This is exactly the case when we consider the result of last year's match-fixing allegations against the Pakistani cricket team. Although the ICC were intent on getting to the bottom of the matter and to ensure that those responsible were dealt with appropriately, we as the general public were left relatively in the dark.
We have had very little visibility as to what actually goes on behind the scenes when an allegation of spot-fixing is leaked. As a result, we remain relatively naive about this idea. It is vital that the cricketing world is at one when it comes to understanding the modern game, from the fans to players to the authorities, and this ideal will only be achieved if we all understand the bad as well as the good side of the game.
More and more professional players are being approached by unscrupulous Bookies with impure motives. Steve Waugh's astonishing revelation that 56 players were contacted by bookies last year comes as a shock, especially as presumably there are many more unreported cases of this sort. Despite our automatically, and maybe understandably, assigning a debauched mentality to the Pakistanis, a figure of this magnitude sparks a depressing realisation that this is a worldwide issue.
It is thought that players themselves are wary of informing the authorities due to being unsure of the potential implications. This lack of knowledge is what has to be addressed.
Many fans are becoming increasingly sceptical of the authenticity of the modern game. This is the case for Test cricket especially, which has recently been in the spotlight for unfortunate reasons.
An unsatisfied public has inspired the ICC to address the issue and take visible action. Whether this is indeed for the good of the game, or in fear of this black hole of information becoming a representation of the governing body as a whole, is for now unclear. But one idea is to introduce the use of Polygraph tests to question players suspected of being involved in corruption.
Now, the use of a polygraph test, more cynically referred to as a lie-detector, may seem a tad severe for the civilised game of cricket. But the question is whether the sport has reached the lows that may require this manner of action. An initial reaction is that a Jeremy Kyle style interrogation and the game of cricket could not be less suited to one another. But is it excessive or necessary?
Steve Waugh defends the idea, emphasising that although it is a gruelling two and a half hour process, those being questioned are allowed to sample the test before they are officially questioned while also being informed of all the questions prior to testing. Ethics are mandatory of course, and participation would be voluntary.
A voluntary lie-detector however strikes me as self-defeating; guilt could be determined purely on the basis of whether or not a player were willing to take the test. Andrew Strauss has said he would be willing to be put in the chair if the need ever came about. He has nothing to hide, however...it would be interesting to hear Mohammed Amir's take on it. Maybe we'd find out his real age at the same time...
If we are investigating a charge as severe as match-fixing, I believe an equally stringent technique is required to discover the truth. Drugs tests aren't voluntary, instead are sprung upon players as soon as suspicion arises. Why couldn't it be the same for a polygraph test?
It would be quite amusing to hear the MCC's reaction to associating the game of cricket with Jeremy Kyle. Those believing that this approach would tarnish the image of cricket might suggest a more passive course of action; perhaps amnesty, which would lead to cleared names with a signed declaration and no consequences.
Sweeping things under the carpet however would be making no progress. Surely if the ICC is thinking lie-detector, they are thinking seriously: prosecution, fines, and bans for life. It is important that cricket keeps up with the world around it and realises that a "tarnished image" is of no importance when we have illegal activity threatening the future of the sport.
We have had very little visibility as to what actually goes on behind the scenes when an allegation of spot-fixing is leaked. As a result, we remain relatively naive about this idea. It is vital that the cricketing world is at one when it comes to understanding the modern game, from the fans to players to the authorities, and this ideal will only be achieved if we all understand the bad as well as the good side of the game.
More and more professional players are being approached by unscrupulous Bookies with impure motives. Steve Waugh's astonishing revelation that 56 players were contacted by bookies last year comes as a shock, especially as presumably there are many more unreported cases of this sort. Despite our automatically, and maybe understandably, assigning a debauched mentality to the Pakistanis, a figure of this magnitude sparks a depressing realisation that this is a worldwide issue.
It is thought that players themselves are wary of informing the authorities due to being unsure of the potential implications. This lack of knowledge is what has to be addressed.
Many fans are becoming increasingly sceptical of the authenticity of the modern game. This is the case for Test cricket especially, which has recently been in the spotlight for unfortunate reasons.
An unsatisfied public has inspired the ICC to address the issue and take visible action. Whether this is indeed for the good of the game, or in fear of this black hole of information becoming a representation of the governing body as a whole, is for now unclear. But one idea is to introduce the use of Polygraph tests to question players suspected of being involved in corruption.
Now, the use of a polygraph test, more cynically referred to as a lie-detector, may seem a tad severe for the civilised game of cricket. But the question is whether the sport has reached the lows that may require this manner of action. An initial reaction is that a Jeremy Kyle style interrogation and the game of cricket could not be less suited to one another. But is it excessive or necessary?
Steve Waugh defends the idea, emphasising that although it is a gruelling two and a half hour process, those being questioned are allowed to sample the test before they are officially questioned while also being informed of all the questions prior to testing. Ethics are mandatory of course, and participation would be voluntary.
A voluntary lie-detector however strikes me as self-defeating; guilt could be determined purely on the basis of whether or not a player were willing to take the test. Andrew Strauss has said he would be willing to be put in the chair if the need ever came about. He has nothing to hide, however...it would be interesting to hear Mohammed Amir's take on it. Maybe we'd find out his real age at the same time...
If we are investigating a charge as severe as match-fixing, I believe an equally stringent technique is required to discover the truth. Drugs tests aren't voluntary, instead are sprung upon players as soon as suspicion arises. Why couldn't it be the same for a polygraph test?
It would be quite amusing to hear the MCC's reaction to associating the game of cricket with Jeremy Kyle. Those believing that this approach would tarnish the image of cricket might suggest a more passive course of action; perhaps amnesty, which would lead to cleared names with a signed declaration and no consequences.
Sweeping things under the carpet however would be making no progress. Surely if the ICC is thinking lie-detector, they are thinking seriously: prosecution, fines, and bans for life. It is important that cricket keeps up with the world around it and realises that a "tarnished image" is of no importance when we have illegal activity threatening the future of the sport.
