by RYAN NARAINE

The West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) has found middle order batsman Marlon Samuels guilty of a match-fixing charge that carries an automatic two-year ban from all forms of cricket.

Samuels, a 27-year-old right-hander who has played in 29 Tests and 107 ODIs for the West Indies, was found guilty of violating Clause 4-9 of the ICC code of conduct, which reads:
Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

this is really unfortunate for the windies. He could of become a key player too

In reply to Larr Pullo

So why did this take more than 15 months to do? WICB looking like complete dunces now for having this guy all the while.

A good man is down...

Goodbye Marlon. Head for remedial classes while you have all this time.

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Admin: Can you please find out what evidence supported the claim that Helegance received compensation(financial or otherwise) for passing on the information?

That piece of evidence is crucial to the public understanding(and acceptance) of the merits of the case...

2 years is too little IMO, the WICB should have sent a clear message to other players that this kind of cheating is not tolerable. 4 or 5 years should have been the penalty.

In reply to Chrissy

In reply to FanAttick

de Indian police seh dat there was no evidence of financial transaction

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Very sad and disappointing day in WI cricket. One of the worst days in our 70+ year history.
Helegance has let down WI cricket big time.

I would like to know what evidence they have though that he 'benefited financially or otherwise' from his dealings with Mukesh. But that conversation doesn`t sound like a healthy one at all.
Helegance has let s down but he must face the consequence of his actions since he is not a baby.

In reply to FanAttick

...The thing is, Lara was accused of far worse than this and got off.....

Samuels made contact with the WICB to find out if he should join di squad in Antigua (according to RJR news now). I don't know if I should laugh or cry.

In reply to Disciple

Exactly what I've been saying all the time. Once charged, and Sammy knew what evidence they had, why shouldn't he just cash in knowing he would probably be found guilty at some later point?

In reply to garyg

1928 - 2008 - eighty years.

It looks more like a fool who boastful and like to talk than some one who actually know what he doing. But it is clear that samuels need to take this two years and grow a brain.

In reply to FanAttick

Whats this talk I am hearing about probation?

In reply to Chrissy

isnt england the oldest team?

In reply to FanAttick

First he run the man out of WI cricket now he running him out of ICL?

In reply to jala

In reply to Nemesis

Rubbish - he just got the release in the middle of the news and clearly did not read this part:

Marlon Samuels made his bed and has now received his just dessert.

This is further confirmation, if any were neeeded, that we must separate talent from any question of a player's integrity. We must also understand that prowess in a sport does not neccessarily invest one with unimpeachable reputation, or guarantee that one is not capable of unbecoming conduct.

Regardless of how good a player is, I have no time for cheats or anyone guilty of any malfeasance and, therefore, I cannot in good conscience defend such a player.

I am glad I do not know these players personally and therefore have no stake in vouching for their reputation outside of the cricketing arena. In spite of how many runs they have scored, or how many wickets they have taken, I also have no time for the assorted, women beaters, drug users, deadbeat dads-many of them legends-and other scoundrels who have worn the West Indeis maroon cap in recent years.

In reply to FanAttick

well said... hmmmmmm........... something is really fishy

In reply to FanAttick

Who paid for him and his wing man's extended stay in India?

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

In reply to Larr Pullo
Twissy's celebration may be a tad premature..

1st: Nash will replace Helegance in the test squad
2nd: Helegance will replace Lara in the ICL

Not sure there is much there for Twissy to celebrate..

She better keep dem Roti under wraps fuh the time being

In reply to Larr Pullo

In reply to FanAttick

In reply to CricketLuva4

The ICL is not under the jurisdiction of the ICC...

The IPL is...

In reply to CricketLuva4

Steups, the ICL has standards.

Those who deal with Bookies are liable to get passed by.

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

admin how comes the headlines on WICB different from yours???
No mention of match fixing there.. violation of conduct... or are you trying to tell us something different

Where is the evidence of matchfixing?

