How Blots Become Stains

In 2000, an ugly aspect of cricket that had been festering, unacknowledged, but not unknown, erupted. Episodes of match fixing alleged by an Indian bookmaker, Mukesh Gupta, led to a series of investigations by various cricket boards. In early April, South African captain Hansie Cronje admitted to fixing matches. By then, players from virtually every Test entity had been implicated by Gupta, including Brian Lara, whose name was cleared almost a year later. The scandal didn't leave cricket unscathed.

It led to an ICC commission of inquiry and resulted in several life-bans. Anti-corruption rules were imposed that changed everything surrounding the game, from security to new definitions of who would not be allowed in dressing rooms.

Yet, among the revelations were claims that match fixing existed from as early as the 1979-80 Pakistan tour of India. Why did it take so long to come out?

Another blemish on cricket's face was the recent ban of Pakistanis Shoaib Akhtar and Mohammed Asif for using the banned steroid nandrolone, which makes one wonder how many cricketers have used those substances, and for how long.

In any case, the ICC is now insisting that its full members institute drug testing for players. Appeals from Akhtar and Asif notwithstanding, this too will change cricket culture. It is always intriguing to watch the responses to such events.

Last month, former New Zealand wicketkeeper, Adam Parore, wrote that he was only surprised that the failed drug tests hadn't happened sooner. Listen to him:

"I'm certain this has been going on for years with Pakistan's fast bowlers. We often looked sideways at what some of them were able to achieve. It's not normal to bowl 25 overs on a searing hot day and seem to get faster as the day wears on.

"I remember thinking more than once in the subcontinent, 'something's not right here'."

It was a different kettle of fish when Shane Warne was banned for a year for using forbidden diuretics. Then the issue became one of whether cricket should be included in the World Anti-Doping Agency drug code. Tim May, the FICA CEO, and head of the Australian Cricketers Association argued that the list of banned drugs was too broad.

Another blot was the ball-tampering accusation by Darrell Hair against the Pakistan team, resulting in a protest led by captain Inzamam-ul-Haq that saw him being banned for four ODIs, despite being cleared of ball tampering charges, on the charge of bringing the game into disrepute.

Darrell Hair ended up being removed from the ICC's umpiring panel after some publicly aired exchanges that brought him and the ICC into disrepute.

Reports of the Hair removal suggested that pressure by the Asian bloc caused it. Support for him came only from Australia, New Zealand and England -- three of the ten -- yet the suggestion was that it was the four Asian bodies that forced it. It is as telling as the commentaries that surrounded the book-making scandal, which was said to have Indian roots, the pronouncements tainting all of Pakistani cricket, and the defensive stances when the accused parties were not of the Asian bloc.

West Indian names have not been tarnished in these events, although Lara's name had been called in the match fixing. If that business really emerged at the beginning of the eighties, it is almost impossible to imagine the West Indies team of that time even being approached to under perform. It just doesn't sit with our knowledge of the players. Perhaps that lent a protective aura that has kept the team insulated from such temptation over the years.

When the West Indies ruled on the field, they were targeted on many other fronts. Now that the Asian bloc rules financially, it is the latest target. It seems what goes on behind the scenes has more to do with who has done what, rather than what has been done.

But, that's cricket now, isn't it?

* This column is republished with permission from the NATION newspaper in Barbados where it first appeared.