Match fixing

In organised sports, match fixing, game fixing, race fixing, or sports fixing occurs as a match is played to a completely or partially pre-determined result, violating the rules of the game and often the law. Where the sporting competition in question is a race then the incident is referred to as race fixing. Games that are deliberately lost are sometimes called thrown games. When a team intentionally loses a game, or does not score as high as it can, to obtain a perceived future competitive advantage (for instance, earning a high draft pick) rather than gamblers being involved, the team is often said to have tanked the game instead of having thrown it. In pool hustling, tanking is known as dumping. In sports where a handicap system exists and is capable of being abused, tanking is known as sandbagging. Thrown games, when motivated by gambling, require contacts (and normally money transfers) between gamblers, players, team officials, and/or referees. These contacts and transfer can sometimes be found, and lead to prosecution, by law or by the sports league(s). In contrast, tanking is internal to the team and very hard to prove. Often, substitutions made by the coach designed to deliberately increase the team's chances of losing (frequently by having one or more key players sit out, often using minimal or phantom injuries as a public excuse for doing this), rather than ordering the players actually on the field to intentionally underperform, were cited as the main factor in cases where tanking has been alleged.
Contents
[hide]

o o o o o o o o o o

1 Motivations and causes 1.1 Agreements with gamblers 1.2 Getting a better draft pick 1.3 Better playoff chances 1.4 More favorable schedule next year 1.5 Match fixing by referees 1.6 Match fixing to a draw or a fixed score 1.7 Abuse of tie-breaking rules 1.8 Individual performance in team sports 1.9 Effect of non-gambling-motivated fixing on wagering 2 History 2.1 Japan 3 Match fixing and gambling today 4 Match fixing incidents 5 Outside of sports 6 See also 7 References

[edit]Motivations and causes The major motivations behind match fixing are gambling and future team advantage. [edit]Agreements with gamblers There may be financial gain through agreements with gamblers. The most infamous example of this in North America was the Black Sox Scandal of 1919, in which several members of the Chicago White Soxconspired with gamblers to fix the World Series. [edit]Getting a better draft pick In the National Hockey League (NHL), National Basketball Association (NBA) and Australian Football League, teams near the bottom of the standings have sometimes been accused of throwing games at the end of the season to finish with the worst record in the leaguethereby gaining the first draft pick. To deter this behavior, these leagues now use a draft lottery which does not guarantee the first pick to the team at the bottom of the standings. Other leagues such as the Australian Football League and the National Football League (NFL) do not make use of a lottery, which leads to suspicions of match fixing, especially since top draft picks can have top careers. Like the NFL, Major League Baseball (MLB) does not conduct a draft lottery, but credible allegations of thrown games in the MLB are uncommon due to the historically weak correlation between draft order and major-league success (baseball draftees generally do not play immediately for their major league club, but rather start playing for a farm team).

[edit]Better playoff chances In the NBA (but not in the NHL, which re-seeds teams after the first playoff round), there have also been allegations of teams tanking games in order to finish in sixth rather than fifth place in the conference standings, thus enabling the team in question to evade a possible playoff match with the conference's top seed until the final round of playoffs in that conference (for more details see single-elimination tournament). For example, the 2006 Los Angeles Clippers allegedly tanked late season games so they could finish with the 6th seed and play the 8th-ranked team in the league's Western Conference, the Denver Nuggets, who were the 3rd seed by way of winning their division. Another quirk in the league's playoff system gave the Clippers even more of an incentive to tank. The NBA is the only one of the four major professional sports leagues of the United States in which home advantage in the playoffs is based strictly on regular-season record without regard to seeding. If the Clippers had finished with the 5th seed in the West, they would have had to face the Dallas Mavericks, who despite being the 4th seed had the second-best record in the conference, which would give the Mavericks home advantage. However, the Clippers would have home advantage in a series against the Nuggets by virtue of a better overall record. If tanking was indeed their strategy, it worked, as the Clippers easily won their first round series. Following the 2006 season, the NBA changed its playoff format so that the best second-place team in each conference would be able to obtain up to the #2 seed should it have the second-best conference record.[1] On occasion, an NFL team has also been accused of throwing its final regular-season game in an attempt to "choose" its possible opponent in the subsequent playoffs. For example, in the closing game of the 2004 season, the Indianapolis Colts faced theDenver Broncos. With a win, the Broncos would advance to the playoffs as a wild card and face the Colts as their first round playoff opponent. It would seem the Colts had little incentive to win as their loss would ensure that they would play a team they dominated in the 2003 Wild Card game. Sure enough, the Colts rested their starters, lost the game, and went on to blow out the Broncos the following week in the playoffs. Perhaps the most notable example of this was when the San Francisco 49ers, who had clinched a playoff berth, lost their regular-season finale in 1988 to the Los Angeles Rams, thereby keeping the New York Giants (who had defeated the 49ers in the playoffs in both 1985 and 1986, also injuring 49er quarterback Joe Montana in the latter year's game) from qualifying for the postseason; after the game, Giants quarterbackPhil Simms angrily accused the 49ers of "laying down like dogs."[2] A more recent example of possible tanking occurred in the ice hockey competition at the 2006 Winter Olympics. In Pool B, Sweden was to face Slovakia in the last pool match for both teams. Sweden coachBengtke Gustafsson publicly contemplated tanking against Slovakia, knowing that if his team won, their quarterfinal opponent would either be Canada, the 2002 gold medalists, or the Czech Republic, 1998 gold medalists. Gustafsson would tell Swedish television "One is cholera, the other the plague." Sweden lost the match 3-0; the most obvious sign of tanking was when Sweden had a five-on-three power play with fiveNHL starsPeter Forsberg, Mats Sundin, Daniel Alfredsson, Nicklas Lidstrom, and Fredrik Modinon the ice, and failed to put a shot on goal. (Sports Illustrated writer Michael Farber would say about this particular powerplay, "If the Swedes had passed the puck any more, their next opponent would have been the Washington Generals.") If he was seeking to tank, Gustafsson got his wish; Sweden would face a much less formidable quarterfinal opponent in Switzerland. Canada would lose to Russia in a quarterfinal in the opposite bracket, while Sweden went on to win the gold medal, defeating the Czechs in the semifinals.[3] [edit]More favorable schedule next year NFL teams have been accused of tanking games in order to obtain a more favorable schedule the following season; this was especially true between 1977 and 1993, when a team finishing last in a five-team division would get to play five of its eight non-division matches the next season against other last-place teams. [edit]Match fixing by referees In addition to the match fixing that is committed by players, coaches and/or team officials, it is not unheard of to have results manipulated by corrupt referees. Since 2004, separate scandals have erupted in prominent sports leagues in Portugal,[4] Germany (Bundesliga scandal), Brazil (Brazilian football match-fixing scandal) and the United States (see Tim Donaghy), all of which concerned referees who fixed matches for gamblers. Many sports writers have speculated that in leagues with high player salaries, it is far more likely for a referee to become corrupt since their pay in such competitions is usually much less than that of the players. [edit]Match fixing to a draw or a fixed score Match fixing does not necessarily involve deliberately losing a match. Occasionally, teams have been accused of deliberately playing to a draw or a fixed score where this ensures some mutual benefit (e.g. both teams

advancing to the next stage of a competition.) One of the earliest examples of this sort of match fixing in the modern era occurred in 1898 when Stoke City and Burnley intentionally drew in that year's final "test match" so as to ensure they were both in the First Division the next season. In response, the Football League expanded the divisions to 18 teams that year, thus permitting the intended victims of the fix (Newcastle United and Blackburn Rovers) to remain in the First Division. The "test match" system was abandoned and replaced with automatic relegation. A more recent example occurred in the 1982 FIFA World Cup, West Germany played Austria in the last match of group B. A West German victory by 1 or 2 goals would result in both teams advancing; any less and Germany was out; any more and Austria was out (and replaced by Algeria, who had just beaten Chile). West Germany attacked hard and scored after 10 minutes. Afterwards, the players then proceeded to just kick the ball around aimlessly for the remainder of the match. Algerian supporters were so angered that they waved banknotes at the players, while a German fan burned his German flag in disgust.[5] By the second half, the ARD commentator Eberhard Stanjek refused any further comment on the game, while the Austrian television commentator Robert Seeger advised viewers to switch off their sets. As a result, FIFA changed its tournament scheduling for subsequent World Cups so that the final pair of matches in each group are played simultaneously.

