Wednesday, 26 March 2014

Srini's son-in-law passed on betting information about other teams and players



THE IPL betting conspiracy involving Gurunath Meiyappan, the son-in-law of BCCI chief N Srinivasan, has spread to the whole tournament with a Mumbai Crime Branch Report stating that the Chennai Super Kings manager was passing on information to bookmakers about other teams and some of the world’s superstar players.

In an escalation of the crisis, there is evidence that Meiyappan discussed match results, innings totals for games not involving the Super Kings and the form of superstar players such as Virender Sehwag, Chris Gayle, Dale Steyn and Siddharth Trivedi, who was carpeted for fixing.

The report also reveals that Meiyappan bet 1.4 crores on the Super Kings to lose against Rajasthan Royals on May 12 2013, a match which was called into question by the Mudgal Report into IPL corruption.

Meiyappan was found by the court-appointed committee to have indulged in betting and passing on information, as alleged, and has been proved to be the team official of Chennai Super Kings. The committee, led by Justice Mukul Mudgal, submitted its final report to the Supreme Court with the proviso that it was for the court to decide on any action to be taken.

But the Mumbai’s police report to Justice Mukul Mudgal shows that Meiyappan’s gambling activity extends beyond Chennai.

After lawfully recording conversations between Meiyappan and Vindoo Dara Singh, who was part of an India-wide network of bookies which also extended to the UAE and Pakistan, Mumbai police concluded that Meiyappan was in breach of the IPL Code of Conduct and Section 130 of the Mahrashtra Police Act ‘Cheating at Games’.

But it is the amount of inside information that Meiyappan was privy to that will cause concern for cricket fans. Between April 30 and May 16 there were 240 calls between him and Vindoo. Between May 12-15 according to the report “almost all intercepted calls...related to betting on matches.”

On May 12 Meiyappan told Vindoo Bangalore would score 190 against Kolkata and “then there bowling will come...Kolkata come to 150.” Bangalore actually made  115-9 and lost by five wickets.

Three days later, Vindoo spoke with another bookmaker, Pawan Jaipur, and told him that Meiyappan had said that Kolkata would beat Pune Warriors on that day. Meiyappan was wrong as KKR lost by seven runs.

Another conversation on May 14 showed Meiyappan telling Vindoo that there “were no other changes in the team”. 

Meiyappan also gave information to Vindoo during matches from May 12-14. Gayle would “get runs” for Bangalore against KKR on the 12th and during the same match he described Trivedi as a “chucker” and “tough to play”. The next day he said that Steyn was “crucial” if Sunrisers Hyderabad were to beat Mumbai Indians.

Damningly, Meiyappan revealed the strategy of his own Super Kings players to the bookie. During play in the match against Rajasthan, Meiyappan said that Ravindra Jadeja would not lose his wicket. He remained not out.

And two days later for the contest against Delhi Daredevils, Meiyappan complained that Sehwag would “bat like an animal” and said that if his team’s bowler, Mohit Sharma, “has one bad day...DD will get runs.” Earlier, he had spoken to Vindoo and had passed on team news. “No other change...I am giving you weak link in bowling.”

He was also exposed for the huge sums that he bet on Super Kings to lose in the tainted Rajasthan game and discussing with Vindoo during play the best strategy for making the most money.

Before the match, the report confirms that Meiyappan told Vindoo the Super Kings would score 130-140 (they made 141) and that he had placed 20 lakh on Rajasthan to win.

He then places another bet, of 30 lakh, on Rajasthan at 21.09hrs. There are two further 30 lakh bets on Rajasthan recorded at 21.16hrs and 21.20.

In a further breach of the anti-corruption code, Meiyappan tells Vindoo of the state of the wicket in Ranchi and weather reports for Chennai. There are also calls in which Vindoo asks for more information about Super Kings strategy.

In another worrying link, the report states that Vindoo and Asad Rauf, the Pakistan international umpire spoke 80 times on a cell phone. Rauf was described as “most wanted” after he was recorded placing bets on IPL matches and passing on inside information.


Rauf, who was shown to also be in contact with Pawan Jaipur and had received gifts from him, invoiced the BCCI $58,208 for officiating in 16 matches during IPL, three of which involved Super Kings.

A version of this article was published in the Economic Times on March 7


Tuesday, 25 March 2014

Inside the BCCI: Cronyism and intimidation Srinivasan's plan for world domination


Good governance is not themost inspiring of terms whenit comes to sport. It doesn't getbacksides off bucket seats or rouse a roar from the craw. Bad governance is quite the opposite. It can infect the faithful with apathy, leaving once clicking turnstiles to rust in rigidity. The average fan accepts that administrators will enjoy the poshest and plushest seats for pivotal games. In return, the least he expects is that his beloved sport will be run with an ethos that has placed at its heart dignity, transparency and sound business practice.

In BCCI, these seem to have been replaced by totalitarianism, cronyism and intimidation. Internal BCCI emails seen by this writer provide a fascinating insight into its working and paint a bleak future not only for Indian cricket but the world game now stalked by N. Srinivasan. 

