Stanford inquests begin
The Stanford saga has provoked a lot of debate this week, not least on my previous blog, so let me try to address some of the comments and questions.
First, let me say that when I interviewed Sir Allen back in November, I did indeed make the point about his charm and ability, like the best politicians, to really focus his energies on you.
But let's also be clear, that wasn't me endorsing him as a business partner for the ECB or all his activities, it was just me reporting how he came across face-to-face.
Some have also commented that it is unfair to question the actions of the England and Wales Cricket Board in not probing Stanford's background.
And there are many who agree, like Lord Morris, the independent director of the ECB, who points out that the ECB is a sports body, not a financial regulator. Or to use the more picturesque phrase of Andy Nash, chairman of Somerset, the ECB does not stand for European Central Bank.
I do have some sympathy for this point of view, especially given only a few months ago, Antigua's financial regulator - admittedly a lightly regulated environment - gave Stanford a clean bill of health.
But before we can pass judgement we ought to be told more about the due diligence the ECB performed.
I understand that the ECB did use a firm and it would be useful to see its report.
It would not have had the powers of SEC or the FSA but if it was done properly, could it not have helped?
The more fundamental question however concerns the motivation for the ECB getting into bed with Stanford, more so because other cricket bodies - the Indians, the Australians, the South Africans and the ICC - turned him away.
These cricket boards run cricket teams that are rivals of England. But this rivalry is on the field of play. Off it they are partners who have to work together, otherwise there would be no international cricket. Yes, England want to beat Australia every time they play. But Australia and other cricket countries must still want to play England, otherwise there can be no international cricket. Rivalry in cricket is not like rivalry between high street supermarket chains.
This distinction between business and sport is very important. Cricket, like all sport, is a business but a very special kind of business. When Stanford came calling, the ECB should have paused and asked: our cricket partners do not want to do business with him, why should we?
It is no secret why the ECB went into business with Stanford. On November 3, after the conclusion of the Stanford match, I discussed in detail why England went to the island and the damage it had done English cricket.
"Publicly, Clarke refuses to accept the suggestion that the trip to Antigua was a sweetener for the players but that is the hard reality.
"The ECB claimed the match will benefit West Indian cricket and, because it was televised to the US, it will finally help cricket break into the American market. Both ideas are naïve.
"For more than a decade the ICC has been trying to break into the US market and failed. American cricket has been bedevilled by infighting and the US sports market is not easy to break into as football knows only too well. China, which the ICC is now targeting, is more realistic.
"As for helping West Indies cricket, nothing could be more fanciful. What we saw in Antigua was West Indians playing an exhibition match on a rich man's ground and getting very well paid for it.
"West Indies Cricket Board officials were mere bystanders - even Caribbean cricket legends who back Stanford, like Sir Vivian Richards, are contemptuous of the board.
"It is hard to imagine another cricket nation where a private individual would be allowed to stage an international match in this fashion and it indicates how much of a broken reed West Indian cricket is.
"Stanford may or may not revive the game in the Caribbean, but England's Twenty20 train cannot be hitched to that. Hard as it is for the ECB to come to terms with Indian power, if the train is not to disappear completely out of sight, they must seek an accommodation with India or there will have to be more sideshows like the one we have witnessed last week while the main Twenty20 action takes place thousands of miles away."
Nothing that has happened since has made me change that view.
True, English cricket is on better terms with the Indians now but, had they not made that misjudgement last year, the English game would not even have known who Stanford was.
English cricket like so much of English sport has evolved over the years. Until 1968 it was run by a private club, the MCC. Then, as a result of the D'Oliveira affair, what Peter Oborne in Basil D'Oliveira: Cricket and Conspiracy calls one of the most shameful episodes in English cricket history, this private club was forced to shed its power. Recall the ICC was originally the overseas department of the MCC
The cricket governance we have is far from perfect, with India's rise exposing the ICC's limitations. The ICC reminds me of Winston Churchill's famous quip about democracy being 'the worst of all systems but the only one we have.'
