not an unfair request.
But an appeal is an opportunity to challeneg the findings of the original hearing, it is not in and of itself a retrial, therefore strictly speaking the written transript of the original evidence given by Westfield should be sufficient!
-
But an appeal is an opportunity to challeneg the findings of the original hearing, it is not in and of itself a retrial, therefore strictly speaking the written transript of the original evidence given by Westfield should be sufficient!
Agreed, where, at the original trial there was an opportunity to cross examine the witness.
That doesn't appear to be the case in this respect.