The BCCI president, despite being mired in controversy, was named as the next ICC chief on February 8. He will take over as chairman in July.

If BCCI sneezes, world cricket catches a cold. The sniffles may have just begun. IPL is losing money and Justice Mukul Mudgal's report has exposed a link between the supposed guardian of the game and illegal gambling, the menace that encourages the scourge of match-fixing. 

Srinivasan is supposed to be whiter than white; his privileged position demands it. Yet his son-in-law, Gurunath Meiyyapan, has been accused of betting on matches involving the that team he managed, the Chennai Super Kings. The IPL team, of course, is owned by Srinivasan. Mahendra Singh Dhoni, the Super Kings and Team India captain and a vice-president of India Cements, a Srinivasan firm, was also embroiled in the scandal when he was named in a police report for having agreed that Chennai would score 130-140 runs in an IPL match against Rajasthan Royals. They scored 141 and lost the match. 

Ordinarily, the world would sigh and reckon this was another example of India's feeble betting laws and 'favour culture' sullying cricket's good name. But they are sitting up, wary because Srinivasan effectively runs the game after having carved up ICC for consumption in a power grab with the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA). The poor will get poorer and the rich are supposed to get richer in the revamped ICC. 

What of its governance? All decisions will be taken by BCCI, ECB and CA and the rest will fall in line. That BCCI has been shown to be corrupt means cricket, from Colombo to the Caribbean, Lord's to Lahore, teeters on the edge of abyss. From these emails and missives, it is possible to go inside BCCI and see how dark that void could be. They suggest an all-powerful Srinivasan; they betray a lack of rigid structure that successful organisations are founded on.

In a letter dated May 8, 2013 to Alan Isaac, president of ICC, Srinivasan delivers a thinly-veiled threat for lack of support in the row over the election of L. Sivaramakrishnan, said to be an India Cements employee, as players' representative to ICC Cricket Committee at the expense of Federation of International Cricketers Association head Tim May. 

"I do not really mind if ICC management wishes to remain silent if they are sympathetic to the FICA media campaign," Srinivasan writes. "However, we'll truly treat this as a defining moment in the relationship we have with ICC management. We're not going to let this blatantly unfair attack of FICA with ICC a silent spectator go without a response in into the vote and claimed that captains from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe had been told to choose Sivaramakrishnan in a re-vote after May had been returned."

 It was alleged BCCI had used its financial power to coerce the boards into voting its way. This puts into context an email exchange between Dhoni and Geoff Allardice of ICC with the former irked that he has to vote again. "It's L. Shivaramakrishnan (sic) but how is it that from the previous mail Sanga's (Sri Lankan cricketer Kumar Sangakkara, another contender for the job) name gets picked but Shiva's doesn't."

Since Dhoni is close to Srinivasan, it is possible he was following orders. If this exemplifies Srinivasan flexing his muscles, then two emails from April 2013 show an apparent disrespect for the protocol of his own organisation. On April 15, Peter Griffiths of IMG, which helps run IPL, wrote to BCCI secretary Sanjay Jagdale to appoint a commission to hear a complaint under IPL 2013 operational rules. 

The rules mandate BCCI secretary to pick the members. But five days later, he got this email from Tamil Nadu Cricket Association secretary Kasi Viswanathan: "I am reproducing the message written by the President to you: 'Sanjay, Rajiv Shukla, Ajay Shirke and Ravi Shastri may hear the complaint. N Srinivasan'." 

Jagdale and Shirke quit on May 31 to protest the board's handling of the scandal. Now Jagdale says he had "no problem" with the way BCCI was run.

In another sidestepping of hierarchy, Prasanna Kannan, IPL chief financial officer who is reported to be an employee of India Cements, informs Jagdale of the appointments for home series against England, Pakistan only on April 4, 2013, long after these had been held in late 2012 and early 2013.

It is irregular that the secretary would not have made the appointments himself and it raises the question as to what exactly did this have to do with an IPL official. Kannan, it begs mention, assisted Srinivasan in his 'co-operation' with the Mudgal panel.

The spot-fixing scandal and mounting evidence of BCCI's disregard for what is proper has turned fans away from IPL. Since the first edition in 2008, its TV rating has dropped from 4.8 per cent to 2.9 per cent. "About $1 billion worth of IPL's brand value has been destroyed by such controversies and lack of governance," says Unni Krishnan, a global strategy director at London-based brand valuation consultancy Brand Finance.

This is worrying for world cricket now that its purse strings are held by BCCI and Srinivasan, as detailed in the revamp proposal, Final Position Paper, drafted by Srinivasan's secretary, which will ensure every member bar England, Australia and India is worse off. 

"Srini knew he could control everything. He says Haroon Lorgat should not be running South Africa's board and Lorgat is suspended. He says DRS is not acceptable, so it isn't. He runs ICC," says I.S. Bindra, the veteran administrator who has served both BCCI and ICC. "In my time, Jagmohan Dalmiya was the godfather. Srini wanted to follow him in spirit. But Srini is more dangerous because he has more resources. He told me he wanted to be the next Dalmiya." 

That doesn't bode well for cricket.

