Spot of Bother

Mervyn Westfield earnt himself the unwanted title of 'first English cricketer convicted of spot fixing'. The 23 year old former Essex fast bowler admitted his guilt at the Old Bailey last month. He was charged with accepting or obtaining a corrupt payment to aid spot betting. He pleaded guilty at the last moment, just before the start of his trial. The events concerned a televised Pro 40 game against Durham in September 2009. The match was being televised live in India. Westfield acknowledged that he had agreed to concede 12 runs when bowling the very first over of the match. It was not clear who exactly he agreed this with on the day of his plea, but His Honour Judge Morris presiding over the case said that the scam also involved a figure 'well known in cricket circles'. The middle man was believed to be Westfield's then Essex colleague, Danish Kaneria of Pakistan. Kaneria was also arrested, and admitted introducing Westfield to the bookmaker, but he was released without charge due to lack of evidence, claiming he knew nothing of their arrangement. Considerably more was revealed about the pernicious influence of Kaneria today when Westfield reappeared for sentence.  As it happened Westfield only conceded 10 runs off the over. One wonders how he could have hoped to give away a precise number of runs without the agreement of the batsmen. It has never been suggested that the batsmen were involved in the scam.
Westfield received a sentence of 4 months imprisonment today.
Following the widely publicised spot fixing trial involving the Pakistani cricketers, Butt, Asif and Amir, discussion has been rife about the prevalence or otherwise of corruption in cricket. That corruption has now tainted the English game, and within 3 months 4 cricketers have been given custodial sentences by English courts. The Head of the ICC's anti corruption unit, Sir Paul Condon has previously suggested that corruption was widespread in cricket from the 1980s until 2000. Many  incidents from the past are now being looked at with a raised eyebrow. There are many rumours, but one of the problems is that few have stepped forward with hard facts. Wrongdoing has been protected by a form of 'cricketing omerta'. What is particularly depressing about the Westfield case, as with Amir, is that a young and gifted player has thrown away a potentially glittering career for a quick buck.
It has been suggested that the County game might be particularly vulnerable to this form of corruption. Westfield was to be paid £6,000 for about 2 minutes' dishonesty. That is a significant sum for a modestly paid county pro. Players facing 15 years trundling round the circuit without any expectation of making the big time, might find themselves similarly tempted. Equally depressing to me is the fact that there were numerous rumours and even knowledge, according to the judge, about the activities of Kaneria amongst the playing and coaching staff of Essex, but nobody prevented the corrupting of young Westfield. Nobody stepped forward as they were required to do and reported their colleague. There is a suspicion that Kaneria was protected because he was a match winning and accordingly valuable player. Cricket needs to take a long hard look at itself.
The fact that the match was being televised in India no doubt made it more attractive to the betting fixers. The ECB will have to consider whether selling the TV rights to such matches and accordingly exposing them to illegal betting practices in Asia is a price worth paying. Television though also  increased the level of scrutiny on the actions of the players. Cricket cannot survive without the money provided by TV companies. A further complication is that the matches are also available illegally on numerous websites. The greatest protection for the game is vigilance and scrutiny. When Amir bowled his no balls at Lords, TV commentators were immediately questioning what was going on.
Westfield has thrown away his career, he will surely receive a significant, probably career ending ban, to go with his custodial sentence. The sentence of 4 months imprisonment was described by the Judge as a deterrent sentence, but was it truly? Westfield will probably only serve a month with release on Home Detention Curfew highly likely. The Judge doubted whether Westfield's protestations of remorse and regret were genuine. Before going down to the cells he was said to have gestured and smiled at somebody in the public gallery. Was he expecting a more significant punishment?
But what of Kaneria? There was not enough evidence to proceed against him, and now 2 years later the Police have indicated that they are no longer interested in him. He has not played for Pakistan since being dropped last year. The new era Pakistan are highly unlikely to return to him. He is under investigation by the cricketing authorities. Westfield also faces a lengthy ban, but he could significantly improve his situation by co - operating and naming names.A number of people might be nervously waiting for a knock on their door. On the other hand, Westfield would be making some powerful enemies amongst some very undesirable people.
Cricket lovers can only hope that this is not the tip of the iceberg and that the game can return to calmer waters.
Cricketers are now better advised and educated about the threat from fixing. However the best deterrence is the fear of a high probability of being caught. The authorities need to prioritise this above all else.
Finishing on a positive note the ECB has declared an amnesty on the failure of players to report illegal approaches, a disciplinary offence, until the 30th April to encourage players to step foward and co-operate. Good may come from the downfall of a talented but misguided young man.