Are they saying he is getting 2 years for running his mouth off on the phone??


Why would they convict him and then rcommend that he not get 2 years??

Did they not know the penalty before they passed judgment?

In reply to garyg So do i reading the conscript, there is nothing in it that say he gave away any secrets to the bookie.I want to know where is the evidence?I dont think this would have stood in a legal court.Lets hear what W.I.P.A. will do.

In reply to FanAttick

yes but they shouldnt even sign players who do this stuff (IF it is proved)

In reply to Nemesis
As far as I can see - match fixing hasnt been proven..

If the WICB's panel finds the penalty excessive - it must be that they found no such evidence...

In reply to CricketLuva4

In reply to FanAttick

Pullo and Admin must come with the matchfixing evidence since the story is now official. I heard it was SO EXCESSIVE.....mi waiting

Well since the verdict is in on Samuels – Dowlin should be the replacement for him.

In reply to Larr Pullo

In reply to jala

In reply to Chrissy

if u were marlon would u laugh or cry???? I'd just pity myself

In reply to Chrissy
It suggests innocence..

Churchill gwine sue de WICB to smithereens...

Dem better dont spend anymore of Helegance's television rights fee...

In reply to Dukes

y u doan haul off, u biggot!

In reply to FanAttick

Do better than that please.

In reply to Chrissy
What evidence do you have that Helegance is guilty?

btw - hate is not admissible in court...

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com
Ryan... step up bro You cant report one thing and then WICB official site report another
some peeps round here already confused by 1 single word now you making dem jump up and down

In reply to FanAttick

I know you are more intelligent than you're pretending to be.

In reply to Chrissy

Go read the dam official report on di official site for God sake

In reply to FanAttick

FanA leave this horse alone bro

Just lets say the ICC knew about this more than 1 year ago - but did not want to make a spash AROUND the time of the ICC WC - that WI was hosting

and just let's say that the rewards were NOT non monetary

In reply to CW

In reply to dax

In reply to imusic

In reply to FanAttick

The penalties are known to all cricketers.

In reply to FanAttick

no i dont. Maybe we all should read the code of conduct

In reply to Chrissy
For all of your legendary intelligence you seem to have great difficulty answering a simple question.

what evidence do you have to support the contention that Helegance received compensation(cash or otherwise) from Koochar for passing on sensitive team information?

In reply to FanAttick

Any violation is a minimum two years.

In reply to FanAttick

Carry on sah

Let just say, I know what I know

and I won't have been surprised if he got a "life ban"

Fron a WI cricket perspective - 8 years of investment in Marlon Samuels has resulted in...this

In reply to dax

In reply to Chrissy

In reply to Chrissy

In reply to Nemesis Lemme ask you this.
Let us say you are opposed to the death penalty.You feel that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of 1st degree murder and such cases have an automatic death penalty.You Mr. Nemesis would therefore find the defendant Not Guilty???

In reply to jala

they said he was guilty of violating section 4ix. in the code of conduct, the minimum ban for which is 2 years.

In reply to jala

In reply to Dukes

Well first of all mi nah de pon no capital murda case.

If there is no evidence that a match was fixed kill mi dead mi nah convict nobody.

In reply to Nemesis
even worse..the ICC and its proxy the WICB contend that Helegance accepted monies or other compensation..

Given the gravity of that allegation - dont you think it is incumbent upon the ICC and the WICB to provide evidence to support that contention?

They are not just alleging any old violation - they are alleging that monies or other compensation were received by Helegance...

They have to open that evidence up to public scrutiny..

The reputation of WI cricket makes that a critical requirement..

In reply to Nemesis Why are you refusing to answer my question?
Is it because you have abandoned any pretension to adhering to principled reasoning??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

In reply to Dukes

If you were the defendant in a criminal case would you be satisfied with the prosecution selecting the jury without your input?

