The following is the full text of a West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) statement on the guilty verdict against batsman Marlon Samuels:

The Disciplinary Committee of the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB), having heard and deliberated on the charges laid against Mr. Marlon Samuels, found by majority opinion that Mr. Samuels was guilty of violating the ICC Rules of Conduct 4 ix in that he "received money, benefit or other reward which could bring him or the game of cricket into disrepute."
Full Story

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

Thank u

In reply to CW

It seems that the panel feels that the minimum sentence was too stiff a penalty for Samuels' indiscretion.

In reply to CaribbeanCricket.com

The WICB will always be considered unprofessional unless or until it improves its communication with the fans.

What did Marlon Samuels do that could be construed as violating ICC Rules of Conduct?

What "money, benefit or other reward" did he receive?

From whom did he receive this "money, benefit or other reward"?

When and where did he receive this "money, benefit or other reward"?

We don't want rumours. We want facts/truth. There are all manner of people calling the young man all kinds of names. You owe it to Marlon Samuels to get all the facts out.

If there is an agreement with Marlon Samuels not to reveal this information, then say so.

The information given so far by the WICB suggests that Marlon Samuels is being persecuted.

In reply to Fantom

Yuh eh see dat part?

In reply to Fantom

Well said.

Why did the WICB use Caribbean judges and panel?

So at least one person did not agree.What should one make of this ?
What are the specifics ?

In reply to garyg

cuz if they used international judges someone – maybe you – would have asked

In reply to hubert

I asked about that yesterday,poster claimed the panel was too eminent to have desention.

Majority opinion,not Unanimous...sujests there was a difference of opinions of 2 to 1!

I take it then that Richardson found him Not Guilty.....the other 2 Pinheads are most likely clueless!!

In reply to Fantom

Why would the WICB persecute Marlon Samuels?????

In reply to Dukes


Ask Desmond Haynes.

In reply to Dukes

why would they not do their own investigation?

In reply to Dukes

Why would the Indian police release the text of a recorded phone conversation when neither party is guilty of a crime?

If a crime was being committed, then why would the Indian police stand idly by?

If one of the parties is a known Indian national who is allegedly involved in the illegal activity of being a bookie, why not arrest and prosecute that Indian national?

Again, why is the WICB insinuating itself into the affairs of the Indian police and thereby limiting the career and earning potential of a West Indian national?

If this is not persecution, then what is?

come on peeps wake up:

the other reward they could argue is his trip to Mumbai.. I hope they can convince us that what he did could bring him or the game of cricket into disrepute.
morally even if on that trip they give him a rolex..armani suit gucci watch and women as long as he hasnt done anything to affect his rep or that of cricket..where does the disrepute come in
Now if he had gone there first and then had that phone conversation and during the convo he was reminded that we pay for your this and that so you owe us
Well I cant wait to hear what they have to say.. especially seen that the line says COULD BRING...
To me it mean it didnt happen but they needed character witness to establish if he's the type that would be open to bribery

In reply to camos

It just seems strange to me. If specifics are presented to the charges and proved,then there should be a majority opinion.

I will await the facts proven in the case before indulging further dicusssion. This case is not as clear as it should be from what I have seen so far .

This just does not make sense:

Some are saying that the case against Samuels was cut and dried. If that was the case, why was the panel seemingly prepared to impose a punishment of probation, if not for the obligation of imposing a mandatory 2 year ban as mandated by the ICC?

And why wasn't the vote to sanction Samuels unanimous?

In reply to hubert

The sad thing is that those who are celebrating the potential demise of Helegance dont seem to understand that it is in the interest of WI cricket that justice be not only be done but be manifestly seen to be done..

I would love to see the facts laid out so each individual could make an informed assessment.

In any event there are no winners here.




Wesley

In reply to garyg
"Why did the WICB use Caribbean judges and panel?"

Because the little out of order boy had to be thought a lesson, thus it was necessary to use people sympathetic to the Pagan.

In reply to FanAttick

So tell me: how was justice not done in this case?

De man lost. Get over it.

In reply to Fantom
Get a grip of yourself and the facts. This is an ICC matter. The WICB does not operate in a vaccuum. The rules are laid out - the penalties are set. Members conform. However and obviously, it is only now that we are confronted with this situation that the WICB realises that the penalties are cast in stone with no room for discretion.

The world is what it is

much more to come on this story..........if u tink dat marlon is voiceless just wait til the assembled Q.C. team tek a turn in de WICB/ICC collective ass

i getting mi raisinets and bon bons to go with my super sized slurpy and popcorn (no butter) ready yes

In reply to TheHorseMan

I dun have my popcorn set up now....now all i need is one red stripe

In reply to jacksprat

Could it be, because a member of the panel did not partake? Cuddy feared conflict of interest.