This article was first published in India Today Magazine, March 7

Wednesday, 12 March 2014

Exclusive: Asad Rauf 'bet with Meiyappan's bookie on games he officiated in'



A Mumbai police report which details how Asad Rauf, the Pakistan international umpire, bet on matches in which he was officiating with the same betting syndicate as Gurunath Meiyappan, has deepened the corruption crisis in the Indian Premier League.

Rauf was named as “wanted accused” by police in September last year following allegations of betting corruption in the 2013 tournament but only now has it come to light the extent of his involvement.

According to a report by the Mumbai Crime Branch which was presented to the IPL Probe Committee, Rauf, 57, was shown to have passed on match information in four matches and received gifts from bookmakers.

The allegations are likely to further embarrass N Srinivasan. As the head of the BCCI and the de facto supremo of the world game after a power grab at the ICC, Srinivasan’s reputation was damaged when Meiyappan, his son-in-law and manager of the franchise he owns, Chennai Super Kings, was found to be passing on information to a betting ring.

Damagingly, Rauf has been linked to the same bookies’ go-between who Meiyappan was working with. Between April 12 and May 17 last year, police intercepted 80 telephone conversations between Rauf and Vindoo Dara Singh during their investigation into Meiyappan. Vindoo is an actor who, according to the report, has links to bookmakers in India, Dubai and Pakistan.

The depth of Rauf’s apparent involvement is likely to stun cricket fans. The report’s pages claim that the ICC elite panel umpire, who has not officiated in an international match since last March, placed bets with Vindoo and boasted of providing information to two bookies Pawan and Sanjay Jaipur, who were implicated in the spot-fixing scandal involving Rajasthan Royals.

Police state that the telephone Rauf was using was revealed to be subscribed in the name of Sunil Kumar Naryanan, of Bangalore, who is “an acquaintance of bookie Sanjay Jaipur and provided to umpire Rauf by Sanjay Jaipur”. It is alleged that Rauf “spoke to bookies Prem Taneja, Pawan and Sanjay Jaipur”.

One of the recorded calls reveals that he asked Vindoo about the betting odds for Rajasthan versus Chennai on May 12, the game which the IPL Probe Committee said warranted investigation for corruption. Rauf asked for a Rs 50,000 (almost £500) wager and he is also taped giving pitch information, saying it is “difficult”.

The next day, May 13, Rauf tells Vindoo to bet on both sides in the Mumbai v Hyderabad match, informing him that he is the TV umpire. Later he boasts about getting the match result right and discusses a gold chain that he was promised as a reward for providing information.

On May 15, Rauf tells Vindoo “Aaj Zindagi Ki Har jeet Kar Lena”, which in the context can be translated as a once in a lifetime opportunity to place bets. Vindoo then calls bookmaker Pawan Jaipur to pass on that advice, telling him that the costs of all his gifts to Rauf “would recover in the match on that day”, a reference to the evening match between Mumbai and Rajasthan in which Rauf is umpiring. Rauf says that that Kolkata’s run chase target of 171 against Pune that day is “too stiff”.

The report also reveals details of another call on the same day, stating that Sanjay Jaipur “asserted that he would place bets for the match that was scheduled in the evening only as instructed by him [Rauf]”.

Police list the “gifts” that Rauf received from Sanjay and Pawan Jaipur, as a leather purse, hair trimmer, ladies dress material, pairs of jeans/trousers/shorts/pants, shirts/t-shirts, a pen and leather belts.

Other accusations include that Rauf talked to Vindoo about the betting odds for Chennai v Delhi and how he boasted about providing information to Sanjay Jaipur. He also says that he saved Tanjea, a bookie, from bankruptcy and told how Vindoo should “extract Rs 2 lacs for his [Rauf’s] shopping from Pawan Jaipur.

The interception appears to come to end on May 16 when Vindoo tells Rauf to destroy his SIM card.

Under the code of conduct for umpires it is an offence for them to engage directly, or indirectly in betting.

Rauf, who has stood in 170 internationals, vehemently denied the allegations. He described them as “bullshit” but he admitted that Vindoo was his friend and said that he knew “one of the Jaipur brothers who had sent me gifts for my birthday”. He claims to have co-operated fully with the ICC’s anti-corruption unit on the matter.

“None of this is true,” he said. “If the police record the conversations of angels then they will also hear some bad words. I have lots of friends and I can’t be held accountable for what they do in their private life. Every second person gambles in this part of the world.

“I have never compromised my job as an umpire by doing any cheating. Everyone will tell you I’m honest in my career. I did nothing wrong during that tournament and Vindoo will tell you the same. I didn’t place any bets and I didn’t tell him anything of interest about matches. ”

Thursday, 20 February 2014

The Mudgal Report: behind the story of a scandal



At two volumes and 169 pages the Justice Mudgal report into the allegations of betting and corruption in the sixth season of the IPL, can be a bit of a heavy read. So we are grateful for the headlines over the last few days which have succinctly informed us of the crashing conflict of interests in the BCCI and the grubby presence of fixing.

Indian cricket is in a dreadful state under the stewardship of N Srinivasan who commands the BCCI, Chennai Super Kings and Indian Cements. It is an unholy trinity which could very well threaten the future of the world game considering Srinivasan now, effectively, runs that as well. 