[edit]Abuse of tie-breaking rules On several occasions, "creative" use of tie-breaking rules have allegedly led teams to play less than their best. An example occurred in the 2004 European Football Championship. Because unlike FIFA, UEFA takes "headto-head" play into consideration before overall goal difference when ranking teams level on points, a situation arose in Group C where Sweden and Denmark played to a 2-2 draw, which was a sufficiently high scoreline to eliminate Italy (which had lower-scoring draws with the Swedes and Danes) regardless of Italy's result with already-eliminated Bulgaria. Although Italy beat Bulgaria by only one goal and would hypothetically have been eliminated using the FIFA tie-breaker too, some Italian fans bitterly contended that the FIFA tie-breaker would have motivated their team to play harder and deterred their Scandinavian rivals from, in their view, at the very least half-heartedly playing out the match after the score became 2-2. But the FIFA tie-breaker, or any goal-differential scheme, can cause problems, too. There have been incidents (especially in basketball) where players on a favored team have won the game but deliberately ensured the quoted point spread was not covered (see point shaving). Conversely, there are cases where a team not only lost (which might be honest) but lost by some large amount, perhaps to ensure a point spread was covered, or to grant some non-gambling related favor to the victor. Perhaps the most famous alleged example was the match between Argentina and Peru in the 1978 FIFA World Cup. Argentina needed a four goal victory to advance over Brazil, an enormous margin at this level of competition, especially since Argentina had a weak offense (6 goals in 5 games) and Peru a stout defence (6 goals allowed in 5 games). Yet somehow, Argentina won 6-0. Much was made over the fact that the Peruvian goalkeeper was born in Argentina, and Peru was dependent on Argentinian grain shipments, but nothing was ever proven.
Although the Denmark-Sweden game above led to calls for UEFA to adopt FIFA's tiebreaking formula for future tournaments, it is not clear if this solves the problem - the Argentina-Peru game shows a possible abuse of the FIFA tie-breaker. Proponents of the UEFA tie-breaker argue that it reduces the value of blow-outs, whether these be the result of a much stronger team running up the score or an already-eliminated side allowing an unusually large number of goals. Perhaps the most infamous incident occurred in December 1983 when Spain, needing to win by eleven goals to qualify for the Euro 1984 ahead of the Netherlands, defeated Malta by a score of 12-1 on the strength of nine second half goals. Especially in international football, such lopsided results are seen as unsavoury, even if they are honest. If anything, these incidents serves as evidence that the FIFA tie-breaker can cause incentives to perpetrate a fix in some circumstances, the UEFA tie-breaker in others.

[edit]Individual performance in team sports Bookmakers in the early 21st century accept bets on a far wider range of sports-related propositions than ever before. Thus, a gambling-motivated fix might not necessarily involve any direct attempt to influence the outright result, especially in team sports where such a fix would require the co-operation (and prerequsitely, the knowledge) of many people, and/or perhaps would be more likely to arouse suspicion. Fixing the result of a more particular proposition might be seen as less likely to be noticed - for example, scandalized former National Basketball Association referee Tim Donaghy has been alleged to have perpetrated some of his fixes by calling games in such a manner as to ensure more points than expected were scored by both teams,

thus affecting "over-under" bets on the games whilst also ensuring that Donaghy at least did not look to be outright biased. Also, bets are increasingly being taken on individual performances in team sporting events, which in turn has seen the rise of a phenomenon known as spot-fixing, although it is currently unlikely that enough is bet on an average player to allow someone to place a substantial wager on them without being noticed. One such attempt was described by retired footballer Matthew Le Tissier, who in 2009 admitted that while he was playing with Southampton FC back in 1995 he tried (and failed) to kick the ball out of play right after the kick-off of a Premier League match against Wimbledon FC so that a group of associates would collect on a wager made on an early throw-in.[6] Similarly, in 2010 Pakistani cricket players were accused of committing specific no ball penalties for the benefit of gamblers.[7]

[edit]Effect of non-gambling-motivated fixing on wagering Whenever any serious motivation for teams to manipulate results becomes apparent to the general public, there can be a corresponding effect on betting markets as honest gamblers speculate in good faith as to the chance such a fix might be attempted. Some bettors might choose to avoid wagering on such a fixture while others will be motivated to wager on it, or alter the bet they would otherwise place. Such actions will invariably affect odds and point spreads even if there is no contact whatsoever between teams and the relevant gambling interests. The rise of betting exchanges has allowed such speculation to play out in real time. For example, the average payout on bets backing the 2004 2-2 result between Sweden and Denmark were much lower than would normally be expected, as heavy betting on that result depressed the odds despite the fact that both teams vehemently denied they would intentionally attempt to manipulate the result. There has never been any evidence produced to suggest that the betting patterns witnessed before that match was anything more than honest speculation from honest bettors. [edit]History Since gambling pre-dates recorded history it comes as little surprise that evidence of match fixing is found throughout recorded history. The Ancient Olympics were almost constantly dealing with allegations ofathletes accepting bribes to lose a competition and city-states which often tried to manipulate the outcome with large amounts of money. These activities went on despite the oath each athlete took to protect the integrity of the events and the severe punishment sometimes inflicted on those who were caught. Chariot racing was also dogged by race fixing throughout its history.
By the end of the 19th century gambling was illegal in most jurisdictions, but that did not stop its widespread practice. Boxing soon became rife with fighters "taking a dive" - probably because boxing is an individual sport which makes its matches much easier to fix without getting caught. Baseball also became plagued by match fixing despite efforts by the National League to stop gambling at its games. Matters finally came to a head in 1919 when eight members of the Chicago White Sox threw the World Series (see Black Sox Scandal). In an effort to restore confidence, Major League Baseball established the office of the Baseball Commissioner, and one of Kenesaw Mountain Landis's first acts was to ban all involved players for life. Strict rules prohibiting gambling persist to this day (See Pete Rose).

[edit]Japan Yaoch ( ?) is a Japanese word meaning a cheating activity which is committed at places where a match, fight, game, competition, or other contest, is held, where the winner and loser are decided in advance by agreement of the competitors or related people. It is believed that the word "Yaocho" came from the name ("Chobei") of the owner of a vegetable stand (yaoya) during the Meiji period. Created from the first syllable of "Yaoya" and "chobei", the word "yaocho" was created for a nickname of Chobei. Chobei had a friend called "Isenoumi Godayu" (7th Isenoumi stablemaster) with whom he played the game Igo, who had once been a Sumo wrestler "Kashiwado Sogoro" (former shikona: "Kyonosato") and now was a "Toshiyori" (a stablemaster of Sumo). Although Chobei was a better Igo player than Isenoumi, he sometimes lost games on purpose to please Isenoumi, so that Isenoumi would continue to buy merchandise from his shop. Afterward, once people knew of his cheating, they started to use "Yaocho" as a word meaning any decision to win/lose a match in advance by negotiation etc. with the expectation of secondary profit, even though the match seems to be held seriously and fairly.

Most of the motive for match fixing is helping each other's ranking to keep their salary higher according to Keisuke Itai, who disclosed how it goes. For example, wrestlers in Juryo desperately try to avoidmakekoshi and exchange or buy the match result otherwise their salary would be nothing, literally 0 yen, with the participation wage of 150,000 yen every two month if they get makekoshi and their ranking would go down to Makushita, the lesser ranking from Juryo in which you can earn 1,036,000 yen monthly with some prizes. Economists, using statistical analysis, in Sumo wrestling.[8] (See also 2011 in sumo) have shown very strong evidence of bout fixing

