Earlier today the International Cricket Council, ICC, released a redacted version of its 102-page version of the final determination of the independent tribunal that handed out its verdict on February 5 after the spot-fixing hearings in Doha. You can find the document on this lame attempt to stop UK citizen from downloading here. Now when you download the document you will notice that by redacting the document they have blacked out some of the text of parts they dont want you to read. And in a “normal” PDF read this works as the document is “Encrypted” and it will prompt you for a password if you attempt to do anything to expose the text. But If you load the document in Skim, an open source OS X PDF reader, you find out they use the same method to blackout the text as others in the pass and failed, see this Slashdot article for more on this. So since I think everyone should see what the ICC is hiding and I see no legal reason for me not to disclose them so here you go.
I have put the paragraph number in the document and then the blacked out text. You can follow in the PDF document from the ICC and fill in the blanks with what I provided below.
61. Wahab three
115. In initial interviews with the Metropolitan Police on3rd September, 2010, Mr Butt said on four occasions that it was “freakish”. Mr Asifsimply said “so he can predict”. Mr Amir said it was “a coincidence”.
118. Infavour of the Players, however, it must be said that the recordings on their face showhim to be plausible, quick-witted and ever ready to ‘big up’ his prowess as acontroller of the Players. Moreover, he reveals himself to be venal to a degree, andcapable of boastful exaggeration. Thus, he stated that he had opened Swiss bank accounts for his Players, when in reality he appears to have preferred usingenvelopes with cash.
129. and included in the second the phonenumber another Pakistan cricketer, Mr Kamal Akmal, one of those whom Mr Majeedsubsequently claimed to MK was in his stable of potentially acquiescent fixers. Wemust stress that absolutely no evidence was placed before us to substantiate thisallegation, which we include only as part of the narrative.
154. In his interview with the police when asked about the frequency of his contacts with Mr Majeed, Mr Asif suggested that they were sporadic; the upper figure he proposedwas twice a day. It should be noted that at that point Mr Asif was unaware that thebilling records could (and would) be obtained. His estimate was certainly vastlyexceeded on the days when the ICC assert details of the conspiracy were apparentlyconfirmed. The billing records indeed make nonsense of his estimate. This forcibly suggests that the downplaying was deliberate and designed to deflect attention fromthe true position.
155. The police interview with Mr Asif on 3rd September 2010naturally focused on the circumstances of his no ball and how it came to coincidewith Mr Majeed’s prediction. The Tribunal could identify 4 occasions during thatinterview when, if the cause of the no ball were truly an instruction by Mr Butt to runup faster, Mr Asif had every opportunity to say so. He never did. The fact that hewas never asked expressly whether Mr Butt had asked him to do something otherthan bowl a no ball does not seem to us to diminish the force of his silence on theprecise cause. Indeed far from suggesting a cause, he expressly described it as ‘’anaccident’’. This was moreover at a time when the incident would have been fresh inMr Asif’s memory and when he must have had the benefit of legal advice from theexperienced lawyers who accompanied him to the police station to furnish to thepolice full information – at any rate of the kind that was in no way adverse to hisinterests. He would surely have told the police what he now tells the Tribunal if itwere indeed the truth. The inference must be strong that his excuse is recentinvention.
224. Nevertheless, we are entitled to draw inferences on the uncontroverted evidence before us. Breezy, confident, someone used to getting things done; friendly,engaging, the man who promised in his capacity as their agent, actual or putative,formal or informal, to open endless doors to wealth and fame for them, the threeplayers were simply no match for him. The evidence suggests strongly that heconsciously preyed on their youth and inexperience to lure them into a world, halfreal half fantasy, of constantly increasing wealth and glamour. Their part of thebargain was to allow themselves to be groomed for the role of spot fixers; nothingthat would seriously affect the game, to be sure, just some no balls from the bowlersfrom time to time, or maidens batted out by the batsman. Though they would undoubtedly receive envelopes of cash every now and then as sweeteners, their realreward would be in the form of endorsements and promotional events.