In reply to Dukes

The evidence provided barely reach the level of a misdemeanour much less the death penalty, so the answer is obviously NOT GUILTY.

In reply to FanAttick

the jury was not selected specially for this case. the matter pertains to this commitee, and they were the ones who conducted the hearing.

In reply to Joshua

too bad riche didnt captain marlon. This may of been different since he is the jury.

If Viv had his way in India, none of this would have happened.

an embarassment to all west indian cricketers past and present and west indian cricket fans.

dont see how he is going to come back in a west indies team after this either. this is essentially a life ban.

some a people really dense. geez

In reply to 1Desiabnu

WICB

In reply to Kurt

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com Marlon is a fool if he knew this guy was a bookie.. And knowing the Indians always do this crap thien your name is out. Now if he was just talking for being stupid then I am say hard luck. But this is sad. I hope WICB has a system in place to help suspended players.

In a way this makes me proud. At least our admins have the guts to punish our own when found guilty.

I personally think is just ignorance on Sammy's part, but ignorance of the law is never an acceptable defense.

And it will send a clear message.

Though I expect the sentence to be lessened at some not too far future date.

But I must say I am sorry for him. I never wish any players bad and I wish something can be done to help him. This is the man livelihood.. man this world got trouble.. marlon boy pray alot and ask the lord for guidance eh. I wish you the best. You can come back from this be strong. Hang in there.

In reply to sabina I think so too. I really dont think he was doing this for money hence the reason I think he should not have been suspended

In reply to jacksprat

In reply to FanAttick & faada

This concerns Marlon Samuels and as usual when his name is mentioned all reason tends to fly out the door.

Well I tend to disregard those with an axe to grind. I have never been interested in any cult of personality. This is bigger than Marlon Samueles and any one player. The principle is always more important than the individual.

In reply to jacksprat
That is the point...

I dont give a fact about Helegance the individual...

I do however set great store by the integrity of the process..

Many here are assuming that because the panel is supposedly comprised of eminent individuals - that they are infallible and consequently their decision cannot be questioned...

I beg to differ strenuously...

In reply to jacksprat

read cricinfo which will shed a light on the fact that nothing new has come to light..
its info we already know and loads of peeps had already said the boy silly to engage in the convo rather than say mi fren you know I cant talk bout dem things.. thats probably when the man say relax man is me dis...

so all dis match fixing and bribery BS boil down to violation of a code that could put him or cricket in a low esteem..and we all done call him eediat already so where is the news and "shameless act" and horrible happenings

In reply to FanAttick

In reply to CW
When last did you tell your father the over you were coming into bowl

In reply to CW

what has not been established (or even alleged for that matter) anywhere yet is how he benefited

In reply to CW

To some here Samuels' unfortunate run out of Brian Lara is an unpardonable act as if no one has ever been run out before in teh history of West Indeis cricket.

Some are less inclined to forgive him for that that they would for some of our player guilty of, or accused of beating women, stealing, drug use, philandering etc.

In reply to jacksprat
Who the hell care about big head Lara
Marla is either a cheat or he retarded

In reply to faada

In reply to jacksprat

In reply to jacksprat

A hearing is processed and a verdict is rendered out that Samuels been found guilty of a crime there is a law for. And you really expect the public to question the verdict instead of taking the decision for what it is? And all such people have an axe to grind?

In reply to jacksprat
No woman no cry?
Dem kinda man does lie?

In reply to faada

the problem here is that everyone assume that he did it for some reward.. what soon happen all dem man who try to grab a bit a pumpum while on tour might get invite back to woman yard and find demselves on you tube next day cos webcam set up in a room.
of course the man give out details of the match but only in convo... dem boys chat bout team round dinner in restaurants all da time... every body carryon like him a mass murderer

In reply to FanAttick

Allyuh want evidence for what? The hearing was held before a panel who listened to all the evidence and ruled against him. END OF STORY.