In reply to symma

We are not talking about a recusal or an abstention. One individual actually dissented and voted against the majority opinion.

Not reading too much into it. Just curious that's all, considering the weight of the evident was supposed to be so overwhelming.

In reply to jacksprat

tru, but was just throwing it out there.....

It will certainly be interesting to read the full explanation and the evidence..especially if there is a minority judgement and why there was a call for leniency.

As it stands it appears Marlon gave confidential match info to a bookie for payment and lied about it.If thats the case why a minority judgement and why leniency?

If however he breached ICC rules by talking to a bookie inadvertently and wasnt paid anything,thats a different story.

I think we would all like a recital of the evidence and judgement before jumping to conclusions.

In reply to doublecentury

I agree with your point, he broke the rules and brought the game into disrepute when he gave specific team and tactics information to the bookie..

I don't think it was really inadvertent but not necessarily for personal gain at that point.. no proof of anything being exchanged as reward.

Its a CSI case - blood, smoke, witness, time and opportunity but no body.

We know de man guity of something..We just can't convict of murder so we get them on the lesser crime.

In reply to Fantom

We in the West Indies are always quick to dis our own.Shane Warne and Mark Waugh were found guilty of giving pitch and weather information.why would an Indian national want weather information from a foreigner.Give me a break.The weather is always hot.The Australian board kept this secret for years.Shane Warne took drugs.He was never called a drug cheat.He said his mom gave it to him.The ACB claimed they were naive and stupid.in both cases the penalty was a slap on the wrist.Without knowing the full facts we want Samuels head.do like the rest of the cricket world and give the guy a break.

In reply to dollo

Like how Azharuddin, Cronje, Prabakhar et al got a break?

Marlon deserve some punishemennt but it should fit the crime. Two years is excessive.
I dont thinkk that this dishonors WI cricket. In every organization there are individuals who can be tempted and fall to it. How does this disgrace the organization. It cannot monitor its members every minute of the day. there is so many things outside of its control.
WI cricket remains proud but disappointed with marlon.

In reply to jacksprat

This is how our board deals with corruption sir

In reply to jacksprat

The OJ Simpson trial featured overwhelming evidence that OJ killed two people.I say that because I understand DNA evidence.Yet the jury found him not guilty.How does that jive with your statement above?

In reply to Dukes

Well, I am not sure the OJ analogy is apt because the jury actually voted unanimously to aquit!!!

For whatever reason it did not trust how the evidence was gathered or those who had gathered it.

Marlon Samuels' case is not about guilt or innocence because the majority of the panel has already deemed him guilty as charged. But at least one person was not convinced, so I am curious to hear what was problematic, in his eyes, about the evidence.

My question is about the recommendation for leniency in the punishment, and I think the lack of unananimity in the vote suggests that the case was not watertight. It could be that it turned on a literal rendering of the Code of Conduct that left no room for interpretation.

In a word, the panel evidently did not think the punishment fit the "crime" but could do nothing about it once liability was established.

Usually when the prosecution makes a recommendation for leniency it is not fully convinced of thebecause is because it did not think it had a water tight case or it thought there were extenuating circumstancesre is such

In reply to jacksprat You unwittingly are making another point.Let us assume that according to the code there is no question that he has broken the code.He is therefore liable.However a trained legal mind knows that regardless of whether you agree with the code or its punishment then you have to find the person liable.An untrained(i.e non-legal) mind would say that since I do not agree with the punishment then I will say NOT LIABLE.Many on this board have taken that position and it would be easy to understand why the untrained mind(Richie is not a lawyer) would vote the way he did(huge assumption).

In reply to Dukes

Yes, but only if we knew for sure that it was Richie Richardson who voted against the majority opinion.

Richie has always had a reputation as a kiss-up so I woild not jump to teh hasty conclusion that he would automatically take the player's side.

If the dissenting opinion belonged to one of the eminent jurists then it would make it all the more interesting.

In reply to jacksprat

If I couldnt directly link the paid bill with the giving out of info I would vote against the charge too.
say the speed limit is 55 or 70 and I am doing 100mph and know what speed I'm doing
The cops clock the speed and charge me for doing 98 mph
I would plead not guilty to doing 98mph. If the case is tried on that charge I expect to be found not guilty
If i was charged for exceeding the speed limit I would plead guilty.
In that simple case scenario If you cant prove categorically that the equipment for measuring the speed was calibrated correctly then even though you know the speed limit was being exceeded, the charge and the crime dont fit. So the question would be why charge with a specific figure of 98 rather than exceeding the speed limit.
Certain percentage in excess of the limit gives you an automatic ban from driving
The danger here was you know an infringement occured and then you word the charges to fit into what amounts to be multiple guidelines things can become problematic

In reply to CW

True, but all that is moot because, once Marlon had spoken to a "friend" about internal team strategy(even if the reason was not sinister, or it could not be proven that the person was in fact a "bookie") his goose was cooked.

