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.

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

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

In depth: The reality of football's match-fixing claims

Football is never far away from its next scandal and allegations of match-fixing certainly dent the reputation of the beautiful game. But is it right to call the recent claims of wrongdoing "match fixing"?

Sam Sodje, a former Portsmouth player, was filmed by an undercover reporter claiming he could arrange for footballers to be booked for a £30,000 fee and a sending-off for £50,000 to £70,000 in order to facilitate betting fraudsters. Six people have been arrested, including DJ Campbell, the Blackburn Rovers striker.

Emotive terms like "plague" and "cancer" have been used in the media and there have been calls for fixers to be banned for life, but why has no-one asked whether it is actually possible to make substantial amounts of money by betting on yellow and red cards?

The answer - and the awkward truth - is that it is impossible. No matter which expert is asked, they all say the same.

While there is a window of opportunity to make some financial gain on the goals-related market if a fixer has information about a red card being awarded, the world's leading anti-corruption officer, Chris Eaton, claims it is the sort of "small-fry" wager that would not interest crime syndicates.

To explode the myth that massive amounts of money are being made by people betting on yellow and red cards, let's examine in detail how the regulated bookmakers in the United Kingdom and the licensed and unlicensed Asian bookmakers operate.

In the UK, it is possible to bet on an individual player being cautioned during a match, but gamblers are restricted to small stakes for fear that such betting opportunities can be manipulated. Every regulated bookmaker has software that will alert staff to a suspicious betting pattern.

Graham Sharpe, who has worked for bookmakers William Hill for 42 years, says: "The average bet on a yellow-card market would not even be £100. It's fivers and tenners.

"So if we saw one bet above the average wager, we'd raise an eyebrow. If we saw two, we'd begin to investigate. Any more than that and we'd have to shut the market."

For Tuesday's Champions League match between Manchester United and Shakhtar Donetsk, a game United won 1-0, bookmakers Victor Chandler said they took 36 bets on the "to receive a yellow card" market, only 0.75% of their pre-game turnover.

As for Sky Bet, who have a maximum payout of £1,000 on yellow cards, they reported insignificant amounts. Unibet and 888Sport were the only other firms to offer the wager.

It is the same with the spread bookmakers. Mark Maydon, business affairs director for SportingIndex, said: "Spread betting firms operate in exactly the way a fixed-odds firm would in this regard. We are regulated by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority so we have very stringent know your customer (KYC) requirements. That in itself is a powerful deterrent – we don’t just take bets from individuals we haven’t checked out. Then we have systems and processes in place designed to prevent us from being victims of a fix. For example, we offer bookings markets on higher profile televised matches only, and staking levels are controlled.

“All bets are monitored in real time, so it would be impossible for a punter to stake enough on a yellow card, or any other market, to make this corruption worthwhile. We'd know who he was instantly and we’d report it to the regulatory authorities. So it would be a very dumb thing to do."

But what of the Asian industry where we are told much of the corruption in football takes place?

The gambling dens in that part of the world have a mysterious reputation. A few years ago, the punter wanting to make a bet in the streets of Jakarta or Hanoi would need a password to access the bookies who had set up in the backroom of a karaoke bar.

But this subversive glamour is the past. The hideouts and holes have been replaced by gleaming office blocks, 24-hour call centres and websites, so that gamblers can get their bet on. Gambling in Asia has gone corporate.

Anti-corruption investigators call this new-look industry "the grey market" because they are not quite sure how it works. As for match fixers, they use it because they are able to stake unrestrained amounts in a faceless manner. But can they make a killing by betting on yellow or red cards?

"No chance," says Joe Saumarez Smith, a sports betting consultant who has been advising Asian operations for 21 years. "You cannot bet on a yellow card being given to an individual player or a red card being given to an individual player in Asia. Bookies don't offer odds.

"I would say that 90% of money wagered is on Asian handicaps - a goals-related market - but the rest is on the match odds and over/under a certain amount of goals.

"I can't think of any way to make money from the information about a yellow card."

A red card could work in favour of corruptors but only if they knew exactly when a player would be dismissed.

With that inside information, a fixer would be able to "trade" the goal markets in Asia much like someone could a stock price if they had company secrets. The likelihood of goals in a game increases after a sending-off, so if bets are placed just before a card is issued - timing is crucial - the change in odds gives the fixer a margin for profit.

It can be complex and confusing for the layman to understand, so let's put it another way. If someone buys 10 loaves of bread for £1 each just before a chronic food shortage, then sells one back for £10, the money they make by offloading the rest is pure profit.

Eaton, the former head of security at Fifa who is trying to set up a global fixing taskforce, argues inaccurate revelations are a hindrance to curbing the problem of betting corruption in football because it propagates falsehoods.

"It's misinformation," he says. "Corrupt attitudes have been uncovered, no more. I do think this sort of media story is harmful. People talk about spot betting as if it's a huge conspiracy but this is just wrong. It's inconsequential in terms of quantum.

"The quantum in football is all on a significant result or the number of goals scored. We're talking about significant field outcomes here, not yellow cards, red cards to satisfy criminal organisations.

"People will talk about 'trading' the odds for a red card, but I think that's small fry. It's becoming a common lexicon and by doing that we're confusing the issue by talking about these trendy, boutique bets. They mean almost nothing."

Eaton, whose current role is as sports integrity director at the International Centre for Sports Security, says it is possible that such smaller "fixes" could be used as a test.

"The fixers want to know how trustworthy these guys are so they give them something simple to do," he says. "It is someone proving they have other people under their control."

In that regard, the recent revelations are similar to the infamous News of the World sting that saw three Pakistan cricketers convicted of deliberately bowling no-balls in a Test match at Lord's in 2010.

Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir went to prison for conspiracy to cheat at gambling, defined under the Gambling Act of 2005.

But just like the yellow cards in football, there is no opportunity to make significant amounts of money by betting on a no-ball, legal or illegal.

Yasin Patel, the lawyer who defended Butt, says sport, the legal profession and the courts must get to grips with the nuances of legal and illegal betting if corruption is to be checked.

"Footballers' reputations and livelihoods are at stake here," he says. "People cannot be arrested or charged under match-fixing just because a newspaper headline screams the term. Everyone needs to be smarter and speak to the experts. We all want sport to be clean but we have to clean it up using the laws of the country in the right manner."

It is also unlikely that a footballer could be charged with conspiring to defraud when it comes to fixing yellow or red cards because the sums involved are minimal.

The National Crime Agency could instead look to the new bribery act to take any case to court, which does not, according to Patel, fall under the criteria of corruption in sport.

So that is neither match fixing nor spot fixing. Nor is it quite the spicy plot line some would have us believe. For the good of the game and for attempting to stop the scourge, that has to be made clear.

This was first published on the BBC Sport website on December 13 2013 

Football match-fixing in the UK: there's smoke but no fire

If you were to walk into any betting shop on the high street and ask for £1,000 on Player A to receive a yellow card in a Football League match the cashier would say ‘I just need to call head office’. Later you would be told the wager would not be accepted. They would suspect foul play.

Therein lies the problem with the sensational allegations about match-fixing in English football. Amid such media storms, rarely is the question asked:  can you actually make money betting on it?

The answer, almost certainly, is no. Sam Sodje’s claims that he can arrange for footballers to receive a yellow card for £30,000 are troubling but they are far from proof of fixing. And it does not require a huge amount of common sense to understand why not.  

High street UK bookmakers do accept bets on a variety of markets which involve yellow or red cards. Occasionally, it is possible to bet on an individual player to be booked.

However, bookmakers restrict gamblers to small stakes for fear that such betting opportunities can be manipulated. On average an individual player  would be around 4-1 to receive a yellow card. A gambler would be allowed no more, if he was lucky, than a £250 stake. Consider the number of wagers needed to be placed for the ‘corruptor’ in this instance to win back his £30,000 bribe.

With winnings of £1,000 per bet the ‘fixer’ would need to place 30 separate bets. In the heavily regulated UK market that is impossible. Markets are shut down at the merest whiff of a suspicious betting pattern, which would normally constitute a run of four of five such wagers across the industry.

But what about the illegal bookmakers in Asia, surely they would take the bets? No chance. The ‘grey’ betting markets, which are somewhere between legal and illegal, based in the Philippines, do not offer punters’ the chance to bet on cards of any hue. Nor do the authentic black market operators in the back streets of Hanoi or Singapore.

The Sun, it would appear, have uncovered corrupt attitudes within the English game. With no bet placed and no opportunity to do so, however, it cannot be called match-fixing.

This article was first published in The Times on December 10 

Kiwi investigation a reminder of 'the plague'

Here’s a sorry stat. In the last three years 11 cricketers have been handed bans for corruption, nine more face charges from the Bangladesh Premier League scandal and at least three New Zealanders are being investigated.

It was 13 years ago that cricket was supposed to have suffered its nadir. Nine, including Hansie Cronje, the captain of South Africa, and his India counterpart, Mohammad Azharuddin, both behemoths of the game, were banned for fixing matches or agreeing to underperform for bookmakers.

But the dark clouds have never really lifted. The news that Chris Cairns, Lou Vincent and Daryl Tuffey are being probed is a reminder that the scourge will never go away. It is also a reminder that corruption in cricket is not a problem isolated to the Indian sub-continent.

New Zealand Cricket probably thought it was untouchable. And I say that because when researching Bookie Gambler Fixer Spy I had some dealings with them. They were shirty and precious. How very dare you cast aspersions in our direction.

Nothing is proved, of course, but that tale is told because it is very much the pervading attitude among boards other than Pakistan, India and Sri Lanka.  Nothing to do with us, they say. The ECB were the same until they appointed an anti-corruption unit. They have found in the last two years that, boy, do they need one.

Kiwi cricket is actually more vulnerable than most. The board is cash poor and subsequently so are their players. A top performer back in 2007 would have earned no more than $100,000 a year. So they need to earn money in places like the ICL and IPL, hotbeds for corruption as anyone with a semblance of knowledge of this grubby business will attest.

And there’s the rub. A trip to ICL or IPL is a bit like a young buck going on an 18-30 holiday to Ibiza. You’re young, dumb, careless. You make some bad decisions. You pick up something nasty. That nasty thing comes back with you. It follows you.

Between them, Vincent, Cairns and Tuffey played for 14 different clubs in four different countries. That is not to claim they are guilty, merely to point out how cricketers get around these days.

Vincent has a poor reputation in the game but will relish the chance to clear his name as he is probably sick and tired of being asked whether he has been up to no good. And best of luck to him.

Those who have good memories will, of course, remember that a match Vincent was involved with – the Sussex v Kent one-day match in 2011 – was investigated, and cleared, by the ICC. It has since been reported that the ECB have been having a good, hard look at it. As well they should. The betting patterns were off the scale.

It is unlikely that the Sussex v Kent match is one of those being referred to by the ACSU in this insistence. Nor are they expected to be international New Zealand games or domestic contests in the country.

Cairns’ name cropping up again is not a surprise either. The all-rounder has already won a libel case against Lalit Modi for claims about corruption in the ICL. He won easily (legal parlance not my forte), according to the judge, so he will be confident that he will not face a charge.