[edit]Match fixing and gambling today Influenced by baseball's experiences, the NFL and NBA have followed MLB's lead and adopted a hard line against gambling on its games, especially by those directly involved in the league. The NCAA takes an even harder line:
It prohibits athletes, coaches, and athletics administrators at member schools, plus staff of member conferences, from gambling on any sport in which the NCAA holds a championship or in Division I FBS football (in which the NCAA does not sponsor an official championship).[9] It also prohibits venues in championship play from carrying advertising for any form of gambling, including state lotteries.[10] Each of these organizations was, and may still be influenced by fears that their games could come under the influence of gamblers in the absence of these tough measures. Critics of such hard line measures note that in spite of such policies, such influence nonetheless does occur. In Britain the authorities in both government and sport have taken a softer line on gambling. Following decades of relatively lax, intermittent and ineffective enforcement of laws prohibiting gambling, sports betting was finally legalized and regulated in the 1960s. Organizations such as The Football Association seem to have taken the stance that gambling on their events is inevitable. The FA only prohibits betting on a match by those directly involved in the game in question. Footballers (or coaches, managers, etc.) are not prohibited from betting on matches that do not involve their own team. In 1964, the great British football betting scandal of the 1960s was uncovered. A betting ring organized by Jimmy Gauld and involving several Football League players had been fixing matches. The most famous incident involved three Sheffield Wednesday players, including two England international players, that were subsequently banned from football for life and imprisoned after it was discovered they had bet against their team winning in a match against Ipswich Town. A similar scandal had occurred in 1915. The integrity of horse racing remains an ongoing concern since gambling is an integral part of this sport. Recent allegations of race fixing have centered around the recently-formed betting exchanges which unlike traditional bookmakers allow punters to lay an outcome (that is, to bet against a particular runner). Leading exchange Betfair has responded to the allegations by signing Memorandums of Understanding with theJockey Club, The FA, the International Cricket Council, the Association of Tennis Professionals and other sporting authorities. These memoranda of understanding are evidence of the vast difference between British and American attitudes[citation needed] as of 2008 it would be almost unthinkable for an American sports league to sign such an agreement with a bookmaker or betting exchange.[citation needed] It should be noted that while British football has never been rocked by match fixing allegations on the scale of the Black Sox scandal (the aforementioned incidents involved league matches, not major championships), football match-fixing has become a serious problem in parts of Continental Europe. Cricket has been scandalized by several gambling and match fixing allegations in recent years, particularly the case of Hansie Cronje in the late 1990s, culminating in the World Cup investigations of 2007. These highly publicised enquiries were prompted by the surprise defeat of Pakistan in the Cup by Ireland and the subsequent murder investigation into the sudden death, straight after the match, of Pakistan's head coachBob Woolmer. Cricket match-fixing and the fallout of the Woolmer case have since become the subject of crime/thriller literature in the novel Raffles and the Match-Fixing Syndicate (2008) by Adam Corres. According to the head of the ICC's anti-corruption unit Paul Condon, cricket is the most bet on sport in the world, and fixing is found at every level of the sport and is a significant problem.[11]

The high salaries of some of today's professional athletes likely serves to insulate their leagues from playerinstigated match fixing. In the NCAA and in leagues where the salaries are comparatively less (or, in the case of the amateur NCAA, zero), match fixing by players remains a serious concern.

[edit]Match fixing incidents In 1919, gamblers bribed several members of the Chicago White Sox to throw the World Series. This became known as the Black Sox Scandal and was recounted in book and movie form as Eight Men Out.
In 1951, District Attorney Frank Hogan indicted college basketball players for point shaving from four New York schools, including CCNY, Manhattan College, New York University and Long Island University. In 1978, mobsters connected with the New York Lucchese crime family, among them Henry Hill and Jimmy Burke, organized a point shaving scheme with key members of the Boston College basketball team. On August 24, 1989, former baseball player Pete Rose voluntarily accepted a permanent ban from Major League Baseball for allegedly betting on Cincinnati Reds games while managing the team. Rose would later confirm the truth of the allegations in his 2004 autobiography, My Prison Without Bars. In 1994, a comprehensive point shaving scheme organized by campus bookmaker Benny Silman and involving players from the Arizona State University men's basketball team was uncovered with the assistance of Las Vegas bookmakers, who grew suspicious over repeated large wagers being made against Arizona State.[12] In February 1999 a Malaysian-based betting syndicate was caught attempting to install a remote-control device to sabotage the floodlights at FA Premier League team Charlton Athletic's ground with the aid of a corrupt security officer. If the match had been abandoned after half-time, then the result and bets would have stood. Subsequent investigations showed that the gang had been responsible for previously unsuspected "floodlight failures" at West Ham's ground in November 1997, and again a month later at Crystal Palace's ground during a home match of Palace's groundsharing tenant Wimbledon.[13][14] In 2000 the Delhi police intercepted a conversation between a blacklisted bookie and the South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje in which they learnt that Cronje accepted money to throw matches. The South African government refused to allow any of its players to face the Indian investigation unit, which opened up a can of worms. A court of inquiry was set up and Cronje admitted to throwing matches. He was immediately banned from all cricket. He also named Saleem Malik (Pakistan), Mohammed Azharuddin and Ajay Jadeja (India). Jadeja was banned for 4 years. They too were banned from all cricket. As a kingpin, Cronje exposed the dark side of betting, however with his untimely death in 2002 most of his sources also have escaped law enforcement agencies. Two South African cricketers, Herschelle Gibbs andNicky Boje, are also wanted by the Delhi police for their role in the match fixing saga. A few years before in 1998, Australian players Mark Waugh and Shane Warne were fined for revealing information about the 'weather' to a bookmaker. The Italian Football Federation said in October 2000 it had found eight players guilty of match-fixing. Three were from Serie A side Atalanta and the other five played for Serie B side Pistoiese. The players wereGiacomo Banchelli, Cristiano Doni and Sebastiano Siviglia (all Atalanta) and Alfredo Aglietti, Massimiliano Allegri, Daniele Amerini, Gianluca Lillo and Girolamo Bizzarri (all Pistoiese). The charges related to an Italian Cup first round tie between the two sides in Bergamo on August 20, 2000 which ended 1-1. Atalanta scored at the end of the first half and Pistoiese equalised three minutes from full time. Atalanta qualified for the second round. Snai, which organises betting on Italian football, said later it had registered suspiciously heavy betting on the result and many of the bets were for a 1-0 halftime score and a fulltime score of 1-1. In June 2004 in South Africa, thirty-three people (including nineteen referees, club officials, a match commissioner and an official of the South African Football Association) were arrested on match-fixing charges. In the summer of 2004, Betfair provided evidence of race fixing to City of London Police that led to the arrest of jockey Kieren Fallon and fifteen others on race fixing charges. On 7 December 2007 the judge in the case ordered the jury to find Fallon not guilty on all charges.

In late 2004, the game between Panionios and Dinamo Tbilisi in the 2004-05 UEFA Cup was suspected of being fixed after British bookmakers detected an unusually high number of half-time bets for a 5-2 win for the Greek side, which was trailing 0-1. As the final result ended up being 5-2, suspicions of fixing quickly emerged, but were quickly denied by both clubs, although UEFA started an investigation. 2005 Bundesliga scandal: In January 2005, the German Football Association (DFB) and German prosecutors launched separate probes into charges that referee Robert Hoyzer bet on and fixed several matches that he worked, including a German Cup tie. Hoyzer later admitted to the allegations; it has been reported that he was involved with Croat gambling syndicates. He also implicated other referees and players in the match fixing scheme. The first arrests in the Hoyzer investigation were made on January 28 in Berlin, and Hoyzer himself was arrested on February 12 after new evidence apparently emerged to suggest that he had been involved in fixing more matches than he had admitted to. Hoyzer has been banned for life from football by the DFB. On March 10, a second referee, Dominik Marks, was arrested after being implicated in the scheme by Hoyzer. Still later (March 24), it was reported that Hoyzer had told investigators that the gambling ring he was involved with had access to UEFA's referee assignments for international matches and Champions League and UEFA Cup fixtures several days before UEFA publicly announced them. Ultimately, Hoyzer was sentenced to serve 2 years and 5 months in prison. In July 2005, Italian Serie B champions Genoa was arbitrarily placed last in the division, and therefore condemned to relegation in Serie C1, after it was revealed that they bribed their opponents in the final match of the season, Venezia to throw the match. Genoa won the match 3-2 and had apparently secured promotion to Serie A. Brazilian football match-fixing scandal: In September 2005, a Brazilian magazine revealed that two football referees, Edlson Pereira de Carvalho (a member of FIFA's referee staff) and Paulo Jos Danelon, had accepted bribes to fix matches. Soon afterwards, sport authorities ordered the replaying of 11 matches in the country's top competition, the Campeonato Brasileiro, that had been worked by Edlson. Both referees have been banned for life from football and face possible criminal charges. Brazilian supporters have taken to shout "Edlson" at a referee who they consider to have made a bad call against their team, in a reference to the scandal. 2006 Serie A scandal ("Calciopoli"): In May 2006, perhaps the largest match fixing scandal in the history of Italian Serie A football was uncovered by Italian Police, implicating league champions Juventus, and powerhouses AC Milan, Fiorentina, and Lazio. Teams were suspected of rigging games by selecting favorable referees, and even superstar Italian World Cup team goalkeeper Gianluigi Buffon was charged with betting on football games. [2] Initially, Juventus were stripped of their titles in 2004-05 and 200506, all four clubs were barred from European club competition in 2006-07, and all except Milan were forcibly relegated to Serie B.[15] After all four clubs appealed, only Juventus remained relegated due while Milan were allowed to enter the third qualifying round of the Champions League (they went on to win the tournament.) The stripping of Juventus' titles stood.[16]` 2007 NBA Referee Scandal: In July 2007 it was revealed that National Basketball Association referee Tim Donaghy had gambled on 10 to 15 games, including games which he refereed. The matter is currently being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the NBA. 2008 The Fix: Book by Declan Hill alleges that in the 2006 World Cup, the group game between Ghana and Italy, the round-of-16 game between Ghana and Brazil, and the Italy-Ukraine quarter-final were all fixed by Asian gambling syndicates to whom the final scores were known in advance. [17] The German Football Federation (DFB) and German Football League (DFL) looked into claims made in a Der Spiegel[18]interview with Hill that two Bundesliga matches were fixed by William Bee Wah Lim a fugitive with a 2004 conviction for match-fixing.[19] 2008: On October 1, it was reported that a Spanish judge who headed an investigation against Russian Mafia figures uncovered information alleging that the mobsters may have attempted to fix the 200708 UEFA Cup semi-final between eventual champion Zenit St. Petersburg and Bayern Munich. Both clubs denied any knowledge of the alleged scheme.[20] Prosecutors in the German state of Bavaria, home to Bayern, later announced that they did not have enough evidence to justify a full investigation.[21]