But by allowing Stanford to hire the England cricket team for a frolic on his ground, English cricket went backwards into the past. And it now finds it has turned into a murky and muddy cul-de-sac.
How it turns round and gets back on the cricketing highway without too much of the Stanford mud sticking to its boots is the question to which we'll all now be awaiting the answer.
Severing all its contracts with Stanford, as it has done this afternoon, is just the start.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~18~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My previous comment having been "blocked" for being deemed "libellous", do you have any comment about the PGA and LPGA Tour's behaviour and compromised positions with Stanford?
And: At a time when sports exec's are making an absolute fortune, Selig $18M for instance, Finchem having a nine figure pension plan, how do the sporting public know that the interests of sport are being protected?
Perhaps your response will be that we don't, but I would say that it is up to you, the press, to protect us and the sports we love.
Complain about this comment
So, when you're charged that means you're guilty now does it?
Complain about this comment
i have to say that for all the clear flaws in his arguments - pointed out by almost everyone who reads this blog it seems - my main objection to this journalist is simply that he is so boring. Pompous, self congratulatory and self important in spades, but threadbare when it comes to genuine insight.
Complain about this comment
Posts 1 and 2 have been referred to the moderators. I believe both were originally published. Why?
This was an equally important part of the previous blog's feedback; it appears we have more of the same, and again without explanation. It's vexing.
If only the moderation were so stringent with the musings of the original poster...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
What Churchill actually said was "democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - often paraphrased to the rather more pithy: "democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others".
Complain about this comment
This is a good summary of the fiasco that was the dance between the ECB & Stanford. I am quite surprised that the ECB went ahead with this relationship, when no on else would.
Chasing the cheap dollars got the ECB into this position. They sure did lower the prestige of their national cricket team in doing so.
Rajiv...
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This Stanford fiasco was not about anyone being naive; the actions of the ECB were driven by greed and ego! In fact, if the management of the ECB is to be judged on how well it has been discharging its duties, it is probably on par with the mangement of the European Central Bank!
Complain about this comment
I really enjoy these blogs and the Stanford story has really caught the imagination.
The ECB should have asked questions but did not. But isn`t this just a mirror of the shenanigans in the world outside cricket, where the 3 wise monkeys have been running the banking sector?
In relation to Stanford`s involvement with cricket, it has been deeply embararrassing to watch members of the cricket establishment falling over themselves to get their hands on the Stanford millions.
I am sure this sorry tale will run and run.
Complain about this comment
This should teach the ECB a valuable lesson. But I doubt it.
One good thing that has come out of this scandal is the offshore banking industry. Must be quite a few rich people extremely worried. And all because some of them do not pay their fair share of tax.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mihir,
You have failed to answer some of the questions from the original blog, such as why does your blog contain more rejections and moderations than any other BBC journalists?
Also, you have failed to convincingly address the overwhelming responses to your original assertions that Stanford was akin to "Blair, Clinton and Mandela". If you had explained these assertions in a down to earth manner and with a bit more humility, instead of pretending it never happened or the public misconstrued what you were trying to say, many members of the public would be more willing to listen to your new point of view.
PS If this gets banned I will be making an official complaint, I have been fair and reasonable as to encourage debate?
Complain about this comment
Mihir your point on the due dilligence is still illogical. Stanford was in business, with no reports of fund redemptions or any other mal-practice up to the point the SEC launched its investigations. Before the SEC investigation, it is therefore obvious that all due diligences were being passed on Stamford, whichever company performed them. On this particular issue, the ECB for once are blameless.
But as you keep beating the due diligence drum, please tell me what form of due-diligence is being performed, and by whom, on the individuals who bid for players for the IPL.
