Battle in the court

Battle in the court
Suresh Menon

With Mohammad Azharuddin taking the Board of Control for Cricket in India to court over his ban from the game for match-fixing, we are in for a long season. Did the former India captain really say the most-quoted words on the issue: Maine match banaya or didn't he? The element of certainty in the CBI files gives the impression that he did. With his reputation on the line, Azharuddin had nothing to lose and everything to gain by going to court. The same cannot be said of the BCCI which took the brave decision to ban the player, and now will have to convince the court of its case. It is possible that Azharuddin might get away on a technicality but right from the beginning the then Sports Minister had made the point that ultimately, those charged with match-fixing would get their comeuppance from the public rather than from one of its institutions. The Azharuddin-BCCI case might well turn out to be one of the most important in Indian sport.

The public, however, has more to look forward to in the new season than Azharuddin's future. The world champions in Test cricket (the title is always `unofficial' in the game), Australia are visiting, and the focus will be on whether India can break their sequence of consecutive victories. The court on the one hand and the pitch on the other are set to capture the true picture of the state of the game. Most of the action in the past year or so has centred around what has happened outside the stadium. It is too early to say whether the Indian public is weary of the match-fixing story, and would like to move on to other things like finding a successor to Anil Kumble, for example.

Kumble, India's strike bowler will miss the Australia series. This is either bad news (if India struggle as a result) or good (if a young bowler comes through the ranks). The big picture is painted depending on how India performs. If Australia are beaten, there might be a tendency towards magnanimity and Azharuddin, if he is guilty, can expect much sympathy. Past experience has shown that victory is a wonderful solvent for most ills.If India lose, Azharuddin can expect public wrath.

Whichever way the case goes -- and we must remember Azharuddin is challenging the life ban, not the charge of match-fixing -- there will be enough in it for those involved. The BCCI should take a fresh look at its procedures, and define its working in such a way that most loopholes are plugged. The most important fallout might be a formal definition of the term `match-fixing' and specific rules that act as deterrents. All arguments ultimately end in semantics; clever lawyers know that instinctively, and can run circles around those who are not conscious of this. And if there is no clear definition of what constitutes a crime, it is hardly fair to accuse a person of it. That is why the turbid, unambiguous language known as `legalese' is important. There can be, and should be no room for multiple interpretations. But that is a legal point, and will be fully appreciated only if the BCCI fails to defend itself.

If the Board carries the day, the message will immediately go out to the others -- not only those who are clubbed with Azharuddin in the scandal, but also those who might be temperamentally and psychologically in his camp. It will certainly scare away the fence-sitter, and might even bring a premature end to the aspirations of the morally flexible.

Hence the importance of the case. Either Azharuddin comes out triumphant in which case some of these follow: the BCCI puts its house in order, sorts out its procedural problems, ensures it gets proper legal advice before proceeding against a player, decides that one inquiry is sufficient if a player is guilty, learns to look at the bigger picture, proceeds to define its rules and stiffen its penalties for breaking them. Or, the BCCI wins and sends out the right messages to players past, present and future as to the consequences of the dastardly crime of match-fixing.

An Azharuddin win might also encourage others like Ajay Jadeja and Manoj Prabhakar to take on the BCCI, and actually discourage the governing body of the sport from taking a hard stance in the future. If that happened, it would be a pity. We know that there has been match-fixing involving Indian players, we have a fair idea who the players are, and if they get away, then the Board might be seen as soft. If punishment follows the crime (assuming always that it fits the crime, and the right people are punished), there is a satisfaction arising out of a logical sequence.

The secondary question -- should the Arjuna Awards be taken away from the players -- then becomes almost irrelevant. Former captain Bishan Bedi, for one, is clear in his mind, as always. He wants the awards withdrawn because the government, which hands them out should have the authority to take them back if the award winner has "let the nation down."

The biggest punishment, as far as the players are concerned, would be the withdrawal of sponsorship and endorsement deals. That is where it really hurts. I doubt if the players look at the Arjuna awards with quite the same respect as they look at the zeroes at the end of a number on a cheque. Even a player of Boris Becker's stature has had to pay the price for his philanderings (not match-fixing) of late. Advertisements that focussed on the `family' image were withdrawn in the wake of his patrimony suit. Corporate houses which drop `tainted' players with the same speed with which they chase them, have their fingers on the pulse of the public. They know what the public will accept, and what will ruin their own images.

In sport, things have a way of finding their own level. Outside its natural habitat -- and they are seldom less natural than a court room -- the same rules don't always apply. Azharuddin has taken the plunge, the inevitable step, when you consider that a courtroom win might be mistaken for an acquittal on the match-fixing charge in the public mind. It is a mistake Azharuddin hopes the public will make.

If there's no clear definition of what constitutes a crime, it is hardly fair to accuse a person of it. That is why the turbid language known as `legalese' is important.