Frankly, world cricket should be up in collective arms. That they are not more than hints of the powerful grip that Srinivasan holds. 


There has been much coverage in the wake of the report's publication. But for students of the horrible side of the game the pages are still worth sifting through. And the morsels which can be picked out tantalise and, ultimately, leave a bitter taste.


So here are a few of the stories behind the report (although one I have left out for possible expose in a national newspaper). You should note that in bold are quotes lifted from the text and underneath are snippets prised from under the fingernails of this mucky business...



The committee has interacted with several persons who are listed below:
32 Mr N Srinivasan assisted by Mr Prasanna Kannan – President BCCI and director of India Cements
Kannan has been reported as being an employee of India Cements. He was also CFO of IPL and during this role sent apparent orders to the BCCI secretary with regard to the national team which were outside of traditional remit.


“The role of Gurunath Meiyappan in Chennai Super Kings Dhoni, Srinivasan and officials of India Cements took the stand that Mr Meiyappan had nothing to do with cricketing affairs of CSK and was a mere enthusiast.”
A nice try. Shame that the this video exists. It's actually almost funny.



“The Committee in relation to IPL franchisees in general and Mr. Meiyappan in particular questioned Mr. Sundar Raman as to who an owner of a team is, to which he replied that the ownership structures of teams are in general ambiguous. Mr. Raman further stated that the term “owner” for the purpose of accreditation is loosely used and has no implication, while identifying an owner under the franchise agreement. He further stated that the status of an ultimate owner is not clear, but may be read as per the Franchise Agreement.”
Raman, COO of the IPL, was officious when it came to accreditation according to a source who worked in that department. “No one was more particular about accreditations and ensuring who the owner badges went to.”  


“Mr. Raman also admitted that the IPL Governing Council had not made any effort to determine who the ultimate owners of the franchisees were.”
The source continues: “Each and every member of the Governing Council was clear on who the owners were and these were marked on all communication and discussions on franchise issues”.


“Mike Hussey a CSK cricketer in his book “Underneath the Southern Cross” had written at Page-197 about CSK as under: ‘Our owner was Indian cements headed by Mr. Srinivasan. As he was also on the board of the BCCI, he gave control of the team to his son-in-law Mr. Gurunath. He ran the team along with Kepler Wenels [sic], who was coach’.”
 Hussey’s reputation in the game is impeccable. Why did Srinivasan initially say Gurunath was merely an “enthusiast” and then backtrack to claim ignorance of his role?


“The Committee feels that there is enough information available on record to indicate that a further investigation is required in respect of the match held at Jaipur, between Rajasthan Royals and Chennai Super Kings on the 12.5.2013. The factors are as follows:
Factors that cast aspersions: Batting first no sixes were hit by CSK who otherwise have proven six hitters. Factors that indicate nothing was amiss: Teams tend to relax in matches which are of no consequence post qualification for the knock out semi-final grounds.”
 This is the only instance in IPL and CLT20 history that a CSK batsman failed to hit a six.


Factors that cast aspersions: The Chennai Super Kings batting first were 89-1 in 11th over yet ended up with the modest total of 141 for 4. Factors that indicate nothing was amiss: Rajasthan Royals have generally won all matches at Jaipur as deposed by Anil Kumble.
 A ludicrous suggestion under ‘nothing was amiss’. Rajasthan have not won all their matches in Jaipur. Kuble is understood to have voted for Srinivasan in previous elections. However, far more importantly there was a suspicious betting pattern on this match. Chennai’s good start and the odds could be proof of classic odds manipulation. On the Betfair innings runs market more than £22,000 was available at 1.09 to back 150 or more. It is well known that when five figures are available this constitutes Indian money. It is also rare indeed to see such massive amounts on such a market. However, throughout this IPL season there were a number of matches which would have raised the eyebrows of betting experts in terms of patterns on this market.


“Mr. Pradeep Magazine told us that even the agents had a number of conflicts of interest as these agents besides dealing with the players also dealt with the BCCI for their stadia advertisements, sponsorships amongst other things. This conflict of interest made BCCI’s stance with regard to these agents soft and BCCI tended to ignore a lot of discrepancies in its conduct with agents.”
Arun Pandey, MS Dhoni’s agent, manage the marketing of CSK. The same company (Rhiti Sports) also manages players in the India team. Until recently Dhoni had a stake in this company.  


“The Committee is of the view that for the acts of betting by Mr. Meiyappan, which is further accentuated by the position he held in CSK, which was held by Mr. Meiyappan with the implicit approval of the franchisee owner India Cements, Mr. Meiyappan is in violation of Sections 2.2.1 and 2.14 the IPL Operational Rules for bringing the game in disrepute, Articles 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 of the IPL Anti Corruption Code for his acts of betting and Articles 2.4.4 of the IPL Code of Conduct for Players and Team Officials, for bring disrepute to the game of cricket.”
Under the IPL franchise agreement just one of these violations would be enough to make the CSK franchise defunct.