2008: On October 4, suspicious online betting on the game between Norwich City and Derby County led some to question the validity of the Football League match. Gamblers in Asia were said to have placed a large amount of money down during halftime, which raised concerns over the outcome. [22] The inquiry by The Football Association found no evidence that would suggest the match was fixed. [23] Derby County ended up winning the match 2-1. 2009: On May 6, a federal grand jury in Detroit indicted six former University of Toledo athletesthree each from the school's football and basketball programson charges of conspiracy to commit sports bribery in relation to their alleged involvement in a point shaving scheme that ran from 2003 through 2006. It is believed to be the first major U.S. gambling case involving two sports at the same college.[24] In November 2009, German police arrested 17 people on suspicion of fixing at least 200 soccer matches in 9 countries.[25] Among the suspected games were those from the top leagues of Austria, Bosnia, Croatia, Hungary, Slovenia, and Turkey, and games from the second highest leagues of Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland. Three contests from the Champions League were under investigation, and 12 from the Europa League. In 2010, several professional Starcraft players were suspected of being involved in illegal match fixing, with two people arrested and about seven gamers investigated, with two renowned gamers, Ma Jae-Yoonand By.CrocuS were confirmed as working as a broker between the betters and the gamers.[26] The fourth Test of Pakistan's summer 2010 cricket tour of England was alleged to have contained several incidents of spot fixing, involving members of the Pakistan team deliberately bowling no-balls at specific points in order to facilitate the potential defrauding of bookmakers.[27] In April 2011, a U.S. federal grand jury in San Diego indicted a group of 10 individuals on charges of running a point shaving scheme affecting an as yet-undetermined number of college basketball games. Three of the accused have ties to the University of San Diego's men's basketball teamone was the team's all-time leader in points and assists; another was a former player; and the third was a former assistant. Games at the University of California, Riverside, where the second indicted player also played, were also mentioned as potentially being fixed.[28]

[edit]Outside of sports The 1980s TV game show Starcade had a policy of matching contestants up based on their gaming abilities, which means that after potential contestants had played a number of video games for a certain amount of time, they would be paired up by their total scores. Although it was written in the rules that intentionally doing badly in order to be paired up to someone who really wasn't that good was grounds for disqualification, many contestants did it anyway, and were stripped of any awarded prizes and disqualified.

References
1. 2. ^ http://www.sportsnet.ca/basketball/article.jsp?content=20060802_150747_2508 ^ Miller, Ira (March 31, 2004). "Can't blame 'em for not trying". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved November 23, 2010. 3. 4. 5. ^ Farber, Michael (March 6, 2006). "Swede Success". Sports Illustrated. Retrieved April 17, 2010. ^ "Porto chief up on referee bribery charges". ESPN. Retrieved 2008-09-05. ^ Lawrence Booth and Rob Smyth (2004-08-11). "What's the dodgiest game in football history?". Manchester, UK: The Guardian. Retrieved 2008-06-08. 6. ^ [1]

7.

^ Marks, Vic (Sunday 29 August 2010). "Pakistan embroiled in no-ball betting scandal against England". London: The Observer, UK.

8.

^ MARK DUGGAN AND STEVEN D. LEVITT (December 2002). "Winning Isnt Everything: Corruption in Sumo Wrestling" (PDF). THE AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW.

9.

^ "Bylaw 10.3 Sports Wagering Activities" (PDF). 200910 NCAA Division I Manual. National Collegiate Athletic Association. p. 48. Retrieved 2010-04-06. See especially Bylaw 10.3.1, Scope of Application.

10. ^ "Bylaw 31.1 Administration of NCAA Championships" (PDF). 200910 NCAA Division I Manual. National Collegiate Athletic Association. pp. 36772. Retrieved 2010-04-07. See specifically Bylaw 31.1.14.1, Restricted Advertising and Sponsorship Activities Advertising. 11. ^ Interview with Paul Condon by Charles Colville, Sky Sports June 4, 2010. 12. ^ Sports Illustrated: Silman gets 46 months for his part in ASU point-shaving scandal 13. ^ "Football guard 'bribed for sabotage'". BBC News. 1999-08-17. Retrieved 2010-05-12. 14. ^ "Bad bets and blown lights". BBC News. 1999-08-20. Retrieved 2010-05-12. 15. ^ "Italian trio relegated to Serie B". BBC. 2006-07-14. Retrieved 2006-08-03. 16. ^ "Punishments cut for Italian clubs". BBC. 2006-07-25. Retrieved 2006-08-03. 17. ^ "World Cup matches fixed, says author". The Age (Melbourne). 2008-09-01. 18. ^ http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,575586,00.html 19. ^ "Declan Hill "The Fix" match fixing interview". SoccerPro.com. Retrieved 2009-01-30.
[dead link]

20. ^ Reuters (2008-10-01). "Authorities to probe Zenit UEFA Cup "fix" claims". ESPNsoccernet.com. Retrieved 2008-10-03. 21. ^ "No investigation into Zenit-Bayern fix". ESPNsoccernet.com. 2008-10-12. Retrieved 2008-10-12. 22. ^ FA launches match-fixing investigation into Norwich v Derby match, 16 October 2008, accessed 14 Match 2009 23. ^ Match-fixing inquiry closed by FA, 5 December 2008, accessed 14 March 2009. 24. ^ Fish, Mike (2009-05-06). "Six ex-players charged with conspiracy". ESPN.com. Retrieved 2009-05-12. 25. ^ ROB HUGHES and ERIC PFANNER (20 November 2009). "Arrests in Europe Over Soccer Fixing Investigation". New York Times. 26. ^ "StarCraft Rigging Scandal Hits e-Sports Industry". The Korea Times. 2009-05-06. Retrieved 2010-05-12. 27. ^ "England beat Pakistan in tarnished Test to win series". BBC Sport. 29 August 2010. Retrieved 3 August 2010. 28. ^ Baker, Debbi; Moran, Greg (April 11, 2011). "3 with USD ties indicted in bribery scheme". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved April 12, 2011.

