Caught Out - Shocking Revelations of Corruption in International Cricket. Brian Radford
Before the start of the final Test match, Omar said that he arranged with this bookmaker that if he managed to build a big score in the first innings, he would consider deliberately losing his wicket for very few runs in the second innings. He promptly hammered an impressive 96 in the first innings, and had scored 75 in the second innings when ‘someone’ in the team told him that a lot of money had been bet that he would not reach a hundred.
Omar was caught out on 89, and he was deeply disappointed as he desperately wanted to score a century against New Zealand. Again, the bookmaker thought that he had deliberately given his wicket away, and paid him 1,000 US dollars.
He had also played in two One-day matches before that Test – the first in Hamilton, where he chased a wide ball and was caught for two; and the other in Christchurch, where he carelessly ran himself out for nought. Both times he was paid 1,000 US dollars.
Omar also named a prominent England bowler who accepted 1,000 US dollars from an illegal bookmaker to send down a full-length ball that was wide of the leg stump in his first over so that the Pakistan batsman could hit it to the boundary for four, which he did.
Continuing to bare his soul, Omar told the investigators that he personally acted as the bookmaker’s agent in this deal, that he handed the money to the bowler in an envelope at the Continental Hotel in Lahore, and that they later became good friends.
While disclosing the vast scale of international cricket corruption, Omar claimed that some captains were pocketing up to £1,000 simply for telling a bookmaker in advance whether they would bat or bowl should they win the toss. And that captains were earning even more for telling bookmakers who in their team would open the bowling, and from which end of the ground.
Some of the best-known stars were reportedly raking in at least £5,000 a match. The biggest fees were being paid to players who deliberately got themselves out for nought, and to those who let themselves be clean bowled or run out, especially in the first over.
Distance was no problem to many Asian bookmakers, and Pakistan players were personally contacted while on tour in England, Australia, New Zealand and the West Indies. Omar named a leading Pakistan batsman who suffered a string of low scores on a dreadful tour of England when the fans and media were convinced that he was suffering a bad run of form.
Omar, who played alongside him and socialised with him, knew the truth. He clearly recalled: ‘He was not off form at all; that was rubbish. He was working with the bookies and he made big money from them. He also threw his wicket away in a Test match in Australia for a huge fee. I was there when he did the deal and I heard him accept the bribe.’
A spokesman for Condon’s investigating team later confirmed to me that they had traced and spoken to the elusive ‘Wendy’ in Australia, and that she had admitted to them that she was a regular spectator at the Sydney Cricket Ground and that she knew Omar, but categorically denied that she ran hookers for a bookmaker or had paid cricketers to cheat.
Plainly not put off by this predictable reaction, the spokesman added: ‘Our purpose will now be to find her friends. We are going to try to locate as many of the girls as we can.’
When told several weeks later that Wendy had denied that she had organised the hookers for players and paid players to cheat, a tetchy Omar replied: ‘What did they expect? She paid players, and she found girls for players. That’s the way it was. That’s the truth. I’ve met these girls, and I’ve already given their names to the investigators. It was a very big gambling operation.
‘If necessary I will go to Australia and meet her face to face. Players from every cricket country were involved. She paid me for throwing my wicket away. She offered girls to me. They were beautiful girls. I never got involved, but I did have a massage once or twice. So how can she say it never happened? It did happen! Sexual favours were being provided to players for fixing matches and giving information, and it came on top of cash payments.’
A grateful Condon said: ‘Qasim Omar’s revelations are a very important part of the jigsaw. We are strenuously pursuing his allegations. We are very grateful for the information we have received.’
Condon and his sleaze-busters made several trips to India, where they met the Minister of Sport, the Law Minister, officials of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), Delhi police, the country’s Board of Control for Cricket, and special investigator M Mahaven.
What never became clear was whether Condon’s investigators ever interviewed Uttam Chand, who had admitted using codes when making telephone calls to players, and that bets had been placed on what a particular player would score in a certain innings and on what the team would score. A strong rumour went around dressing rooms that the highly confidential code had been cracked and that a large number of star players were shaking in their boots, waiting for a knock on the door.
There was also no hint, let alone confirmation, that Condon’s investigators had interviewed Sanjiv Kholi, a well-known ferocious gambler who ran a chain of smart restaurants and boasted about being close to Indian bowler Manjor Prabakhar, and who had admitted that he had asked him for information during England’s 1993 tour of India. There was even further doubt about whether the ACU had spoken to Piloo Reporter, the Test umpire whom leading Indian bookmaker Mukesh Gupta had claimed was paid for information during England’s same tour of India.
There was no apparent record, either, of an interview with Daleep Seth, who ran the exclusive telephone exchange with 120 private lines for a gang of illegal bookmakers, gamblers and players, or with Rajesh Kalra, who had told the CBI that Prabakhar had placed bets through him.
It was beyond doubt, however, that Mukesh Gupta had twice met investigators from the ACU and had repeated to them what he had told the CBI inquiry – that he had paid England batsman/wicketkeeper Alec Stewart £5,000 for weather, wicket and England’s team composition during the 1993 tour. Stewart was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever by the ECB’s Disciplinary Standing Committee.
Mark Harrison, the ICC Communications Manager, issued a statement on behalf of the ACU in which he said: ‘Mukesh Gupta has been seen twice in India by the Anti-corruption Unit and he verbally confirmed his allegations to investigators from the Unit.’ The Indian authorities also stated that they totally believed what Gupta had told them.
Condon confirmed that he had interviewed Prabakhar, whom Gupta said he had paid to be introduced to Stewart, but ‘was not at liberty to say at this stage what his position is’. What was particularly intriguing was Condon’s adamant comment that ‘for anyone to say, or give the impression, that Alec Stewart would be cleared should Gupta not provide legally binding evidence is quite wrong’.
He went on: ‘It would not mean that the inquiry is at an end. Gupta’s evidence is not the only evidence we have gathered. It does not all depend on Gupta. Those who might think so are ignoring the fact that the inquiry team has interviewed certain players, and members of our team will form a judgement about what the players have said to them.
‘I am not in a position to name those players. Everything has been done on a strictly confidential basis. But let us not get carried away with thinking that this inquiry collapses if Gupta does not go on record legally.
‘The position with Gupta is fairly straightforward. My team has seen him twice. The latest occasion was in March when he verbally confirmed to two investigators all that he had said in the CBI report. It was then important to build on that, and to see whether he would repeat his words in disciplinary or criminal proceedings. He is extremely difficult to pin down, and we are the only people who have seen him, apart from the CBI.
‘I have two investigators in India at the moment doing a number of important things. Part of their role will be to remind Mr Gupta that we are looking to him to fulfil his responsibility. I have invited him to make up his mind by 1 July. If he does not respond by that date, then we must assume that he won’t be doing so. But that would not mean it’s the end of the inquiry because there are many things going on.’
Condon expressed serious concern about the possibility of extreme violence and even