Complain about this comment
Those who would only have us watch Test cricket just go on and on. Everything that has been said about the Stanford 20/20 week could be in some way said about the IPL or in reality any other form of 20/20 league. The only difference is that England were involved, much to the disgust of some purists. The only thing positive said about the EPL is that is won't effect the county championship. Britain invented 20/20 but appears strangulated in it's attempts to enjoy the sport.
I'm not aware of any other billionaire who hasn't over estimated a share price or talked something up a bit to make a few more dollars. I wonder if Stanford’s money was still in the USA and not going in to the Caribbean or non-USA sports whether the investigation would have taken place at all.
Complain about this comment
It's all starting to fall apart. The chickens are coming home to roost at last. Funny it takes a change of administration in the US first! Well I could say say alot more but the moderator would stop it. cricket is a mere sideshow in this.
Complain about this comment
As one may have heard on 5Live earlier the SEC did highlight what was going on but the CIA blocked it all.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Many of us had concerns last year, but were slammed for being 'elitist' or snobbish. Where are 'adyeeri' or 'thefrogstar' now?
------------------
31 Oct 2008:
thefrogstar wrote:
"I agree with adyeeri post #21.
Many of the reactions sound similar to those that greeted the Kerry Packer 'circus'. Perhaps they would like to see the return of 'Gentlemen' and 'Player' distinctions?
...
Dr_Grammar (post #16), you say Allen Stanford has 'no class'.
There are some people in the world (I'm not one of them) who think watching Sky TV is a sign of 'no class', even if you could only manage it for 30 minutes."
adyeeri wrote:
Well, I see a bit of a cultural clash here guys! I see a bit of the old cricket English "gentleman" and the American who doesn't buy this whole "colonial" thing!
I was last in the UK last year and I saw quite a bit of crime in the papers and nasty "yob" behaviour on the trains etc. Remeber the tabloids??
I find it hard to buy the whole "outcry" thing on here and in the papers back in ol' England!
Especially, the English should be the last people to do that.
Stop the hypocrisy!!
----------------
Complain about this comment
Mihir,
I think I'm only going off at a slight tangent, but can you now tell us the "inside line" about the "Antiguan lawer John Fuller." Or is it "Fuler", as I think I've seen both names on BBC websites?
The BBC has reported him as having known Allen Stanford for 10 years.
And now he is informing the BBC about the questions that should have been asked.
I thought I had also read something else about him on a BBC website.
But, curiously, now I can't find it.
Complain about this comment
Relax, Dr_Grammar (#26), thefrogstar is still here.
My comments then were directed, at what seemed to me, your rather class-based insults, not any implication of financial impropriety.
Go back and look at the rest of what I wrote. In detail.
You've obviously taken the trouble to bring it up. Now read it.
I did not welcome Stanford with open arms, but said that Cricket administrators might need to be inventive to help Test Cricket, and that Allen Stanford
"may, or may not" be a part of that.
You can obviously add in the italics to my quote yourself, Dr_Grammar.
Complain about this comment
Plus.......
I am delighted at the efficiency of the BBC.
They managed to post Dr_Grammars riposte to me before my comment was (chronologically) posted.
Make of that what you will.
I find myself leaning towards the many articulate critics on this blog.
To be positive, Mihir, I have rarely read blog-responses that seem so well educated.
Complain about this comment
thefrogstar: nothing to do with class in an English sense, but class as in his behaviour. My point was that many people didn't trust his motives and didn't enjoy his crass antics, but were labelled as overly conservative or elitist. I would hope that English cricket pays more attention to those opinions in future.
Anyway, not going to bore everyone else any further with this little tiff.
Good day to you.
Complain about this comment
frogstar, Why not just admit it's a fair cop!?!
I read your original comment and it was pretty pompous, to be fair. How else is someone supposed to watch test cricket without watching on Sky (sad though that is)?
Whatever, glad we've seen the back of Stanford.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Pompous, "smellslikesalmon"? (#31)
That's cruel.