Sports betting is the activity of predicting sports results and placing a wager on the outcome.
Contents
[hide]

1 Types of bets

1.1 United States of America

2 Bookmaking 3 Odds 4 Legality 5 Nevada 6 See also 7 Sources 8 Famous Betting Scandals 9 Notes 10 External links

[edit]Types

of bets
States of America

See also: Glossary of bets offered by UK bookmakers [edit]United

Aside from simple wagers such as betting a friend that one's favorite baseball team will win its division or buying a football "square" for the Super Bowl, sports betting is commonly performed through a bookmaker or through various online Internet outlets. The many types of bets include: Proposition bets are wagers made on a very specific outcome of a match. Examples include guessing the number of goals each team scores in a handball match, betting whether a player will score in a footballgame, or wagering that a baseball player on one team will accumulate more hits than another player on the opposing team. Parlays involve multiple bets (usually up to 12) and will reward a successful bettor with a large payout. For example, a bettor could include four different wagers in a four-team parlay, whereby he is wagering that all four bets will win. If any of the four bets fails to cover, the bettor loses the parlay, but if all four bets win, the bettor receives a substantially higher payout (usually 10-1 in the case of a fourteamer) than if he made the four wagers separately. Progressive parlays. A progressive parlay involves multiple bets (usually up to 12) and rewards successful bettors with a large payout, though not as large as normal parlays. However in a

progressive parlay, unlike a regular parlay, a reduced payout will still be made even should some of the bets lose. Teasers. A teaser allows the bettor to combine his bets on two or more different games. The bettor can adjust the point spreads for the two games, but realizes a lower return on the bets in the event of a win. If bets. An if bet consists of at least two straight bets joined together by an if clause which determines the wager process. If the players first selection complies with the condition (clause), then the second selection will have action; if the second selection complies with the condition, then the third selection will have action and so on. Run line, puck line or goal line bets. These are wagers offered as alternatives to straightup/moneyline prices in baseball, hockey or soccer, respectively. These bets feature a fixed point spread that (usually) offers a higher payout for the favorite and a lower payout for the underdog (both in comparison to the moneyline). Future wagers. While all sports wagers are by definition on future events, bets listed as "futures" generally have a long-term horizon measured in weeks or months; for example, a bet that a certain NFL team will win the Super Bowl for the upcoming season. Such a bet must be made before the season starts in September, and winning bets will not pay off until the conclusion of the Super Bowl in January or February (although many of the losing bets will be clear well before then and can be closed out by the book). Odds for such a bet generally are expressed in a ratio of units paid to unit wagered. The team wagered upon might be 50-1 to win the Super Bowl, which means that the bet will pay 50 times the amount wagered if the team does so. Head-to-Head. In these bets, bettor predicts competitors results against each other and not on the overall result of the event. One example are Formula One races, where you bet on two or three drivers and their placement among the others. Sometimes you can also bet a tie, in which one or both drivers either have the same time, drop out, or get disqualified. Totalizators. In totalizators (sometimes called flexible-rate bets) the odds are changing in real-time according to the share of total exchange each of the possible outcomes have received taking into account the return rate of the bookmaker offering the bet. For example: If the bookmakers return percentage is 90%, 90% of the amount placed on the winning result will be given back to bettors and 10% goes to the bookmaker. Naturally the more money bet on a certain result, the smaller the odds on that outcome become. This is similar to parimutuel wagering in horse racing and dog racing. [edit]Bookmaking The general role of the bookmaker is to act as a market maker for sports wagers, most of which have a binary outcome: a team either wins or loses. The bookmaker accepts both wagers, and maintains a spread (the vigorish) which will ensure a profit regardless of the outcome of the wager. The Federal Wire

Act of 1961 was an attempt by the US government to prevent illegal bookmaking.

[2]

[1]

However, this Act

does not apply to other types of online gambling. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the meaning of the Federal Wire Act as it pertains to online gambling. Bookmakers usually hold a 11-10 advantage over his/her customers (for small wagers it is closer to a 6-5 advantage) so he/she will most likely survive over the long term. Successful bookmakers must be able to withstand a large short term loss. (Boyd, 1981) Many of the leading gambling bookmakers from the 1930s to the 1960s got their start during the prohibition era of the 1920s. They were often times decendents of the influx of immigrants coming into the USA at this time. Although the common stereotype is that these bookies were of Italian decent, it has been proven that many of the leading bookies were of eastern European Jewish Ancestry. (Davies, 2001) [edit]Odds Odds for different outcomes in single bet are presented either in European format (decimal odds), UK format (fractional odds), or American format (moneyline odds). European format (decimal odds) are favored in continental Europe, Canada, and Australia. They are the ratio of the full payout to the stake, in a decimal format. Decimal odds of 2.00 are an even bet. UK format (fractional odds) are favored by British bookmakers. They are the ratio of the amount won to the stake. Fractional odds of 1/1 are an even bet. US format odds are favored in the United States. They are the amount won on a 100 stake when positive and the stake needed to win 100 when negative. US odds of 100 are an even bet. Decimal Fractional US HongKong Indo Malay

1.50

1/2

-200

0.50

-2.00

0.50

2.00

1/1

+100

1.00

1.00

1.00

2.50

3/2

+150

1.50

1.50

-0.67

3.00

2/1

+200

2.00

2.00

-0.50

Conversion formulas

To

Do this

Decimal

Fractional

x-1 , then convert to fraction

Decimal

US

100*(x-1) if x>=2; -100/(x-1) if x<2

Fractional

Decimal

divide fraction, then x+1

Fractional

US

divide fraction, then 100*x if x>=1; -100/x if x<1

US

Decimal

(x/100)+1 if x>0; (-100/x)+1 if x<0

US

Fractional

x/100, then convert to fraction if x>0; -100/x, then convert to fraction if x<0

Decimal

HongKong

x-1

HongKong

Indo

x if x>=1; (1/x)*-1 if x<1

HongKong

Malay

x if x<=1; (1/x)*-1 if X>1

In Asian betting markets, other frequently used formats for expressing odds include Hong Kong, Malaysian, and Indonesian-style odds formats. Odds are also quite often expressed in terms of implied probability, which corresponds to the probability with which the event in question would need to occur for the bet to be a breakeven proposition (on the average). Many online tools also exist for automated conversion between these odds formats. [edit]Legality In the USA it is illegal to operate a scheme except for in a few states. In many European nations bookmaking (the profession of accepting sports wagers) is regulated but not criminalized. The NCAA has threatened to ban all playoff games in Delaware if the state allows betting on college sports.
[3] [4]

New Jersey, which is also interested, has been similarly threatened.

Interestingly for New

Jersey, a Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind poll found in April 2009 that 63% of New Jerseyians supported legalizing sports betting in Atlantic city and at horse-racing tracks. However, only 48% of New Jersey voters approved of legalizing betting at off-track betting establishments. Jersey voters (53%) also disapproved of legalizing sports betting nationally.
[6] [5]

A slight majority of New

In March of 2010, a

national PublicMind poll found that 39% of Americans would support changing laws so that sports betting would be allowed in all states, whereas 53% reported that they would not support such measures.
[7]

Converse to national opinion, a February 2011 PublicMind found that 53% of New Jersey
[8]

voters supported legalizing betting in all states while 34% reported they would not support it.
[8]

Equally, a

majority of New Jersey voters (55%) believed that "lots of people bet anyway, so government should allow it and tax it." Proponents of legalized sports betting generally regard it as a hobby for sports fans

that increases their interest in particular sporting events, thus benefiting the leagues, teams and players they bet on through higher attendances and television audiences. Opponents fear that, over and above the general ramifications of gambling, it threatens the integrity of amateur and professional sport, the history of which includes numerous attempts by sports gamblers to fix matches. In the 2009 PublicMind poll, the possibility of corrupting sports was the main concern of New Jersey voters (54%) that opposed legalizing sports betting nationally.
[9]

Similarly, the 2010 PublicMind national poll found that a majority of

[7]

Americans shared the views of New Jersey voters in the 2009 poll with 54% of respondents reporting that "legal betting on sports is a bad idea because it promotes too much gambling and corrupts sports." On

the other hand, proponents counter that legitimate bookmakers will invariably fight corruption just as fiercely as governing bodies and law enforcement do. Most sports bettors are overall losers as the bookmakers odds are fairly efficient. However, there are professional sports bettors a good income betting sports, many of which utilize sports information services. In areas where sports betting is illegal, bettors usually make their sports wagers with illicit bookmakers (known colloquially as "bookies") and on the Internet, where thousands of online bookmakers accept wagers on sporting events around the world. The PublicMind's 2010 national survey found that 67% of Americans did not support the legalization of Internet betting websites in the United States whereas 21% said they would support legalization. [edit]Nevada There are 142 places in Nevada that will take sports bets on professional and amateur sports. In 1998, close to 2.3 billion dollars was wagered in these places. Out of this 2.3 billion, the casinos that accepted these bets kept 77.4 million dollars as a profit. This is because the odds are stacked in favor of the casinos. (Thompson, 2001) [edit]See
[7] [citation needed]

that make

also

Gambling and the Law Betting pool Friendly political wager Point shaving

Odds Bookmaking Gambling in Japan Financial betting Statistical Soccer (Football) Predictions Sports betting systems Arbitrage betting Daily Fantasy Sports

