Patience tested in anti-corruption quest

It is growing increasingly difficult to believe that we are ever going to see any more current cricketers thrown out of the game on corruption charges.

After Mark Waugh and Martin Crowe became the latest current and former players to be found not guilty on lack of evidence, the consensus was that the ICC's Anti-Corruption Unit had essentially failed to deliver on its task. Despite the resources allocated to it and the genuine dedication to unearthing corruption, plus the release of an auspicious but ultimately ambiguous preliminary report, we have still yet to see any more names uncovered and punished after those published in the Indian CBI report.

Eliminating corruption is obviously not merely about identifying and banning the guilty but it's an important public step and a tangible indication of progress. The fact that it has not occurred makes it seem like Sir Paul Condon and the ACU have failed.

One problem with such comprehensive and necessarily lengthy investigations is that it is very easy for those of us not privy to the process to become frustrated and despair at the apparent lack of progress. There's nothing like a quick resolution to a crisis once it has been identified. It hasn't happened so the cynicism has mounted.

One by one, the reports from the various cricket boards of the world have been released, all with predictable verdicts. England, Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Australia - all have returned the same outcome, that without key figure Mukesh Gupta speaking out in support of his claims to the CBI, the accused has no case to answer. Only West Indies have yet to reach a decision on the allegations against Brian Lara, and there are no prizes for guessing what their verdict will be.

It is highly questionable anyway whether Gupta's allegations would have amounted to anything even if he were prepared to support them to the ACU. Without corroboration or evidence it would still have come down to his word against the accused, which was already the case. Exonerations under those circumstances would have been more infuriating than the manner in which they eventually occurred.

Only India has been strong enough to punish its accused players on the basis of Gupta's testimony, aided by the additional corroboration and records the CBI was able to provide on its players.

In view of the starting point it had, it is mightily tempting to write off the ACU's work as a failure. It had been provided more leads than could ever have been hoped for just a couple of years ago and has seemingly failed to build upon them. Judging from Condon's reaction to the dissatisfaction at the outcome of the latest national inquiry, he is feeling the pressure to deliver some tangible progress.

Yet some patience is required on our behalf. The target date for eradicating corruption is 2003 and it is only fair to withhold final judgement on the effectiveness of the ACU until it has reached the deadline it has set itself. However, the ACU would be wise to note that whatever it achieves, it won't truly earn respect until it can uncover and punish a corrupt player on its own merits.

The results of the recent national enquiries can only be seen as failures, regardless of whether natural justice and fairness prevailed. By sheer weight of numbers and accuracy of prior allegations, we simply know all of the accused cannot be innocent, which only adds to the frustration.

A day after the Greg Melick report found Mark Waugh had no case to answer, Condon reacted to the criticism by using the ACU's prevention of the fixing of the recent England-Pakistan series as an indication of his unit's success. But simply preventing the crimes without apprehending the perpetrators is not enough. Without proving the identity of the corruptors (presumably a major illegal syndicate if it is still attempting match-fixing in the knowledge of the ACU's existence) and the corruptees (we can make highly educated guesses regarding their identities) the ACU could roam the world monitoring series after series indefinitely. Eventually the force with the initiative, the proactive bookie, will escape the surveillance net and deal with his targets and all the while the ACU will have made no progress. It's patently unsatisfactory and adds to the feeling of regression since the saga reached its zenith last year.

Another considerable public relations difficulty for the ACU is that we are now so inured to sensational corruption news that what would once have been seen as significant revelations are now viewed as insubstantial. An attempt to fix a Test series would once have been a major story but in the current climate of desensitivity to match-fixing news, it seems rather tame.

Currently the ACU is treading water in its attempts to stave off further corruption. It is successfully staying afloat but not making any headway against the tide. It's important that the ACU has achieved its aim of reducing and stabilising the level of malpractice but ultimately it has to accomplish more than just preserving the integrity of current and future series. Sooner rather than later it is time to detect and remove the malfeasance at its source, the bookmaking syndicates and participating players and administrators, instead of reacting to its result. The clock continues to tick.

Whether or not anything concrete emerges from Condon's latest hints remains to be seen. For now, the players most recently reprieved can consider themselves fortunate.

Mark Waugh's reaction to the finding of his having no case to answer resembled that of Herschelle Gibbs in April 2000, when Gibbs denied his involvement after Cronje had initially implicated just himself. It was apparent even then that Gibbs was lying and Waugh's denials since have had a similarly hollow ring.

With all the corruption culprits, it seems as though there are two personalities involved. There are the cricketers we recall with varying degrees of respect for their on-field exploits, and then there are the venal people deserving of our wrath. Even now it's difficult to reconcile the two.

It's the same with those under suspicion who are still playing. A case in point is Wasim Akram, by anyone's measure one of the greatest fast bowlers to grace the game. Wasim still commands enormous respect, even though Justice Qayyum had grave doubts over his integrity fined him for not being "above board," in addition to being stripped of the captaincy. Wasim was essentially found to be a "little bit" guilty, yet is still an admired presence because of his achievements. As with Azharuddin, Cronje and Malik, his playing record and status as a cricketer will not be diminished whether he is eventually banned or not. Only his moral standing will have suffered.

Performances cannot be retrospectively altered and nor should they be. Pure cricketing achievements still stand regardless of what occurs in the future lives of players. However much the guilty betrayed their sport and country, it's difficult to find an angle that decrees their records as players can be diminished. When you consider it and arrive at the bare facts, if the players involved were guilty of throwing their wickets away or bowling poorly for money, their records -- had they not been corrupt -- would have been even better. In Wasim's case, as the leading wicket-taker in one-day international history, it's a remarkable thought.

The betting scandal - the complete coverage

More Columns

Mail Daniel Laidlaw