I'll settle for opinionated.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am amazed at the ECB allowing Stanford to sponsor this ridiculous cricket match. I am not surprised that the players liked the idea, 20 milliion divided up by a squad of professional cricketers for a game that lasted 3 hours. Who paid to watch it ? It was a farce from beginning to end and now we suspect that the money was illegally obtained, will the Windies players pay it back to the investors, I think not ! Let's keep cricket clean and clear cut, 3 day county matches, 5 day test matches and one dayers.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is what he wrote after the horrific Mumbai attacks:
"Nobody can deny the horrors that have unfolded in Mumbai. It is a city I shall always call Bombay and the one where I grew up. For me to witness the events of the last few days on television in places I have known so well has been heartbreaking.
I could not see the pictures of the Taj Mahal Palace hotel without thinking of the Sea Lounge, where I spent so much of my teenage years gazing out to the Arabian Sea while consuming pineapple cake and sweet lime and soda - a great drink in a hot country".
Millions of people from Mumbai could empathise with those comments in the aftermath of that atrocity,couldn't they Mihir?
Complain about this comment
I have a different question that maybe someone can help me with.. I understand the embarassment for the ECB over this situation but isn't it more damaging for the UK that this guy has a knighthood?
I know he was proposed by Antigua but how does this reflect on the honours system when we make a Texan billionaire a 'Sir'?
:)
Complain about this comment
This idea that the ECB should have carried out more thorough due diligence is, frankly, laughable.
The ECB have not invested funds in Stanford and don't bear any signifiant financial risk as a result of his inevitable demise (other than the potential loss of future income). In simplistic business terms, Stanford was a customer of the ECB as the ECB allowed him use of their assets (the England team) in exchange for cash. Would we expect other businesses to carry out detailed due diligence in respect of their customers? Of course not, so why should the ECB have done so?
In any case, even if more comprehensive due diligence had been undertaken, the idea that the ECB's advisors would have uncovered a fraud which had, until then, gone undetected by the worlds most regulatory of all financial regulatory authorities (the SEC) is beyond ridiculous.
Not for the first time, Mr Bose, your blog strikes me as nothing but lazy journalism.
Complain about this comment
#2 - My response has been referred to the moderators.
#1 - Responder has already queried why and why his response has been treated similarly.
How long is the moderator keeping these unpublished?
As far as I'm aware there is no abuse or insulting language in anything I contribute on this board. I kept a copy of this (as it was a Mihir blog) as there is a consistently big number of blocked contributions.
What has happened to fair comment?
I am considering a formal complaint if this is not published, together with my previous contribution.
Of course. in the meantime, I would be grateful if anyone at the BBC would care to explain why this is happening, particularly on this blog.
Complain about this comment
Looking at purely the cricketing aspects of this fisico, the Stanford matches meant absolutely nothing. The "Super Series" had 5 pointless matches between his "Superstars", Middlesex, Eng and T&T, followed by the now infamous 20/20 for 20. The Standard Tournament which was due for Lords this summer was just a pointless addition to the fixture list. The public can quickly see through all this meaningless and irrelevant fixtures so why couldn't the ECB? Putting $1 Million dollar per man as the prize doesn’t mean the public will be interested as the prize doesn’t mean anything for the spectators or supporters of both teams. It was all far to fake. For this reason alone Giles should walk away.
Complain about this comment
#32- My comments on the blog have been with the moderators since 5:01 am. I do not know the nature of offending remaks that are causing the hold up in publication. Perhaps BBC brook no contradiction of their star blogger!
Complain about this comment
Mihir,
In this part of the world your comments would be described as "Monday Morning Quarterbacking".
Come on, you can do better than that.
Can't you?
You still haven't addressed the comments regarding Stanford and golf. Should Finchem and Bivens be tarred with the same Giles Clarke brush?
Complain about this comment
Mr Bose,
I've submitted my thoughts and been moderated yet again. So I am forced to write in a very basic manner.