“The names of the persons and allegations in view of the sensitive nature of the information are being provided separately in a sealed envelope.”
It is understood that the same players have also been named by Sreesanth, the India bowler, in his interrogation by Delhi police. He stated that these players have been given flats, money and gifts by corruptors.”


“When the committee asked the ICC-ACSU for the required information that was in its possession, Mr. Y.P. Singh, the Director of ICC-ACSU, informed the Committee that information was available with Mr. N.S. Virk, the regional security officer and when Mr. Virk was contacted he stated that the said information if any, was not within his knowledge and was available with Mr. Y.P. Singh. Hence the Committees felt the officers of the ICC-ACSU were not very forthcoming.”
 Damning for the ACSU. It is known that at least one the ‘sealed envelope players’ has been investigated by the ACSU.


“2. Need for stringent and effective control on Player’ Agents.
The Committee received several recommendations that the agents of the players needed to be investigated in order to get to the root of this problem of match fixing and spot fixing.”
IPL officials have cancelled accreditations and barred some player agents from being present in the dug out or even at the ground. Lalit Modi, the founder of IPL, has also said that he barred player agents and had to speak to several ‘superstar’ players about the unwanted influence of agents.

Thursday, 30 January 2014

Lalit Modi interview: the nail in the coffin for the world game



The last time I met with Lalit Modi he was becalmed. It was in September, just after the BCCI had confirmed a life ban. The waspish tongue had lost some if its sting and he admitted that there was some relief that the battle scars from his war with Srinivasan, the honcho of the Indian game, could heal. “I can get on with the rest of my life,” Modi sighed.


But today he is raging. This is the old Modi. Ready to go to war. His targets, those who have re-ignited the ire, are the BCCI, England Wales Cricket Board (ECB) and Cricket Australia (CA). It was recently announced that the big three — so called because they represent the world game’s financial muscle – wanted an overhaul of the International Cricket Council which would give them all the power.

Under a new executive committee called ExCo, the trio would have the ability to override all other countries, raising the fear that while India, England and Australia would get richer, the poorer nations would be destitute.

Modi is barely able to contain his anger at the thought of what he describes as a “cartel” before rattling off at a thousand miles an hour the various doomsday implications for such a structural shift.

“It’s a cartel, an unholy trinity and it threatens the future of the game,” Modi says. “I’m serious. How can it possibly be good for the other Test playing nations and the associate members that these three line their own pockets. It is a scandal and it must be stopped.

“They are going to kill cricket with these proposals. Great, India and England and Australia can play themselves to their heart’s content but they have put every other nation on the bread line.”

It is, however, predictable that Modi is zeroing the crosshairs on Srinivasan and with whom he has waged a bitter battle since his exclusion from administration.

“Listen, this isn’t about me and Srini. But if you want to make it about me and him fine. He doesn’t have the best interests of the world game at his heart. He runs the BCCI like a fiefdom, his own personal business. And now he’s going to run world cricket for his own interests.”

Despite it ‘getting personal’ Modi’s views are worth heeding.

But Modi makes for captivating listening when he begins to pick apart his ‘unholy trinity’, brandishing the position paper point by point and clause by clause. Of chief concern is the question of governance. With the eagle-eye of a man who is used to poring over contracts, Modi focuses on the cloak of invisibility which the boards appear to be granting themselves.

“They are saying they should have the power because they can bring greater stability but they don’t explain how they are going to do it. This is cloak and dagger stuff. Where’s the transparency? And then they say that each member will be given revenue share in line with the growth of the ICC. They are just lining their pockets.

“You can read it yourself. It is clear in black and white. Section one, page three, point E and I’ll quote it ‘Ensuring a fair distribution of revenues, recognizing the contribution of each member to the ICC both on and off the field’. The key word there is ‘contribution’. Well, of course Indian ‘contribute’ more in terms of money than Zimbabwe. But this is totalitarian. This is about the rich getting richer and screw the rest.

“Again, a little further down. Same section, same page but point f. ‘The need to streamline bilateral cricket arrangements and ensure the on-going relevance of all these matches to ICC events and the viability of cricket in all relevant markets’. Look, we all know what streamline means in this context. It’s reducing or getting rid all together.”

“These three want to stop playing the small fry like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, New Zealand, Sri Lanka. Because they don’t think people are interested in watching the lesser teams. But that cuts off the blood supply to these countries. In the short term the ‘Three Boards’ will be richer but long term? Only three teams will be left and who wants to watch that? This is why it is self-interest because in the long term, Srinivasan, Clarke and Wally Edwards (CA chairman) will be sitting on their ivory towers retired and living the very good life. They won’t care.

“Here is another clause that proves it. ‘No member should be forced to host uneconomic tours’. And another ‘There should be no Future Tours Programme agreement’ and they want to change the cycle of when teams play each other to a minimum of four years. These clauses are the nails in the coffin for the world game.

“Perhaps worst of all there is a clause in there which allows them to restructure the ICC in such a way they can control it for a very long time. It’s cleverly written for sure but people need to have their eyes opened.
“And there are threats too. It says that the ExCo teams will not play the smaller ones at all unless they agree to this deal. This is blackmail.”