One could try to understand why they are effectively recommending a lighter penalty for him, but it does not change the ruling. If they thought that he did not do it, they would not have ruled against him.

I feel sorry for the man cause I think he is an idiot and was manipulated by the bookie and others around him. That said, he was wrong and should be punished.

In reply to dcbreds

finally we will see the end of this lazy ass samuel.

In reply to Narper

I do not disagree with you man. But I assume that is why they had that attorney (can't remember his name) to review the evidence.

And given that such a review had occurred, and that the evidence was sufficient for the panel, I am not sure how a separate investigation would have helped.

More importantly, I am sure Samuels' attorneys presented evidence that they thought should have been considered, and even that was not enough to sway the panel.

All kicks aside. Dis is ah sad story. Despite his skuntholish tendencies, Trinidave wishes Marlon all de best, and hopes he can sort out his life and come out of dis ah better person.

In reply to dcbreds

In reply to Narper

Yeah, but if after that, the ruling was still against him, it meant that the information available was more than sufficient. Maybe if they had done a full investigation, he would have lost both.

So maybe WICB did him a favour. Hmmmmmm.

This whole investigation was a joke. What did they review? They didn't do an ivestigation themselves rather relying on the original findings of the ICC's anti-corruption unit. All this time and money and they didn't do anything, i guess with the exception of kicking Marlon Samuels out of cricket.

In reply to unitsypher

So are you saying the panel did not take into consideration whether the underlying facts of the case were accurate? Don't you think Marlon's lawyers would have challenged the statements if they were not facts?

Guys, think a minute. It eh that complicated.

In reply to dcbreds

ICC team did not interview Kochar even thought he volunteered to be interviewed... MICHAEL HOLDING said this (Holding is a member of ICC cricket committee)

The question is WHY didn't they speak to Kochar ??????

Holding also said he knows Kochar is NOT a bookie

In reply to dcbreds I've read almost all the findings and transcripts and they haven't proved match fixing! Maybe you have some information that hasn't been released, the fact is they haven't proved anything.

My point about the investigation is it actually wasn't! It turned out to be nothing more than a review. Basically saying they didn't do what they were hired to do. When you investigate you make your own findings and conclusions, when you review you accept other people's findings and formulate you "so called" own conclusions.

The other thing that bugs me is if they found him guilty then why propose not imposing the ban? The fact is they know they didnt' do their job and that they haven't proved anything and that's why they don't want him suspended.

Typical WICB.

In reply to unitsypher

And you know more than three regional legal luminaries. Ah well! Puke.

In reply to unitsypher
well done. kudos..

not easy to cut thru the noise on this forum...but you did an excellent job..

In reply to Narper

What does that have to do with anything? What if they interviewed him and he lied? Could he be charged with obstruction?

And why did Marlon's attorneys not depose Kochar and include it in the hearings?

MOST IMPORTANTLY, of what role would it have played in the final decision going in his favour?

In reply to unitsypher

In reply to dcbreds

In reply to Narper

BTW don't you find it interesting how much Mikey knows?

does marlon have the choice of appealing this case?

(not sure if it was already mentioned... din read all the comments)

In reply to Narper

Then why didn't Marlon's attorneys depose him? I am sure these statements would have been considered in the deliberations?

In reply to dcbreds

Chut.

I think that this is part of cummulative case... poor discipline, chucking and circumstantial bookie evidence.

Regardless, he had to sit down and get his head in check. While I am not a fan, I do acknowledge his talent. He is young and can make a contribution if he loses the saga boy attitude.

In reply to Blythesville

That is what I have been saying for a long time on this MB.

In reply to camos Great point. The dicision was split. Like i said typical WICB, nothing less should be expected.

dcbreds,

I obviously have no evidence to present, don't be rediculous. The fact still remains with all the eveidence they presented they haven't proved match fixing. All they have are a bunch of phone conversations, and the match in question Samuels was the windies best performer. SO how is that fixing a match? Shouldn't you perform below your ability in order to sabatage the team? No he sabataged the team by being the best player

In reply to unitsypher

2-1 is not split - it is majority.