He had breached the Code of Conduct on two levels:i) divulging team strategy and ii) not revealing the contact to management.

Everthng else after that was superflous even if Marlon were "innocent"

In reply to jacksprat
the point is he wasnt innocent and the panel knew it
but if you read all the codes he hasnt completely broken them and they had to find out if this was a one-off or is it match fixing.. so if you sitting round reading all the codes to say well which one has he violated and see all were geared round match fixing you will have probs cos u know he must be punished

In reply to CW

But he was not charged with match fixing but with violating the Code of Conduct and, with the taped phone call as inocontrovertible evidence, it left all parties concerned no room to deny the obvious.

In reply to Dukes

Dr Sidie - yor are mi friend but I think you should stick to your area of expertise which is Proctology.

The legal arena is not within your limited field of awareness.


Let me help you...

In law its not a matter of what you believe...practical though that might be..

Its a matter of whether there is sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion based on the particular legal standard of proof that is in effect...

The panel reached a majority verdict of liable - which as I indicated previously - would suggest that they used a standard of a preponderance of the evidence...

The shocking thing about that conclusion is that as Admin explained based on his interview with Derek Jones - the only evidence that was available to them was the audio of an alleged phone conversation and a receipt from a hotel bill which Kochar allegedly paid on Helegance's behalf...


What is even more bizarre about this is the assertion by Jones that had Helegance provided evidence that he had reimbursed Kochar for the cost of the hotel bill then that would have absolved him of the liability for breaching the ICC Code...

Net/Net the bottomline is not a speculation on possible motives for Kochar paying a hotel bill for Helegance since both parties acknowledge a long standing prior personal relationship that was corroborated by Helegance's mother who stated that Kochar was one of the few individuals that assisted Helegance when he was recuperating from injury.

The panel hasnt to the best of my knowledge provided any corroboration of nexus between the alleged phone conversation and the payment of the hotel bill..

In any event even if Kochar allegedly suggested to Helegance during the phone conversation that Helegance stay at the hotel and that he would take care of the costs - unless he explicitly stated that the hotel stay would be reward for the provision of the information then there is acres of space for doubt...

Bottom line is that justice was not done in this case. I cannot make any assertions as to the probable guilt or innocence of Helegance - but from where I sit - and obviously from the standpoint of at least one member of the panel - the case was not proven..


You can now go back to resume your proctology work since Twissy has been in the waiting room all morning...

In reply to jacksprat

Spratty:

What is so strategic about the Windies batting or bowling lineup? How was that information beneficial to the so-called bookie? What compensation, reward or other benefits did Samuels receive? Did the WICB performed its own investigation and if so what were the findings? If not, did the WICB merely sent a panel to ratify the ICC intent of banning Samuels? And what about the bookie; is he liable for anything?

Notwithstanding the above, the ICC Code of Conduct is quite rigid and the mere fact that Samuels had a telecon with the bookie, regardless of how innocuous the information transferred may seem, he would have been deemed to have infringed the applicable clause in the COC. I am not concerned about the lone dissenting vote, as obviously the situation is open to a myriad of interpretations. I am more concerned about Samuels in the 2-year interim and what options he can exercise.

In reply to Fortis
Read Horsie's post for the options of which there are many...
helegance must decide 2 things

1. Does he want to play cricket again and burn up in de hot sun?
2. Does he want to sue the WICB and live happily ever after?

We report, you decide..

In reply to Fortis

Do allyuh ever yield? More than half of Marlon's problems can be thrown at the feet of the KC alumni. How many youngsters have allyuh destroyed for your own personal glory?

In reply to Fortis

All that is moot!!

Once Marlon divulged internal team information he is in violation of the Code of Conduct regardless of the motives or who stands to benefit from being privy to such information.

It is therefore irrelevant whether or not Kochar is bookie or if Marlon was, at best, naive in sharing the information with him.

Maybe the WICB should lobby the ICC to amend the Code but as it is written I really don't think Marlon has a leg on which to stand.

As to his option in the next two years I think the JCB and WICB should work with him to start preparing for life after cricket. In addition, I think, the punishmnet-on the face of it-is too harsh for the "crime" and the WICB should after a respectful period appeal to the ICC for clemency.