-If fraud was so easy to detect as you seem to suggest by criicising the ECB's lack of due dilligence, then we wouldn't have a situation like the collapse of the Icelandic banks occuring. Enron would never have occured. Merill Lynch would still be with us. Nick Leeson wouldn't have turned into an anti-hero.
-Once again you persist with this 'ECB jumped into bed with Stanford' angle. Where's your investigation of how the ICC jumped into bed with the IPL whilst simultaneously getting the ICL turned into something worth banning international players for participating? The way ICL players have been treated is deplorable and basically treats them no differently to those people who took part in rebel tours to apartheid-era South Africa.
-As others have said yesterday and today and I said yesterday and today, why are Giles Clarke and the ECB being singled out for their Stanford association?
Complain about this comment
Noelrands:
If the buck truly did stop at the top, we'd be seeing a Prime Minister,architect of Britain's economy when he was Chancellor, and man who was quite happy for financial deregulation to occur, resign right now.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bose,
I'd be interested to hear your views on this Cricinfo article about the IPL having sponsorship problems.
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/magazine/content/current/story/391604.html
The key point I'd like to address is this quote from the above article:
"But the IPL's role is to act as a facilitator, says Sundar Raman, the league's CEO. "We have created more opportunities for the franchises to maximise their monetisation," Raman said. Among those opportunities is the provision for more in-stadia visibility for the franchises this year; franchises will also get to sell an entire stand each, naming it after a sponsor."
Now you criticised the Stanford series for pretty much being a series organised by an individual. This quote reinforces the idea that the IPL is an ICC-sanctioned event that is primarily designed for individuals or companies to run their own team. To my mind, this reinforces the notion that the IPL is designed for individual playboys and playgirls to have their own team. At least with Stanford his Superstar team represented the whole of the West Indies and had clear benefit for the West Indies as a whole. I don't see this with the IPL.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, forgot a bit above... with reference to the IPL, if it really is a league that gives individuals/companies the power to control teams, then why the continued mistreatment of the ICL? To my mind, the banning of ICL players from international cricket damages international cricket by reducing the pool of quality players available to play.
Complain about this comment
AndyPlowright
ICL is an un authorised tournament by ICC
Thats it.Get it and get over it.
Cheers
Complain about this comment
MrBakedBeans:
You miss the point completely. Mr Bose has said that the ECB jumped into bed with Stanford. My retort is that the ICC did precisely that with the IPL whilst simultaneously turning ICL players into the equivalent of the apartheid era rebel tourists in the 1980's. Now Mr Bose has used his bed jumping metaphor with regard to the ECB and Stanford yet has not levelled this at the ICC when it comes to the IPL.
There is an undoubted double standard there.
Complain about this comment
AndyPlowright
The point you may be missing is - ICC gets 80% of its funds from BCCI, so BCCI is more like a majority shareholder and IPL is their baby so no question about ICC jumpting in bed. If BCCI were not that strict with ICL - which is backed by one of the richest man in the continent with his own media empire - this threaten the very structure of ICC and BCCI - imagine if ICL had succeeded in Indian market - huge reduction in BCCI and ICC revenues. I think what BCCI is doing with ICL is only common sense, and i dont get why it is so difficult to understand
Complain about this comment
Mihir is 100% correct...
I am not surprised to see some guys here predicting dooms day for IPL ,especially after the Stanford 20-20 was dumped and the proposed EPL may not take off at all etc,but thats far from the truth. Off course there may be some scale down effect in IPL because of economic recession worldwide. IPL and BCCI are a big success not because India is the richest country in the world but it is because India is one of the fastest growing economy with more than a billion people and most of them follow all forms of cricket like a religion .IPL’s foundation and design are solid just like football EPL in England and American pro sports with its city-based team franchise system to a televised player draft etc.IPL is the first league which has delivered the maximum benefit to the most important stake holders in cricket,I,e for cricket players!I can understand the frustration here by some because its just they cannot accept the reality of IPL and sore grapes!Take it or leave it but one can't ignore IPL!