Modi remains incandescent as he fires off each missive. He reveals more devil in the detail, information which may strike at the heart of every fan who wants cricket to remain global, fair and open to all. Fittingly, it is the breakdown of the financials which exposes a worrying flaw.

“They are proposing that they get all the power and all the money, ok? How are they going to do that? By getting a larger slice of the pie. Under the current arrangement of dividing up the $2.5 billion the ICC earns, everyone bar the ‘Three Boards’ are going to be poorer. I’ve looked into it, Ehsan Mani has looked into it. These are facts.

“Currently the BCCI, ECB and CA would get just over $117 million. When they get their way they’ll pocket greater sums. And guess who gets the most? Srini and the BCCI. They would earn more than $500 million, the ECB about $173m and CA $130m. As for the rest, Bangladesh and Zimbabwe would see their income reduced by almost half. The associate members, as a group, now get $500m and that would be slashed to $210m. That is not right.

“They say they are doing this to protect Test cricket. What? Are you serious? You are protecting a format by ensuring there is no competition and that no other teams can invest in it? This is a joke. And they want promotion and relegation as well just to make sure the big shots never have to face the smaller teams.”

The plan to ensure that only India, Australia and England host World Cup events from 2015-2023 can hardly be described, therefore, as innovative. Nor is it about taking the game to the people.

It is, in fact, in contradiction to the ICC’s vision for the game. And it’s ‘Strategic Direction’ is to have “a bigger, better, global game targeting more players, more fans, more competitive teams.” This is a red rag to a bull to Modi when, somewhat mischievously, I ask him about these ‘mission statements’.

“Suicide. Plain and simple,” he cries. “They are burning bridges, not building them. They should read that stuff again before they strike the match and reduce this great game to cinders.

“No matter what, three countries will continue to play against each other and reap the benefits. Where is meritocracy in this proposal if promotion and relegation of Test teams is based purely on the amount of money they have?

“What happens to West Indies, Sri Lanka and Pakistan? Between them they have won four World Cups and yet they are being treated as also-rans? Where is the justice?  Why should India, England and Australia have all the say? England haven’t even won a World Cup. What gives them the right?”

I wonder whether Modi feels the BCCI should be handed such sway when the organisation has had its name grubbied by links to match-fxing in the IPL?

“Ha! No, no, we’ve done enough. I think you’re now trying to upset me,” he laughs. “Everyone knows about that and they are all clever enough to work that out for themselves. It’s not about me. It’s about this document. It’s about stopping this ‘ExCo’, this rubber stamp. What this clause will do if this paper is ever implemented is that it will hand all and I mean all the powers into the hands of one individual – and that can never be good for an organisation.”

Quite. It’s not about Modi. And despite the reputation that goes before him for being hot-headed and contradictory, cricket would be dumb not to listen to him on this one.

This article was first published in the Hindustan Times on January 28

Thursday, 23 January 2014

The human cost of fixing: An interview with Mervyn Westfield



Mervyn Westfield’s voice wavers. He bites his bottom lip and looks up at the ceiling. He has just been reminded of the first time he saw his father cry. And it was his fault. The former Essex player told him he was guilty of deliberately bowling badly for money. Paid in cash by an Indian betting syndicate. Match-fixing. All those hours in the back garden teaching the six-year-old Mervyn in-swing had been wasted.

“I don’t show my emotions,” Westfield had boasted earlier. Watch him in the 11-minute video, released in September by the Professional Cricketers’ Association about why he underperformed  in a one-day match for Essex against Durham in September 2009, and you would believe such a statement.

But during a three-hour interview in a stuffy meeting room at Frenford Clubs in Redbridge, east London, the 25-year-old former fast bowler is a harrowing, heartbreaking subject. He is the human cost of fixing. Tears well in his eyes as he relives how he became the first cricketer to be convicted of such a crime. How he went from playing for England under-19s, a glittering career ahead of him, to working at Tesco in Barking. Westfield is a shelf stacker now.

“I ruined my life, it’s as harsh as that,” he says. “I’ve been banned from playing professionally until 2017. But I know my career is over. I’ll be 29 then. Who would want me with my history?”

In the video Westfield does not talk about how he feared for his life sharing a cell with a double murderer in the highest-security prison in Europe. He does not talk about how he felt that the cricket authorities, including the PCA, washed their hands of him when he was released. 

Nor does he tell, in his soft, painfully introverted style, how ECB legal representatives banged on the home of his parent’s house in the small hours when his father was recovering from cancer surgery, demanding he testify against Danish Kaneria, the Pakistan spinner who was banned for life for grooming Westfield.

What also fails to make the final cut is his insistence that “someone in the ECB, Essex, PCA or whoever” knew that Kaneria was a threat to vulnerable, impressionable cricketers, yet he was allowed to play.

The pariah turned preacher is still a potent weapon as English cricket tries to prevent players from falling prey to punters and bookmakers trying to manipulate televised matches on the illegal Indian betting market. 

No-one would want to end up like Westfield. It is an uncomfortable truth that he has been stage-managed by the fixers and authorities alike. A victim moulded for their own gain and to the hell with the consequences. 
If it sounds as though Westfield covets sympathy, he does not. Good Lord, no. He is contrite, ashamed. 

