Tom Collomosse’s cricket column: Automatic life bans simply cannot be the answer to corruption issues

Some — including Graeme Swann and David Lloyd — believe Amir should never have been allowed to play cricket again. Others — such as Alastair Cook — hedge their bets: Amir has served his time, they say, but similar offences should mean banishment for life.

Cricketers’ desire to see wayward peers excluded is understandable. It is also counter-productive. For every player who is caught, there will be several others who are not. As Angus Porter, the former chief executive of the Professional Cricketers’ Association, says, there is little long‑term benefit to be gained from automatic life bans.

Porter’s opinion is worth hearing. During his six years at the PCA, from March 2010-March 2016, he played a significant role in helping the ECB establish their first anti-corruption code. Thanks to the PCA’s work, every player has to complete an online anti-corruption test before signing a contract with a county. As a result, players are largely far more aware of the pitfalls than they were.

“Giving a life ban to everyone who transgresses is a bit simplistic,” Porter told Standard Sport. “It would mean giving everyone the same sentence, irrespective of the circumstances or their level of contrition.

“It’s not a principle we see in the justice system elsewhere. People go to prison but after a certain time they are eligible for parole. Plus, there has to be an incentive for cricketers to report corruption to the authorities.

“If you want to root out corruption, the last thing you want to do is offer no encouragement to those who may be willing to pass on information. I am not a fan of ‘lock ’em up and throw away the key’. The penalties have to be severe but there must also be an incentive for people to come forward.”

It is a convincing argument. It is not easy for anti-corruption officials. There are many more Twenty20 franchise competitions around the world than there were a decade ago, stretching the available funds and making scrutiny more difficult.

The more matches, the more gambling takes place. The more gambling, the greater the likelihood of corruption. Many cricket boards do not pay their players high salaries, which means they are more vulnerable to temptation.

If players guilty of malpractice know they will receive automatic life bans, it will be far harder for authorities to gain the kind of ‘inside information’ they need to break the corrupt networks.

Furthermore, there can be few deterrents more powerful than seeing your peers go to prison. Three members of the squad for Pakistan’s 2010 squad — Amir, Mohammad Asif and Salman Butt — spent time behind bars. Would life bans from cricket really frighten players more than the idea of a stint in jail?

Education holds the key, and here Porter cites the role of Mervyn Westfield (above). The former Essex pace bowler served a four-month jail term in 2012 for spot-fixing offences in 2009. The 28-year-old now tries to deter others from following the same path, as he did during a visit to South Africa last November.

“I am optimistic about the future but I won’t be astonished if something new comes to light,” Porter adds.

In the fight against corruption, cricket’s authorities have won a series of battles, such as the one discussed by Flanagan. As hard as they work, however, it will be nearly impossible to win the war.