155.6

[imported_realraul]

ok, you seem to want to talk about fleming. i can't see what the difference is between what fleming did and what waugh did. they both contrived a result, end of story. whether they won or lost is irrelevent. their motive was to win the major prize.

 

[imported_realraul]

btw, you need rules to know you can't bet against your own team ?

 

[El Duque]

Rubbish.

If that's the way you think then every match has a contrived result.

 

[imported_midas]

realraul
I don,t believe too many Australians regard their athletes as pure and saintly.I believe Lillee and Marsh should have been disciplined over their incident.The only thing that got them off was their story that they simply couldn,t believe the odds (12,500/1 in a two horse race) and the piddling amount they invested (5 quid ).nowithstanding this,many believe they should have copped a suspension of some sort.
Many believe as I do that Warne and Waugh should have been suspended over the John The Bookie incident but they were certainly heavily fined.
It would appear that most of us take a fairly pragmatic view of these things,unlike NZedders who are happy to excuse a self-confessed match-fixer by dragging up comparisons which are totally unrelated to Phlegming,s offence.

 

[imported_realraul]

sorry, it doesn't mean that at all.

deliberately slowing the scoring rate so the opposition can get a bonus point is contriving a result.

it's nothing to be ashamed of. you have to do what you have to do.

 

[El Duque]

They threw the match by slowing thr scoring rate for God's sake.

You're not ashamed of that?

You a member of Hansie's fan club too?

 

[imported_realraul]

midas, i am australian. i just can't stand the way the australian public/media peddle the notion that our athletes are saints.

other countries are cheats, especially those wicked asian countries, but we just make mistakes or we were doing it for a laugh or there was nothing sinister in what we did. give me a break.

the only point i was trying to make was that everyone is the same. fleming contrived a result, waugh contrived a result. why is that so hard to understand ?

 

[imported_realraul]

there you go again el duque. why not a member of the lillee/marsh fan club ?

 

[El Duque]

Fleming threw the match and Waugh didn't.

What is so hard for you to understand?

 

[imported_realraul]

i understand that. why are you so shocked ?

 

[El Duque]

Are you saying Lillee and Mash threw the match or attemptd to?

 

[imported_realraul]

maybe not consciously but who knows how the mind works deep down inside. it may have affected their performance. but the stigma is there.

 

[El Duque]

There's nothing that can be done about it now so even though it's wrong it is irrelevant.

The rules are there in black and white now and what Fleming did was wrong.

What Aus did was not in the same ball park. They did what they had to do and won.

Nobody has yet shown me a rule that states they must score at X RPO when victory is practically guaranteed with X amount of wickets in hand.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[El Duque]

Tell me how they weren't performing on their merits?

There was no need to go hell for leather so they didn't.

They scord the runs with ample overs in hand so I can't see they didn't perform on their merits.

 

[El Duque]

Maybe the West Indies should've been fined for losing after such a paltry score.

Did they perform on their merits?

If you say they did then how can Australia have not performed on theirs when they won?

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[El Duque]

Waugh was batting himself.

Who said he asked abnyway?

Do you have his confession of asking batsmen to underperform along with Pollocks ???

 

[ozbash]

i think it was bollocks

 

This message has been deleted by the author.