I've just sat an read this sad story from all the treads and like most concluded that it a sad day for WI cricket,its fans and Marlon the player; however, to see Chrissy further expose herself and bias in this case, was the saddest. How could an educated professor loose so much of her "marbles"/ learnings to conclude this:

Even Samuel who according to Chrissy learned nothing at KC would not make such a conclusion.


I am not a lawyer, but in addition to what Fanattick has been saying Mr.Kochar the alledged bookie has denied being a bookie, he has not been charged in India for association with illegal bookmakers, where is the evidence that proves that the information Marlon was shearing with his "Friend" was with with a bookmaker. This case and its judgment are tenuous if Mr.Kochar bookie status is not establish beyond doubt.

In reply to tobesuresure

To be absolutely sure...the charge was divulging team information to an outsider




Whether Kocher is a saint or devil is of no consequence..just a whether marlon can bat or not

**waits patiently on June ICC meeting**

In reply to FuzzyWuzzy

Did you read the Code under which he was charged or the charge itself and draw those conclusion? how brilliant!
Try reading them again with you son being the one accused see if you'll come to the same brilliant conclusions.

In reply to tobesuresure

I am sure u read it and u are more brilliant than I am.


But the bottomline is.....you are not supposed to give out team information to anybody outside the team environs

In reply to jacksprat

spratty my understanding seem to differ from some peeps.. how I understand the events is thus:
1 Police bug Kochar phone
2 Conversation included team info
3 kochar make call to place bets
All 3 above are facts according to police. only option police have now is to investigate any match fixing
4 next day Marlon plays but didnt under perform.. investigation still must follow on
5 Kochar phone already bug
6 Marlon phone Kochar to pay Hotel bill
police think maybe no match fixing but this aint right... investigate further cant find nothing pass info to anti corruption squad cant find match fixing but things still dont look right but they heard how the request for payment went down so
7 Police call marlon to say things dont look good
Because Marlon cant put fact that man 1st get info then his bill paid then payment amounts to reward Marlon say talk to WICB
now all these guys been around where during test matches man may joke and say when we finish game we can go play and if it finish in 3 days we have 2 rounds of golf game wont cost u anything
My take on all this is everyone high up already agree it was not match fixing and with Marlons explanation about business trip which may have been legit the fact that his bill got paid and prob Kochar said things along the lines dont worry I will look after you everytime u stuck or shyte that could imply he intends to come to Marlon rescue nuff time
that is enough for responsible investigators and management to nip it the bud.. so I still think they were really trying as they say to send a message to say even if you done games in 3 days and take hospitality from peeps out side the 2 teams it will look fishy
So the man kop a more hefty punishment than the real "crime" but cos of the codes worded dem hands tied

In reply to imusic

In Samuels case as far as we know, this is a one off.In the cases of the other guys you mentioned, it was a lot more serious and there was a consistent pattern.Shane Warne and Mark Waugh committed the same offence and got a fine after their board covered it up for a long time.

In reply to CW

Fair enough analysis of the goings on.

It also hews closely to my own interpretation.

In reply to Fantom

The Panel has said a written report will follow.

Also, bear in mind, to protect Mr Samuels' character, this information may be deemed confidential and may not be released to the public. This, depending on the benefit he received, and which he does not challenge that he received, may be in the players' interest.

In reply to Chrissy

I have to respect (not accept) your ignorance, because you simply could NEVER understand the SPIRIT of Kingston College and I do not, nor intend, to muster up the patience to explain it to you, regardless of how long you have been privileged to live in Jamaica. Let's just leave it at that

In reply to Fortis
My advice is that the gamblers do not just bet on match results. They bet on who will be opening bowler, who will be first change, who will be at first slip and a whole slew of things. That is why the rules are so stringent.

Wilkoden

In reply to Chrissy
Christine it's not a KC thing. It is a widespread tendency to spoil potential stars. Onandi Lowe, Walter Boyd, numerous track athletes. As a people we handle genius or potential very badly, whether we are condemning or spoiling.

Administration must take responsibility as the harnessing of talent is their responsibility. We must develop mechanisms to protect talent from the talented and the wagonists. It won't be perfect but counselling and guidance must form part of developmental plans.

Wilkoden

In reply to Bohab

In reply to TheHorseMan

In reply to CW you is like the cricket police..u know much more than we

In reply to Wilkoden

Hi bro. You done know I know some real nice KC men but you also know I know that nuff sportsmen have been destroyed at that fine institution.

In reply to HNIC

I make no apology for being able to assess situations and arrive at a logic and impartial decision based on the info I have