In reply to londoner

In reply to Chrissy

In reply to Chrissy

Say it ain't so, Marlon!
I guess this means the end of the road for Mr. Samuels.

In reply to Khary9

or there is a few bumps in it (hopefully)

In reply to Chrissy
Stop spending so much time on the board, go find your self a man your deficiency is beginning to show in your mentality. Get a husband, get married do something with your self, no one has the right to be so abominable.

In reply to Chrissy

In reply to Khary9

In reply to Dreama

In reply to CW
You are right, bad minded prof. my apology.

This is a serious matter and should not be treated lightly. But the whole thing looks jokey, if yuh ask me. I find it really bothersome what the panel has said. it seems they are recommending a lighter punishment than what is given in the ICC guideline. Why??? Are they saying that Samuels was guilty of 'something' but the punishment does not amount that of the ICC guidlines??? That is very interesting.

Is it that the panel didn't find a true ICC code violation but felt they had to come up with "something" to justify their role and 'prove' their 'impartiality' or perception of impartiality??? Yuh know we have those kinds in the West Indies who feel they always have to prove something to those outide of the WI, if yuh know whadda mean.

I guess we'll just have to hear what the ICC rule on this matter. Also, what is the evidence uncovered by the WICB investigations during this whole process??? The telephone evidence cannot be all based on the code violation that is given.

The WICB must release more than what it has posted on its site. Also, what Marlon and his attorney have to say now??? Admin, Crossy, get to work!!!!

In reply to camos

Why did the majority vote against him.

In reply to Rastaman

OK, so we know that the ICC sent the WICB documented evidence, and that evidence was used to determine Marlon's guilt, or lack thereof. I have no doubt that evidence went beyond just a transcript of the phone call, which we've all seen. From that evidence, a majority of the panel found him guilty, although the decision was not unanimous but instead 3-1 (assuming RR has a vote).

However, the panel added that the punishment prescribed by the ICC was excessive for the infringement in question. The lack of unanimity coupled with this addition leads me to conclude that if Marlon did receive benefit for his dissemination of information (that he gave out such information is not in question) that his financial reward was fairly minor and Marlon may not even have realized that it was tied to his provision of team information as a straight quid-pro-quo.

However, I find it hard to believe that the panel could use Marlon's "good behavior" in the past as a cause for leniency. We know that he was in trouble during his first tour of India, so much so that Viv was going to send him home. Furthermore given the length of the relationship between the marlon and Kochar-char-ching, it seems reasonable to assume that the evidence presented only documented the latest of what was a long line of infringements.

Oh, and why the hell should anybody assume that Holding knows anything about whether Kochar-char-ching is a bookie or not. Obviously the Indian police strongly suspect that he is, which was why they had bugged the phone lines in the first place.

In reply to dcbreds

In reply to Kurt

In reply to camos

So here is what allyuh saying:

WICB accepted some half arsed investigations, decided to give somebody to review it. Althought there was not sufficient information, this lawyer concluded, foolishly, that it was enough to charge Marlon.

Now he gone before 4 gentlemen, 3 of whom are jurists. At least two out of the 4 (most likely 3) concluded that this half arsed information was enough to convict the poor fella. They eh even try to hear from the man who cause Samuels to be in this predicament, because his statements would have easily explained whatever half arsed facts these ICC people get and this lawyer reviewed.

Further, poor Marlon's attorneys did not get a chance to refute any of the evidence, so they just had to stand dey and watch de man get lynch.

Right?

In reply to camos

There were 5 on the panel, but after Walsh recused himself that left 4. I assume all recorded their decision, but I could be wrong.

In reply to Kurt

It could be 2:1 if 1 decided not to rule.

In reply to dcbreds

In reply to CW

But it seems that Marlon did not know that. So now we have another issue here.