[edit]Sources Davies, Richard (2001). Betting the Line Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University Press ISBN 0-81420880-0 Finley, Peter (2008). Sports Scandals Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press ISBN 978-0-313-34458-9 Boyd, Kier (1981). Gambling Technology Washington, DC: FBI Laboratory Rose, Pete (2004). My Prison Without Bars St. Martin's Press ISBN 1-57954-927-6 Thompson, William (2001). Gambling in America--An Encyclopedia of History, Issues, and Society Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO IBSN 1-57607-159-6 [edit]Famous

Betting Scandals

In 1919, the Chicago White Sox faced the Cincinnati Reds in the World Series. This series would go down as one of the biggest sports scandals of all time. As the story goes, professional gambler Joseph Sullivan paid eight members of the White Sox around 10,000 dollars each to fix the World Series. The players involved were Oscar Felsch, Arnold Gandil, Joe Jackson, Fred McMullin, Charles Risberg, George Weaver, and Claude Williams. All of these players have been banned for life. (Finley, 2008) Rule #21--It's nailed to every clubhouse door and every ballpark in the country: "Any player, umpire, or club or league official or employee, who shall bet any sum whatsoever on any baseball game in connection with which the bettor has a duty to perform shall be declared permanently ineligible." This rule is why Pete Rose was given a lifetime ban from baseball after being caught for betting on baseball. (Rose, 2004) [edit]Notes

1. 2. 3.

^ Text of the law (18 USC CHAPTER 50) ^ Fifth Circuit ruling - PDF file ^ Associated Press: Fantasy Sports League May Run Afoul of NCAA

4. 5. 6. 7.

^ PressofAtlanticCity.com ^ http://publicmind.fdu.edu/sportsbetting/ ^ http://publicmind.fdu.edu/casino/final.pdf ^

a b c

Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind Poll "US Public: Keep Las Vegas in Las Vegas" press

release (March 2010) 8. ^

a b

Fairleigh Dickinson University PublicMind Poll "Sports Betting, Sure Thing; Internet Betting,

Nyet!" press release (February 2011) 9. ^ http://publicmind.fdu.edu/casino/final.pdf

Betting controversies in cricket

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cricket has had a number of controversies relating to players being involved with the betting aspects of the game. In particular, numerous players have been approached by bookmakers and bribed to, throw matches, aspects of matches (e.g. the toss) or provide other information.
Contents
[hide]

1 1999-2000 India-South Africa match fixing scandal 2 Other controversies 3 In popular culture 4 See also 5 References

[edit]1999-2000

India-South Africa match fixing scandal

In 2000, the Delhi police intercepted a conversation between a blacklisted bookie and the South African cricket captain Hansie Cronje in which they learnt that Cronje accepted money to throw matches.[1][2] The South African government refused to allow any of its players to face the Indian investigation unit. A court of inquiry was set up and Cronje admitted to throwing matches. He was immediately banned from all cricket. He also named Saleem Malik (Pakistan), Mohammed Azharuddin and Ajay Jadeja (India).[3] Jadeja was banned for 4 years. They too were banned from all cricket. As a kingpin, Cronje exposed the dark side of betting, however with his untimely death in 2002 most of his sources also have escaped law enforcement agencies. Two South African cricketers, Herschelle Gibbs and Nicky Boje, were also listed as wanted by the Delhi police for their role in the match fixing saga.

[edit]Other

controversies

Among the scandals were Mark Waugh and Shane Warne's fines from the Australian Cricket Board for offering information about the weather and pitch information to "John the bookmaker".[4] The report by Rob O'Regan QC, concluded that cricketers were not fully informed about the dangers of interacting with bookmakers, and although no further punishment could be given to either Waugh or Warne, in the future players should be punished by not only fines, but also by suspensions.[5] The ICC was slow to react, but did eventually in 2000 set up an Anti-Corruption and Security Unit headed by Sir Paul Condon, former head of London's Metropolitan Police. It claims to have reduced corruption in cricket to a 'reducible minimum'. During the 4th Test of 2010 Pakistani tour of England, English newspaper News of the World published a story with allegations that Mazhar Majeed and some of the Pakistani players were involved in spot fixing.[6][7]

[edit]In

popular culture

The 2009 Hindi film, 99, starring Kunal Khemu, Boman Irani, Soha Ali Khan and Cyrus Broacha, is set in the year 1999, with the India-South Africa match fixing controversy as the backdrop.

The 2008 Hindi film, Jannat, directed by Kunal Deshmukh and starring Emran Hashmi, Sonal Chauhan and Javed Sheikh is also based on Match fixing.

List of cricketers banned for match fixing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Below are a list of Test and or One Day International cricketers who have been banned by the governing body for cricket, the International Cricket Council for match fixing or spot-fixing. Both are misdemeanors banned under the ICC Cricket Code of Conduct.

South African captain Hansie Cronje

Pakistani Mohammad Amir, at 18 the youngest player to be banned to date

Player

National team

Length of ban

Details

Reference

Saleem Malik

Life ban (Overturned Pakistan in 2008)

Banned in 2000 for offering bribes

[1]

Ata-urRehman

Life ban (Overturned Pakistan in 2006)

Banned in 2000 for dealings with bookmakers

[2]

Mohammad Azharuddin

India

Life ban

Declared guilty as per the BCCI. He rejects this and have taken the matter to court where it

[3]

is currently sub-judice.

4 Ajay Sharma

India

Life ban

Found guilty in 2000 for associating with bookmakers

[4]

Manoj Prabhakar

India

5 year ban

In 2000 he tried to implicate Kapil Dev and others but it backfired as he was found guilty himself

[5]

6 Ajay Jadeja

India

5 year ban (Overturned in 2003)

Alleged to have associated with bookmakers

[6]

Hansie 7 Cronje

South Africa

Life ban

Guilty of accepting monetary rewards from bookmakers to fix the results of games

[7]

Herschelle Gibbs

South Africa

6 months

Initially agreed to underperform in an ODI game at Nagpur, but reneged on the deal and scored 74 off just 53 balls

[8]

Henry Williams

South Africa

6 months

Initially agreed to underperform in an ODI game at Nagpur

[9]

10

Maurice Odumbe

Kenya

5 years

Receiving money from bookmakers

[10]

11

Marlon Samuels

West Indies

2 years

Receiving money, benefit or other reward which could bring him or the game into disrepute

[11]

12

Mohammad Amir

Pakistan

5 years

Bowling deliberate planned no-balls against England in August 2010

[12]

13

Mohammad Asif

7 years (2 years Pakistan suspended)

Bowling deliberate planned no-balls against England in August 2010

[13]

14 Salman Butt

10 years (5 years Pakistan suspended)

Orchestrating the bowling of deliberate no-balls against England in August 2010

[14]

[edit]See

also

John the bookmaker controversy Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy Betting controversies in cricket

BBC Article on Match Fixing

Monday, 4 June 2007The

shadow over cricket

The death of Pakistan coach Bob Woolmer has again cast the spotlight on corruption in cricket, with rumours abounding of a link to the world of illegal betting. Tours to apartheid-era South Africa, perennial ball-tampering rows, the fallout from England's boycott of Zimbabwe and the extraordinary Bodyline series of the early 1930s all generated acres of press coverage. But all pale in comparison with cricket's darkest corner, the ongoing scandal of match fixing.

