Cryptic message by BT

[andrea lanzoni]

So the implementaion of ICC anticorruption policy is also harmful to players health....

I wonder if anyone in this world can quote the follow-up of that story: is Mr X, the corruptor, serving a sentence in any prison in this world or he is happy taking a drink on a beach in a luxury resort?

Moreover: is anyone in this world vaguely acquainted of a jurisdiction where ICC anticorruption policy can be legally einforced? I mean legally not bullshit secular morals.

I live in Italy, which is very far away from Zimbabwe, so please confirm me: I recently heard that Jongwe had been approached by a fan claiming he was an apprentice bookmaker. Jongwe duly reported the "stalking" and..... the fan has been banned from watching Zim live cricket!
When the situation is hilarious, not not to laugh is the true problem.

[jaybro]

So the implementaion of ICC anticorruption policy is also harmful to players health....

Strange take, that is if I’ve interpreted what you’re saying?

It was the lies he was keeping inside him that was detrimental to his health, not the ICC anticorruption policy.

Totally his fault, I’m just saying I’m sure we’ve all at some stage tried to hide a mistake we’ve made in the hope it goes away. I sure have and I can attest that yes if the secret is that bad it does affect you.

As they say, “the truth will set you free”

[andrea lanzoni]

........As they say, “the truth will set you free”

Ironically so far the only free person, after the mess was surfaced, is the Mr X corruptor.
Mr X is not a hypotetical extraterrestrial: he is a person of whom it is known name, surname, nationality, etc.
Given the legal ineffectiveness of ICC anticorruption policy, indeed "the truth sets free the wrong person"!

Regarding Taylor's health I'm not a qualified doctor, I don't have your certainty that the remorse of his late reporting, for which he was banned, caused side effects on his health.

I'm not a qualified doctor, but I'm not naive also.
Reading the Taylor mess I'm not bound to think that Mr X is a petty thief, a bus pickpocket....
He thoroughly organized his plot with decent resources. Being 'resourceful' and aiming to 'invest' on B.Taylor, can we rule out that Mr X hadn't also power and resources to threaten Taylor, his sibling, etc.?
It sounds too naive to believe that Mr X lacked one of the pillars on which gangsters always rely on.

Finally: Taylor has not been shrewd at all, I doubt many others would be in certain (likely dire) circumstances.

[jaybro]

I don't even know what you're on about now tbh

My point was that Taylor's decision to hold this secret within directly impacted his health, his fault for sure but as I said I'm sure we've all done similar on a smaller scale.

The truth will set you free comment, was that by Taylor finally telling the truth, the burden he was carrying (self inflicted) was lifted and despite the punishment, his health has ultimately improved by not carrying that burden.

[TapsC2]

Unfortunately BT knows the rules. The code of conduct and what you do when you are approached or coerced. The rules are clear and he was a very experienced player. Let's not forget others like Cremer were approached and did the right thing. There is simply no defending this in my opinion.

[secretzimbo]

Agreed sadly. At the very least, he shouldn’t have been doing drink, drugs and hookers with dodgy Indian dudes at his age and with a family back home in the first place. That’s before you even get to the approach and the not reporting.

[andrea lanzoni]

Agreed sadly. At the very least, he shouldn’t have been doing drink, drugs and hookers with dodgy Indian dudes at his age and with a family back home in the first place. That’s before you even get to the approach and the not reporting.

As I said: B.Taylor has not been shrewd at all. No doubt.

What I try to draw attention is another issue.

Stating that Taylor was an "experienced player", that drank with hookers and dodgy indian gangsters, means only that an 'impeccable' policy has not been respected, and so be it.
This may be acceptable for ICC officials.

But there is a (real) world outside ICC premises.

I try to make it clear where ICC policy conflicts with an individual life.

Suppose a person is approached by a gagster, asking to do him "a favour"...

Rather than ICC, I would go to police. Police would tell me that such "favour" is not illegal in the jurisdiction of the Country in which I am. ICC is only a private organization, Dubai based. Any complaint would then be inevitably shelved.

Given that there is not mandatory link between being an "experienced cricketer" and a courageous citizen, let's assume that I go straight to ICC after being 'unsuccessful' at police station.
ICC would take no legal action since they are still to seek a jurisdiction in which breaking ICC internal rules is a felony. For the gangster I complained to ICC it is business as usual then.

ICC doesn't have any resource to protect its whistle blowers. They simply let alone the (commendable) cricketer to..... deal with a gangster whose business has been sabotated by such cricketer!

What is at stake is not that we all are not perfect, that all of us make (small or big) sins, that remorse may lead to side effects on health, etc.
What is at stake is that a cricketer's safety maybe at serious risk because of a policy that ICC itself cannot fully einforce .

It's meaningless to quote that others have complained and have been applauded by ICC. Nobody knows (ICC even less) how many other cases happened, still happen, will happen.
Every year only a handful of such cases surface. Are we so naive to think that ICC anticorruption policy is managing it all? If not the "anticorruption policy" is just a piece of paper.

Sorry, I repeat that Taylor has not been shrewd, that an "experienced cricketer" is not supposed to be shrewd, that he may (or not) be mandatorily a courageous citizen, that (maybe) a retaliation from a gangster to his family could have been definetely more harmful than drinking with hookers in an indian bar.

Finally, I do not know B.Taylor personally. The opinion I outlined is to be considered as general, regardless of the specific peculiarity of the Taylor case.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Andrea brings out a lot of technicalities and loopholes that exist in the process today. Of course Taylor should have approached things differently. But these points are pertinent in general.