It is either Marlon:

(a) knew and took the chance since he knew the fella;

(b) did not know and did not have the common sense to know what was happening;

(c) was doing what was alleged.

In either of the above scenarios, should he not be punished?

In reply to dcbreds
So here is what allyuh saying:

I am none the wiser as to what Samuels got in return for supposedly passing on information to a third party...

So all u bad minded people happy with the ruling against Marlon, and although I.C.C did not make their ruling as yet u r all rejoicing sad

In reply to jacan

I am not rejoicing. I am trying to tell people to stop making excuses. This is ALL Marlon's doing. Yuh make yuh bed....

In reply to dcbreds

In reply to CW

That is the penalty. It gives a minimum and a maximum. If there was no minimum, then fine.

I am not happy about this. However, I think Samuels is an idiot to put himself in such a situation.

In reply to CW

In reply to dcbreds

In reply to dcbreds

In reply to Narper

Didn't he say that he spoke with Samuels as well?

In reply to crapaud

Ex post facto bro. Too late to talk about that.

In reply to dcbreds

Why is it too late to talk about that? If you don't talk about it nothing changes. If the ICC truly expected that someone should be banned for 2 years on this sort of circumstantial evidence, they should be made to see that they are absurd.

In reply to dcbreds

Plenty a u peeps rejoicing Nobody is supporting any wrongs but the way all a you carrying on, shows that u r happy, wait til fe uno day come,it's gonna be that day. uno must be happy one less Jamaican on the W.I team.there were talks that the Jamaicans on the team were disrupting the team

In reply to crapaud

In reply to jacan

Man yuh talking shyte. Show me where I celebrating this man's situation. I was more a fan of Marlon's batting than probably most yardies on here.

So don't come with that ignorant crap around me. Cool?

In reply to Chrissy

Hope yuh Happy now?

In reply to camos

amen

In reply to FanAttick

I think most persons are reading the judgement incorrectly.

Its not silly conversation when you tell anyone much less a bookmaker your teams game plan. He was wrong, the question is not did he get money, Did he give out privilaged information about team tactics, HE DID! Is that right? NO.

If he gave the same information to the other team they could have the advantage. Only in the Caribbean would we seek to cover up such a betrayal, we don't often play good enough to risk that.. Our problem is that he now start to play like the player we expected him to be years ago. thats the real regret so we don't want to loose him.

Why did the guy want the information? Marlon gave specific facts. If he did nothing wrong why does it read as if he was uncomfortable and needed to be calmed down by the bookmaker. Proves he knew it was wrong or at least not quite right! How did the guy use the information? Did India get info, would it matter if they paid the guy to get it, or if they just asked him to...

His mother indicated <http://www.rainnoplay.com/samuels-mom-bookie-and-marlon-are-friends > that he knew the bookmaker from before and he called and helped him out.. humm so maybe no money passed this time around that they can trace, but maybe it did in the past, maybe he was just giving pay back.

About the above I care not, but by his words and the information he gave he was wrong and thats why he was rightly baned.. One year was preferable and a fine but ICC rules say the least is TWO.

Oh how can you rehabilitate someone who gives out team information or takes a bribe?? Which class do you take?? Its not like its bowling action or anger management. You punish - ban and fine.

Lets be real, he can make it back.. into this team.

Lets keep the insularity out of this, WI are poorer for this ban but he earned it. He brought the game into disrepute, raised questions about the rest of our players, we've all wondered how we could play so well one day and so bad the next.. that's disreputes my friends.

In reply to jacksprat
cricket is war
what do you expect
do you want sissies to play the game

In reply to iceberghas

Read Bohab's post and chill.

man i cASIBA was never comfortable with Marlon Samuel's demeanour on the field

He never looked as though he was happy playing cricket --never looked part of the team
always seem like an odd man out

had a run in with Viv Richards
had a run out of Sir BRIAN

HE SEEMED TO HAVE ISSUES