A few questions to ponder before today's World Cup cricket match between Ireland and it's former colonial occupier (although we must now forget all this since the Reverend (sic) Ian Paisley has decided that his legacy should be in the pages of history rather than those of palaeontology).
Just how long does it take a police force to examine CCTV footage covering a window of twelve hours?
Why, 45 years after independence, is the Jamaican police force headed by a white Londoner?
Where is the public information relating to the betting patterns on the Pakistan v Ireland and India v Bangladesh cricket matches?
What are the "sensitivities" that Mark Shields (the white Londoner) claims are being taken into account in the murder inquiry?
Why has there been virtually no press coverage of Lord Condon's remarks and the ensuing debate held in Britain's House of Lords on March 16th regarding corruption in sport (see: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70316-0003.htm)? This debate was held two days prior to Woolmer's death.
Why is the focus solely on illegal sports betting and corruption in South Asia when British bookmakers and global sportsmen (and it is always men) are involved in this corruption in cricket and most other sports?
Why are bookmakers still allowed to create markets for the Cricket World Cup when, surely, a ban pending further investigation would be a preferable route to take?
Why is there no mention of Woolmer's death on Sky Television and why do Sky presenters talk about Inzaman Ul-Haq in revered terms?
I could go on as I am in a questioning mood this morning.
Our original assessment of the murder of Woolmer still stands. Some Pakistan players together with South Asian bookmakers deliberately underperformed in the match against Ireland. Separately, individual(s) outside the corrupt loop took major betting positions on a Pakistan win placing very large bets at very short odds. The result was a fleecing and a death.
The probability of Bangladesh and Ireland beating India and Pakistan on that fateful Saturday was around 800/1 and the betting positions taken in South Asia permeated through to the European bookmakers. Why are these layers not providing a proper public service by indicating these manipulations? The answer is that they too can profit out of the corruption. Indeed, so do we indirectly. The situation shares a parallel with financial markets where the leading investment bank, Goldman Sachs, clones the trading activities of leading hedge funds by proprietary analysis of their trading. Although this cloned approach is not at the core of the corruption, it may be utilised to gain profit if you are only a couple of informational levels away from the core or if you are a top notch analyst.
Although some Pakistan players and bookmakers from the sub-continent are indirectly responsible for Woolmer's death due to their corrupt activities, there has also been a racist aspect to the media coverage of the murder. In a similar manner that World Soccer magazine covers football corruption in every country in the world apart from England (William Hill's advertising being more important that the truth), the media have ignored the global nature of corruption in cricket. As we have said before, we can name three former England cricket captains who were involved in betting while they were captaining the national team and are still involved in the markets today. Any press coverage for this? No fucking chance...
There are reports emanating from Lahore that it wasn't a murder after all but smoke and mirrors are not going to change reality. There is considerable concern among certain Pakistan players that the murder inquiry will reveal their betting activities - bans and taxation are of greater concern than the mock tears relating to their coaches death.
Bob Woolmer was no saint. He took the apartheid-era rand when being part of the illegal team that broke ranks with the sporting sanctions against the racist regime and he publicly supported the cricketing return of Hansie Cronje after that particular player was banned for corrupt betting activities. But the man's devotion to money was offset to some degree by his devotion to unearthing the corruption in the game.
Our view is that his death will not be properly investigated as too many major operators would be affected by the outcome. I am no expert on Jamaican law but some charge like "murder by person or persons unknown" is the most likely outcome. Mark Shield's awareness of "sensitivities" will claim the day.
Lord Condon, Mark Shields, Lord Stevens...
We might get somewhere nearer the truth with an independent nature to such investigations. We expect Lord Shields is just round the corner - for services to the bookmaking sector, one assumes.