Cronje's admissions shocked fans across the world

Commentators have been quick to link Woolmer's death with the underworld. Conspiracy theories that he was silenced as he about to lift the lid on the world of match rigging have spread like wildfire. Year zero for cricket was 2000. Before then, Pakistan batsman Salim Malik's reputation was as an elegant stroke-player with such guts that on one occasion he played with a broken arm.
In some countries, it is now more lucrative to engage in sports corruption than drug dealing or robbery Lord Condon

After 2000, Malik was a cricketing pariah, banned for life for his part in alleged match fixing. At the heart of cricketing's worst problem is the status of gambling in the subcontinent. Without the option of legitimate betting, gamblers in cricketmad South Asia call on the services of illicit bookmakers. Those bookmakers are often in the pockets of gangsters. And the sums of money involved are monstrous. Lord Condon, former head of the Metropolitan Police and now the head of the International Cricket Council's corruption unit, says up to $1bn can be gambled globally on a single one-day international such as a key World Cup game. Much of that money will pass through the illicit bookmakers in places like Mumbai and Karachi, and the temptation to steer the odds in their favour is huge.
Hansie is a God-fearing, intense cricketer - he would never succumb to such a thing

Malik's downfall came because Australian stars Shane Warne, Tim Bob Woolmer Before Cronje admissions May and Mark Waugh accused him of offering them money to play badly during a tour of Pakistan in 1994. Warne and Waugh eventually had their own run-ins with the authorities after it emerged they had accepted money from an Indian bookmaker in exchange for information during the tour to Sri Lanka in the same year. But it was the investigation, led by Justice Malik Muhammad Qayyum, into the numerous allegations against Malik that was to provide a real body blow to cricket. After Justice Qayyum's report Malik and fast bowler Ata-ur Rehman were banned for life. He recommended six other players should be fined, including Inzamam-ul-Haq, Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram. In December 2000, the Board of Control for Cricket in India completed its investigation of allegations of match fixing by handing life bans to former team captain and flamboyant batsman Mohammad Azharuddin and fellow test star Ajay Sharma. All-rounder Manoj Prabhakar and batsman Ajay Jadeja were suspended for five years.
DAWOOD IBRAHIM

But perhaps the greatest cataclysm in the history of the sport came on 7 April 2000 when Delhi police released transcripts of phone conversations between South African captain Hansie Cronje and businessman Sanjay Chawla. Accused of 1993 Mumbai bombs
Linked to illegal bookmakers

The resolute Cronje, like Azharuddin Allegedly controls drugs and prostitution and Malik, was idolised by fans and Thought to be in hiding in Pakistan fellow players alike. Woolmer, who had coached South Africa, was one of many to initially defend the born-again Christian against the charges. "Hansie is a God-fearing, intense cricketer. He would never succumb to such a thing. It beggars belief," he said. But within four days, Cronje had made a 3am call to Ali Bacher, the head of South African cricket, to admit to receiving money from a bookmaker for forecasting. He was sacked as captain. The Guardian summed up the mood of the time when it used the headline "We can no longer say it's not cricket". The Times simply said "Cronje and cricket stare into abyss".

In June, Judge Erwin King started South Africa's investigation into Cronje's corruption and the all-rounder soon admitted taking money to ask team-mates to play badly. He denied ever fixing or throwing a match. In his evidence both Azharuddin and Malik were accused of involvement with bookies. Herschelle Gibbs admitted taking $15,000 from Cronje to score under 20 runs in a match in India and accused his captain of offering bribes to get a match thrown. Gibbs and bowler Henry Williams were given short bans from international cricket, while Cronje received a lifetime ban. In June 2002 he died in an air crash. In the autumn of 2000, bookmaker Mukesh "MK" Gupta accused England wicketkeeper and former captain Alec Stewart of accepting money for information, something he vehemently denied. He was later cleared by the England and Wales Cricket Board. Former New Zealand captain Martin Crowe and Sri Lankans Aravinda da Silva and Arjuna Ranatunga were also later cleared. The same year also saw the appointment of Condon as chief corruption investigator and he has become one of the key figures in the fight against match-fixing. In May 2001, his first report included allegations of murder, kidnap and drug use and condemned a climate of "silence, apathy, ignorance and fear" in the game. He traced match fixing back to the 1970s. Speaking to the House of Lords recently he said the rise of more varied methods of gambling, such as spread betting had made the opportunities for corruption more varied. There was no need now for a risky proposition, like attempting to corrupt a whole team. Instead, the Byzantine array of options in spread betting means bookmakers only need to get at one player. "The betting analogy that I often draw is that the corrupt sportsman creates the equivalent of knowing in advance when the roulette wheel is going to land on red or black," said Condon. "Imagine the betting potential if you knew that. Even better, by fixing a part of a sporting event - say, fixing to bowl two wides in a particular over of a cricket match - he creates the
Azharuddin wants to overturn his ban

Malik went rapidly from hero to zero

equivalent in betting terms of knowing in advance when the roulette wheel is going to land on an individual number, thus enabling a massive betting coup because of the long odds that you can obtain on such an event." The end result was that rather than satisfying themselves that they have stamped out corruption, the cricket authorities must be aware that they may never beat it. "In some countries, it is now more lucrative to engage in sports corruption than drug dealing or robbery," he noted. West Indies all-rounder Marlon Samuels is currently under investigation over allegations he supplied team information to Indian bookmaker Mukesh Kochchar. Police in India believe Kochchar may have links to India's most notorious gangster Dawood Ibrahim. The diminutive Ibrahim, who is accused of masterminding the 1993 Mumbai sectarian bombings that claimed the lives of 257 people, is thought to be a major figure in the world of illegal gambling. Rooting out both players, bookies, middlemen and gangsters has proved difficult over the years. The bookmakers reportedly use networks of safe houses and constantly changing untraceable mobile phones to deal with customers. And the gangsters pulling the strings are not above murder to ensure their profits. A number of bookmakers are believed to have met violent ends, including South Africa-based Muhammad Hanif "Cadbury" Kodvavi, killed and cut up in May 1999. Corruption investigations have even affected cricket's international minnows, with former Kenyan captain Maurice Odumbe banned for five years in August 2004 for accepting a string of blandishments from bookmakers. And sometimes, the authorities have seemed rather ambivalent in their attitude towards the very people they label cheats. In November, Ata-ur-Rehman had his ban lifted by the ICC, while Azharuddin was feted as a hero of Indian cricket by officials. He has sat in the VIP section of matches and also played in a veterans game. Azharuddin and Malik both hope to have their bans lifted. But whatever is proved in the Woolmer case, the spectre of corruption will continue to dog the gentleman's game for some time to come.

Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pakistan cricket spot-fixing controversy refers to allegations stemming from a report by News of the World released during the Pakistani cricket team's tour of England. It was alleged that three Pakistani players, Mohammad Asif, Mohammad Amir and Salman Butt, had accepted bribes from agent and bookmaker Mazhar Majeed to purposely under-perform at certain points in the 4th Test at Lord's Cricket Ground inLondon, England. Undercover reporters from News of the World secretly video-taped Mazhar Majeed accepting money and informing the reporters that fast bowlers Asif and Amir would deliberately bowl no-balls at specific points in an over. This was information which could be used by gamblers to make wagers with inside information (a process known as spot-fixing; compare with match fixing where the result of a whole match is predetermined).[1] In response to the allegations, Scotland Yard arrested Majeed on the charge of match-fixing. The International Cricket Council (ICC) temporarily suspended the three players from playing in international cricket while investigating. The players denied the charges and maintained their innocence. A three-man tribunal was held in 2011, and the three players were suspended from all forms of cricket for terms of five to ten years.
Contents
[hide]

1 Prior concerns about corruption 2 Sting operation 3 Investigation 4 Reactions 5 The three players

5.1 Sporting world

5.1.1 Cricket

5.1.1.1 International Cricket Council 5.1.1.2 Pakistan 5.1.1.3 England and Wales 5.1.1.4 Australia

5.1.2 Football

5.1.2.1 Croydon Athletic F.C.

5.2 Governments

5.2.1 Pakistan

6 Other investigations

6.1 2010 ICC World Twenty20

7 Trial by the ICC

7.1 Outcome

8 Further allegations (Hameed and Haider) 9 See also 10 References

[edit]Prior

concerns about corruption

The International Cricket Council's Anti-Corruption and Security Unit had served notices to two unnamed Pakistani players seeking information into allegations of spot and match fixing. These notices were sent out to the players following Pakistan's first Test Match against England at Nottingham. The notices informed the players that the ACSU was seeking certain information and that the pair had 14 days to respond. [2]

[edit]Sting

operation

Reporters from News of the World established contact with Mazhar Majeed, a sports agent who was suspected of involvement in match-fixing. In the video posted by News of the World, Majeed, counting out the bribe money, predicted that Amir would be Pakistan's bowler for the first over, and that the third ball of the over would be a no-ball delivery. Amir did bowl the first over, and on his third delivery from the over, bowled a noball delivery. Commentary described the delivery as a "massive overstep", a good half-foot beyond the popping crease.[3] Majeed also predicted that the sixth delivery of the tenth over would be a no-ball, and the ball, delivered by Asif, was also a no-ball delivery.