Almost every answer he gives finishes with a doleful look, an apology, or, several times “I’m just an idiot...got what I deserved.” Throughout the interview he makes reference to a lack of intelligence.

He is happiest when discussing the early days, playing for Wanstead under-9s with his dad watching from the boundary. “My dad’s from St Vincent, just a little island in the Caribbean. I just wanted to bowl fast. To knock people’s heads off. Like Walsh, Ambrose or Holding.” He flashes a white smile. “Yeah, even at the age of six that’s what I wanted to do. People told me I was rapid, but not so fast when I started playing for Wanstead men’s teams at 13.”

His rise was quick. Four years later Westfield made his debut for Essex against Durham. Ronnie Irani, the captain, had seen him bowl in the nets. “Have we just signed Sylvester Clarke?” he asked Darren Gough. 

“My dad liked that,” Westfield says. “Before I never really thought about becoming a professional. Some people from a young age dream of it. Not me. I was all about loving the game.

“When I played against Durham I was nervous – I was still in college then. It was a big thing for me. Ronnie saw something in me. He thought I could perform at that high level and I wanted to show everyone that I could.”

And yet, when asked “you must have been an excellent player at 17?”, his reaction is telling. “I’m not one those people who thinks ‘I’m good’. If someone says ‘are you good?’ I’d say ‘I’m OK’. I’m shy. Not very confident.” As silence is left to linger he looks down, picks at his fingers and retreats into his chair. Over the rest of our time together he shrinks further, reducing a 6ft frame to a husk as he slowly starts to talk of how his life unravelled.

It was most likely this debilitating, palpable insecurity that first attracted the predatory Kaneria. Westfield was 21 when the Pakistani began to manipulate him but they first played together when he was just 18. Essex team-mates claimed Kaneria was always joking about match-fixing but no-one took him seriously. Westfield, who was in and out of the first XI at the time, desperate to be liked and flattered by the attention of a superstar, tragically did.

“He’s a world star and he’s wanting to speak to me? And obviously he wanted to spend time with me. ‘He really likes me’, I thought. ‘I’m young, I’m no one compared to him’. You’re going to be excited by stuff like that. I was in awe of him. He had been compared to Shane Warne.

“The first approach about fixing he made was at his house a few weeks before the Durham game. He had two friends there from Pakistan and India.  He introduced me. He asked if we could talk outside. That was the first time he told me.

“He made it out like it was … I don’t know … like a normal sort of thing. I was confused. My head was all over the place. I forgot about it and just thought that was it.”

It wasn’t. Soon after the two friends of Kaneria spoke with Westfield at an Essex net session. “They explained it a bit more. ‘It’s easy. No-one’s going to find out. You’ve nothing to worry about’. But I still didn’t say I was going to do it.” However, in a classic grooming technique they had been taking him out for dinner and drinks. They made sure he paid for nothing. Westfield was in their debt and on September 4, the eve of the 40-over match against Durham, he was in Kaneria’s hotel room with the two friends. One of them could have been Arun Bhatt, a Delhi bookmaker who the ICC had warned Kaneria about fraternising.

“They started to put pressure on me,” Westfield says. “They said ‘you have to do it because we’ve put money on it and you’re going to make a lot of people unhappy’ in where ever it was. Obviously you look up to this person, you feel pressurised because you’re in someone else’s room. I said ‘no, no, no’ but they wouldn’t take no for an answer. This went on for two-three hours. I didn’t want to upset them. I wanted to be accepted.”

Westfield returned to his room. “I felt like shit,” he says. “I didn’t know what to do. I thought if I told someone they wouldn’t understand.” That mental image of a young man alone and confused without a friend to talk should haunt the game. If only he’d have phoned his dad.

“I don’t know why I didn’t call him. He would’ve kicked my arse that’s for sure but that wasn’t the reason. I wish I had spoken to him that night, anyone. But I even lied to my parents for two years about this whole thing... didn’t tell them. I lied to my own parents for two years and said I didn’t do it...” Westfield, letting his mouth run away from the chronology of the story, says this as if he is admonishing himself. He shrivels a little more. His eyes go glassy. He looks like a boy.

“It was eating me inside. I’d lied for so long. I just thought they needed to know. Obviously if I did end up going to prison they’d say ‘why’? They were both sitting there crying. I just came out with it one day at home. That was the hardest day of my life, the worst day of my life.”

The morning of the match Westfield said he felt sick, although by the time of his first over he claims he had resolved not to carry out the fix. He was supposed to concede at least 12 runs in the over but despite four wides and two no-balls, he went for ten runs. “I never looked at the scoreboard once,” he says. “I knew from ball one I wasn’t going to do it.” A convenient excuse? “People will say what they want. Ian Blackwell [the batsman] is a good player. I had problems with my accuracy. Always did. But it doesn’t matter, I did wrong.”

His mistake was taking the money. When Essex returned at 3am to Chelmsford having won the match, Kaneria drove Westfield home and handed him a bag containing £6,000. When he recounts this part of the story I get the urge to shake him and shout ‘Why did you take it Merv? Why?’ Was he that obsessed with money that he would jeopardise a whole career for the sake of six grand?

