The game can't allow the merest suspicion of bribery

Alec Stewart says he did not take money from a bookmaker for information about the weather, but there will be many people asking today: what does it matter if he did?

Most of us can guess what the conditions will be like in England during a cricket match. Wet and miserable. And if a cricketer goes on to give a bookie additional news, such as what difference the weather will make to team selection, is that so awful? It's only what they say to reporters free of charge, so why should they not take a few bob from a bookie for providing the same information?

That is the case for the defence; the sort of thing some cricketers and others will be saying today as a number of leading players find themselves accused of taking cash from an Indian bookmaker. After all, there's a real difference between talking to a bookmaker and trying to influence the match result, isn't there?

Of course there is - but it does matter if a cricketer takes money from a bookie for talking about the weather. It matters a lot.

Bookmakers want any snippet that will give them an edge; an insight into what might happen during a match. If, for instance, it looks as if the weather will get hot after lunch, that could make the wicket dry out quickly and crack. If it breaks up badly, it will be harder for batsmen to score runs.

A cricket captain, ruminating on all this, might pick an extra bowler to take advantage of the deteriorating wicket, and if a bookmaker knows this he will adjust his odds accordingly and increase the likelihood of making money from punters.

Millions of pounds are at stake, so bookies (and let's be clear that we are not talking about mainstream English bookmakers here) are quite keen to shell out a few thousand pounds to a cricketer who will answer an early morning telephone call in his hotel room.