[edit]Investigation
As a result of the newspaper report, Scotland Yard announced during the evening that they had arrested Majeed on suspicion of conspiracy to defraud bookmakers.[4] Two days later, after the Test match had been completed, three more arrests were made (two unidentified men and an unidentified woman) on suspicion of money laundering in connection with the allegations.[5] Police also seized the cell phones of Asif, Amir, and Salman Butt as part of their investigations. Scotland Yard announced on 17 September 2010 that the initial file of the investigation had been passed onto the Crown Prosecution Service for them to decide whether to charge the players or not.[6] On 5 November 2010 Scotland Yard announced that they had passed on the second file of fixing evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. This moved the case one step closer to the courts.[7]

[edit]Reactions

The spot-fixing controversy caused a major furore in the sporting world, primarily in international cricket and especially in Pakistan, as people presumed that cricket had been cleaned of match-fixing following theHansie Cronje affair in early 2000.

[edit]The

three players

All three players maintain their innocence in the charges levelled against them. Salman Butt became the first to file an appeal to have his temporary suspension lifted by the ICC.[8] The remaining two playersMohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir followed suit. The ICC announced that a hearing would be held in Qatar on October 30 and 31.[9] The interior ministry announced that the passport of the three cricketers had been given back to them so that they can travel to Qatar.[10] Seven days before the appeal began Mohammad Asif announced that he had withdrawn his appeal because he wanted to understand the charges against him.[11] Butt and Amir announced that their appeals were to continue however the ICC moved the hearing to the UAE. Salman Butt announced that he hoped the appeals would be completed quickly so that he could make a swift return to international cricket and participate in the series against South Africa in October 2010. [12] Their initial appeal against the suspension was rejected on Oct 31, 2010. The hearing was held not to decide whether Amir or Butt were innocent or guilty, but only to decide if their temporary suspensions should be lifted. Butt and Amir hit out at the ICC saying that even though the ruling went against them they weren't informed why.[13]

[edit]Sporting [edit]Cricket

world

[edit]International Cricket Council

Former ICC president Ehsan Mani expressed shock at the revelations and criticised the Pakistan Cricket Board.[14] ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat said that there was "sufficient evidence" to charge the players. The ICC suspended Asif, Amir and Butt from further international cricket.[15][16]

[edit]Pakistan
Yawar Saeed, the Pakistan team manager insisted after the conclusion of the test series that the T20 series and the ODI series would still be played. He also refused to say that Butt should resign as Test captain.[17] PCB president Ijaz Butt maintained that the players were innocent. At the same time, former Pakistan captain Rashid Latif pointed out that the spot-fixing controversy was possibly a set-up and that the leaked video contained a certain number of ambiguities.[18]

[edit]England and Wales

Some players had reservations about playing a Pakistan team featuring the players involved in controversy.[citation needed]

[edit]Australia
Australia captain Ricky Ponting expressed concern over the addition of an Australian victory against Pakistan to a list of more than 80 previous matches under investigation.[19] Australia won the match, despite a large firstinnings deficit.

[edit]Football

[edit]Croydon Athletic F.C.

Croydon Athletic F.C. was bought in 2008 by Mazhar Majeed. The football club was investigated by HM Revenues and Customs due to allegations that Majeed had been using the club for money-laundering purposes, after he had been recorded by an undercover journalist stating that that was the only reason he had bought the club.[20] This led to the manager and his assistant leaving the club after a match on 4 September 2010.[21] Less than a month later on 2 October, the club's chairman David Le Cluse was found dead in a garage in Sutton with a bullet wound to his head; his death is currently under investigation by police.[22]

[edit]Governments [edit]Pakistan
Wajid Shamsul Hasan, the Pakistani High Commissioner to the United Kingdom stated his belief that the players in question had been "set up" and were innocent of the charges.[23] He also condemned the ICC for suspending the three Pakistani players in question.[16][23][24] Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, the titular patron of the Pakistan Cricket Board, told PCB chairman Ijaz Butt to keep him fully informed of developments.[25] Haroon Akhtar, member of the Senate of Pakistan, blamed the PCB for the controversy.[14] Iqbal Mohammad Ali, a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan and chairman of the standing committee on sports, called for the removal of the players in question from the team.[26]

[edit]Other

investigations

The ICC announced that all of Pakistan's test matches post-1985 would be investigated as after 1985 the menace of Match-fixing began to emerge. One test under investigation was a defeat against Australia in January 2010 when Pakistan were leading in a comfortable position but Kamran Akmal dropped three catches and missed an easy run-out of Michael Hussey who was on 33 Hussey went on to score 134 not out. ICC later on cleared Sydney test or didn't pursue to investigate it further due to lack of evidence.
[27]

After the spot-fixing scandal emerged Pakistan registered a victory against England in the third ODI and the ICC announced the match was under investigation due to suspicious behavior. The ICC carried out a thorough investigation and the Pakistani team and Players were given the all-clear to continue playing. Speculation about fixing in the third-ODI ended as the investigation closed.[28]

[edit]2010

ICC World Twenty20

The ICC announced that a match between South Africa and Pakistan on 10 May 2010 was under investigation for spot-fixing. The ICC anti-corruption unit stated that two players had been questioned and that more details would be given in the next 24 hours. Pakistan won the toss and elected to bat. Also Pakistan won the match comfortably.[29]

[edit]Trial

by the ICC

The ICC announced that a tribunal would be held to hear the charges against Amir, Asif, and Butt. The tribunal was held from the 6th of January, 2011 to the 11th.[30] The three men on the tribunal were Michael Beloff, Albie Sachs and Sharad Rao all with previous experience in sporting trials. Salman Butt and Mohammad Amir objected to the selection of Beloff, though, contending that as the head of the ICC disciplinary committee, Beloff had a conflict of interest in favor the ICC over the three cricketers. This was shown, they claimed, when he voted against lifting their suspensions. Butt's lawyer, Aftab Gul, withdrew from the case because he doubted his client would receive justice.[31] The ICC also said that because the story was broken by News of the World its reporters would feature in the case.[32] At the tribunal's scheduled conclusion, the tribunal's decision was deferred to February 5, 2011, and that while Butt would face additional charges pertaining to the third Test of the England-Pakistan series (where Majeed had made further predictions, which did not come true), Amir and Asif had been acquitted of the newly announced charges.[33]

[edit]Outcome
On 5 February 2011, it was announced that the ICC had banned all three playersButt for ten years, of which five were suspended, Asif for seven years, of which two were suspended, and Amir for five years. [34]The shortened sentences for Butt and Asif were on the condition that the two each "[commit] no further breach of the code and...[participate] under the auspices of the Pakistan Cricket Board in a programme of anti-corruption education."[34] All three players were allowed to file an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.[34] In response to the announcement, The Independent said that "the game was at last standing up to its responsibilities,"[35] while The Guardian claimed that "the urgency to deliver a fierce deterrent to players everywhere has outweighed the need to make the punishment fit the crime."[36]

[edit]Further

allegations (Hameed and Haider)

Pakistani cricketer Yasir Hameed denied the allegations published in News of the World that he had turned down a bookmaker's offer of 100,000 to help fix a Test. Hameed had allegedly told the newspaper that "almost every match" was fixed and criticised the players involved.[37] Yasir Hameed denied the allegations, saying that he thought he was talking to a potential sponsor and only stated what he read on the news.[37] In November 2010, wicketkeeper Zulqarnain Haider left the Pakistani cricket team before their fifth and decisive one-day game against South Africa, and flew from Dubai (where the series was being held) to London's Heathrow Airport, asking for asylum and claiming that he had been threatened in an attempt to make

him throw the game. Haider's Pakistani stipend was suspended by the Pakistani Cricket Board, who expressed disappointment that Haider had left the team and flown to London instead of reporting the threats to the PCB and the ICC's anti-corruption unit.[38]