He bristles. “No. I couldn’t care less about money. I wasn’t in to flash cars or Louis Vuitton. My lifestyle was cinema and McDonalds. I don’t know why I took it. I said to Danish that I didn’t concede 12 runs, that I didn’t keep the bargain. He wouldn’t take no for an answer. I never spent it. It was just there in my house. Never touched it. That’s what people don’t understand. The police collected it. I gave it all back.”

It took nearly a year for the fix to emerge when Tony Palladino, an Essex team-mate, reported Westfield who had shown him the money. Westfield and Kaneria were arrested in May 2010. In September Westfield, who had been released by Essex a few weeks before, was charged. Kaneria was not.

In January 2012 Westfield watched from the dock as his mother and aunt wept in the public gallery of the Old Bailey after he had pleaded guilty to accepting or obtaining a corrupt payment to bowl in a way that would allow the scoring of runs contrary to the Corruption Act 1906. His father was absent because he was to undergo an operation for prostate cancer.

A prison sentence came as a surprise to Westfield. He is reluctant to “slag off” his legal team, which was provided by the PCA, but he says that at no stage did they mention he might be “sent down”. “They didn’t even think about it, nothing like that.” And certainly nowhere as notorious as Belmarsh, the prison which housed the most dangerous criminals in the UK.

“I was afraid. I got locked up in the most secure jail in Europe and I didn’t even know this until I got there. No one told me. I was sharing a cell with a double murderer. My crime compared to his was nowhere near. ‘What am I doing in here with a double murderer?’ I’m not saying I shouldn’t have gone to jail but just not in the same one as people like that.

“He’s in there for the rest of his life. And if he wanted to kill me he could have done. 100 per cent. He could snap at any point. I was thinking that constantly. It wasn’t easy to sleep at night. That was exhausting. If you pissed him off he was aggressive. I saw a few people piss him off. 

“Some guy got his head whacked in because he wouldn’t give someone some food. I saw a guy got beaten up by 20 or 30 guys. You see it all in there. You see people carrying weapons. You see everything. Everything. It was hell.

“I tried to act normal. I was scared and nervous. You can’t show you are weak, though. You’ve got to get the balance. If I was scared and showed it then you could become their bitch or something.”

After two months Westfield was released. If he thought the ordeal was over, he was wrong. In April this year the ECB wanted him to appear as witness in the appeal by Kaneria against his life ban. The way they went about it was reminiscent of the pressure applied by his former team-mate.

“They wouldn’t leave me alone,” he says. “I wanted to forget it all. They got a court summons in the end. The ECB said if I didn’t give evidence then I’d go back to prison. I was getting the ECB legal guys and the anti-corruption guys coming to the house all the time trying to hand me the summons. Twelve at night, in the morning. Banging on the door, knocking on the window.  My dad had just had another operation. One time when my little brother went out they ran after him, thinking it was me.”

Westfield says he was abandoned. He felt let down by the PCA and ECB who he believed had a duty of care for him. He released a statement which criticised them for a lack of support. To outsiders it sounded like a rant from a bitter young man. But sat opposite him, on the inside somewhat, it was clear what Westfield was. Broken.

For months after he left Belmarsh Westfield admits that he barely spoke. He had retreated, frightened to speak or act. His parents had to attend every legal meeting to make sure he talked. Although he failed the system, the system failed him. 

“I wanted support,” he says. “Just someone to be there for me. Rats [Jason Ratcliffe, the assistant chief executive at the PCA] was quite good with me. He was texting me so I can’t knock him but ... I don’t know ... just to show me they’re there and supporting me. I didn’t have that.”

It would be too easy to reckon that Westfield has no cause for complaint. ‘He shouldn’t have done it then’ is the simplistic argument of fools. He was a guinea pig. The first of his kind to investigated, tried and sentenced. But just as Westfield can educate other players, he can teach the PCA, ECB and county teams how to deal with a corruption case. 

For example, he does not exclude the PCA, ECB and Essex  from blame when he talks of the “authorities who were fully aware” of the position he found himself in at Essex with Kaneria. It is an incendiary claim.

“I won’t point fingers but I know that someone knew. I am a little angry about that. I did what I did and I’m guilty, don’t get me wrong. But people knew. Danish should not have been playing. If I was being shown pictures of bookmakers or whoever, asking me to identify them, then they knew all about what he was up to. Certain people acted as if they didn’t know, they didn’t say anything because of who Danish was.”

What Westfield won’t talk about is if he was unique in the English game. The solitary fixer. “It goes on, yeah, yeah. But I’m not saying anything.” An embarrassed smile suggests he might not be the only one. Again he brings it back to the topic he is most comfortable.

“What I did was wrong. I paid the price. A heavy price and I’m not complaining. I’ll only ever be known as the first person to be convicted for this. That’s what I am to people. Their first thought when they see me. I let down my friends, my family, my-team-mates. Everyone. I let down everyone. I will live with that for the rest of my life.”

This article was first published in  The Cricketer magazine's January edition