Complain about this comment
Mihir inisisted on using his "jumping into bed" analogy in this blog also.
It just proved how strong minded he is and the fact that is not going to let a bunch of bloggers change his opinion.
That alone has to be applauded.
Complain about this comment
GavCambs:
I know the ICC gets the majority of its cash from the BCCI and that naturally the BCCI wants to protect its own product. As you say, that is common sense and I understand that. It is the issue with the ICC that is the problem. The ICC is supposed to be the top dog in terms of regulating the world game. By backing the IPL and making the ICL a black dog, it operates with a bias toward the BCCI. If the world organisation responsible for cricket is biased in favour of one particular board, then there are problems. The ICC decision to ban players who played in the ICL is one that ends up damaging world cricket by reducing the quality of players available to national squads. World cricket ends up damaged by a decision that does not help world cricket but a decision by a world organisation that is essentially designed to help one country's cricket board to increase it's revenue stream. Don't you see the complete conflict of interest there?
Now you say that the BCCI is more like a majority shareholder in the ICC. I agree. With that in mind, wouldn't that suggest that the ICC operates as a private enterprise and not the democracy it should be? Any vote to me within the ICC pays lip service to democracy and nothing else, and that comes to the real crux of the matter and one I've tried putting in Mr Bose's much moderated blogs: for all the criticism of the ECB, the ICC is far worse and is not an organisation that is fit for purpose, the purpose being runing and regulating world cricket.
As ak47 says, we can't ignore the IPL. It follows the American sporting system which is the ultimate version of a sporting cartel. It is totally incorrect to compare the IPL to the structure of the English Premier League because the EPL involves relegation. There is no safety net for the teams. One reason the US sports thrives like that is because the safety net is always there. Teams are not relegated. Teams don't have to reform after relegation, change wage structures etc etc. It's far easier to operate an all-inclusive financial entity a la the NFL when you eradicate the elements that make the English league so great ie. promotion and relegation.
So why should all this matter when we're discussing the ECB and Stanford? It matters because of there are huge grey areas. From Mr Bose's previous blog:
“A cricket board is the regulatory body for cricket in the country or territory it covers. A private individual or company can use a match to advertise its products. It can also sponsor games. But it cannot be an organiser. In other words, matches or series must be played between recognised bodies, ones that possess similar, if not the same, regulatory powers. However, the ECB decided to ignore this principle. While the ICC was prepared to explore Stanford's proposals, only to be ultimately put off by his demands, the ECB jumped into bed with the billionaire.“
-The ICC is acting more and more like a private enterprise. The ICC organised a series of matches called the Super Series between Australia and a Rest of the World XI. Who organised it? It can surely only be the ICC. If the two cricket boards invovled were the ICC and Cricket Australia, how on earth can anyone think that they share the same regulatory powers? They palpably do not.
-The IPL is a domestic competition with a rival domestic competition in the ICL. Regulations have been put in place that make sure a player playing in that rival competition can't play internaitonal cricket. Since when was participation in a domestic competition a bannable offence? What right does a domestic competition in the IPL have to demand that thos ein a rival organsation are banned from other forms of the game? It's absolute scandalous that this happens and I sincerely hope legal action is brought one day. Again, there is a clear conflict of interest here with regard to the ICC's heavy-handed decision to ban ICL players. If the ICC is under the BCCI control, as GavCambs says, then that is a conflict of interest and one that, were it happening in political fields, would be hammered in the press.
-Stanford has received criticism for his Series. Well, I'd argue that his competitions have done more for the international game of cricket than banning the like of Shane Bond has done.
I'm not afraid of the IPL. I watched a fair amount of it last time it was played and it was alright. I'll always be a Test cricket fan first and foremost and I freely admit that. 20 over cricket is a batsman's game and I much prefer watching bowlers being able to hatch plans over a long spell rather than bowling two overs for 15 and being told he's done a great job. I do feel the ICC's decision to back the IPL at the ICL's expense is one that has opened up a lot of grey areas and one that calls the neutrality of the ICC into question. That is vastly more damaging than the Stanford issue right now.
If financial fraud/difficulties was so easy to uncover, then how did Enron happen? How did Arther Anderson collapse? How did Northern Rock get to the state it is at now? Institutions are not open with their financial details.
Complain about this comment
Cricket will continue to prostitute itself. The highest bidder wins.
Complain about this comment
I am busy having some L A Odicean transfers made to stick on my hired-for- the-day helicopter when I go to the interview for the soon-to-be vacant post of Chairman of the ECB.
Complain about this comment
Mr Bose,
After having my fourth comment rejected by your moderators, I've come to the conclusion that any sort of reasonable debate on this issue is impossible. It feels like any sort of negative position on the IPL and ICC is rejected yet you are allowed to be critical of Giles Clarke.
From here, it seems that your standpoint is that Clarke isn't a worthy chairman of the ECB because he has had dealings with a man who currently is being investigated for fraud yet who has not been arrested yet and has not had criminal charges brought against him.
As others have said, the fact that Clarke is singled out here and other sports involved with Stanford have not had the same level of debate is rather poor. I find the lack of debate allowed on this subject even more disappointing.
Complain about this comment
There have been numerous comments on my blogs that attempt to draw comparisons between Stanford and the Indian Premier League (IPL). You cannot compare the two for one good reason.
The IPL is a domestic tournament organised by the BCCI, the body that runs cricket in India. Like all cricket boards, the BCCI has complete power to run its domestic events without outside interference. That's why it was able to ban the IPL's rival, the Indian Cricket League, without worrying about recriminations from the International Cricket Council, whose powers are still very limited compared to Fifa, Uefa or the International Olympic Committee.
The Stanford game, on the other hand, involved an England team playing at an individual's private ground against his own team. It was not a match against a team from another recognised cricket board. So in a curious way, Stanford, at least for that match in Antigua last November, was given the status of a cricket board by the England and Wales Cricket Board.
Complain about this comment
mihir-bose wrote: "Like all cricket boards, the BCCI has complete power to run its domestic events without outside interference. That's why it was able to ban the IPL's rival, the Indian Cricket League, without worrying about recriminations from the International Cricket Council"
The problem I have with this is that it wasn't just a domestic issue. Think of the players like Shane Bond who could no longer play international cricket after playing in the ICL? This has hurt NZ and test cricket as a whole. There were a few like him and most signed up for the ICL before they knew it would end their careers. How can this just be a 'domestic issue'?
Complain about this comment
Mihir........
You have still not come back with an answer to what level of due diligence is performed by the BCCI on investors in the IPL.
I suspect you know the answer, but in admitting so would somewhat reduce the credibility of your article.
Complain about this comment
Mihir Bose wrote;
"The Stanford game, on the other hand, involved an England team playing at an individual's private ground against his own team. It was not a match against a team from another recognised cricket board. So in a curious way, Stanford, at least for that match in Antigua last November, was given the status of a cricket board by the England and Wales Cricket Board."
All valid and key points except for one slight issue.
Why are you now expressing these concerns AFTER the SEC in America, the UK equivalent of the FSA, have charged him with fraud?
Unless you can answer this fundamental question, my opinion of you and your blogs will remain unchanged.
Complain about this comment
Mihir Bose wrote;
"The Stanford game, on the other hand, involved an England team playing at an individual's private ground against his own team. It was not a match against a team from another recognised cricket board. So in a curious way, Stanford, at least for that match in Antigua last November, was given the status of a cricket board by the England and Wales Cricket Board."
I don't remember the same issue being raised when a J Paul Getty XI would play the touring international team every year at his private ground. Apologies to JPG for the comparisson with Stanford, but I raise the example only to show yet again Mr Bose is missing the point.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS