Depression and suicide in sport - Gary Speed and Robert Enke

The death of the former footballer and Welsh National manager Gary Speed came as a shock to the whole of world football. Speed, who was found dead in his Cheshire home on Sunday morning, had a successful playing career with several top English clubs over a twenty year career and had begun to have a positive effect as the international manager of Wales. Fans, players and officials have all been paying their respect towards a man who was admired for his character and ability on and off the pitch and have been stunned to the reasons behind his death. Suicide in sport is not isolated, English football will remember the suicide of the first openly gay footballer Justin Fashanu in the 1980s. The former Tour de France and Giro d’Italia winner Marco Pantani took an overdose in 2004. In 2009, the German international goalkeeper Robert Enke took his own life after suffering for years from manic depression. In fact in the past two weeks, Peter Roebuck, the former English cricketer committed suicide in South Africa and two international referees were both stopped in time before they were able to kill themselves. Many of the deaths have been influenced by psychiatric illnesses, predominantly depression, but it still does not tell us ultimately why someone reaches that nadir.

When hearing of Stan Collymore’s depression, his manager, John Gregory, famously asked how someone could be depressed when they earned £20,000 a week. A sportsman on the sidelines with a broken leg appeared more legitimate rather than your star striker suffering from anxiety. Society has always had a sceptical view point on the disease, but medical advances have changed the way we perceive those suffering from mental issues. Reading the accounts of many high profile stars, many who suffered from psychiatric issues often turned to drink to solve their worries the likes of Tony Adams, Paul Merson and Paul Gascoigne all had notorious problems with alcohol. Rugby star Jonny Wilkinson struggled after countless injuries and tennis player Andre Agassi resolved his issues through the drug crystal meth. Former Frank Bruno was sectioned by his illness.

Three recent winners of the William Hill Sports Book of the Year have all touched upon the subject. Marcus Trescothick’s autobiography profiled his anxiety attacks and portrays England’s finest opening batsmen turning to a nervous wreck, unable to leave his family home. Former England rugby player Brian Moore wrote about the difficulties he suffered as a child which plagued his professional career. Finally, announced the day after Speed's death, Ronnie Reng’s account of Robert Enke who threw himself in front of a train in 2009. The German goalkeeper had been tipped as the national side’s number one for the forthcoming World Cup, yet for the last few months of his life he had secretly been taking anti-depressants. Although several people were aware of his condition (though notably none of his teammates or coaches) they believed that he was doing fine and on the mend. Enke had suffered setbacks professionally and tragically lost his baby daughter a few years earlier, it appears to have sent him over the edge. As all three accounts highlight, the disease is all the worse because it is invisible and there isn’t necessarily a precursor to the attack. Trescothick wrote of the uncertainty and whether he would be able to face another delivery before 'the beast' struck him again. What makes it more difficult to comprehend is why some people take that extra step and end their life?

Studies have shown that men are three times more likely than women to commit suicide, possibly because they are more reluctant to express their feelings, which itself is a biological factor. Suicide is the second biggest killer in England and Wales in males under 35, yet studies show the men in their ‘mid life’ are most likely to do it across all age groups. This is mainly due to factors of work and relationship breakdown, particularly if children are involved. Some instances of suicide are factored through bereavement and the German writer Goethe’s ‘Young Werther’ killed himself because he thought it was the right thing to do, he even romanticised about it. Though sociologists that there are triggers and changing social controls that ultimately send people over the edge.

Gary Speed’s agent said in his statement that Speed had not been arguing with his wife nor suffering from depression. Yet the world will have to wait for the coroner’s report. One can only hope that if it is depression then the legacy of Speed and Enke will be society’s acceptance of the disease and the ability for sufferers to be open and frank about their thoughts to everyone.

The legacy of Mobutu: The DRC votes.

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the vast and troubled country in sub-Saharan Africa, is going to the polls for only the second time in fifty years today. A country ten times the size of Britain, with a population just over 70 million, has suffered terribly since its independence from Belgium in 1960. Its vast reserves of natural resources that include timber, gold, diamonds and many precious metals should have created economic stability and wealth for its people, yet war, corruption on an enormous scale and destitution has left the people of the Congo at the bottom of the UN’s Human Development Index, earning a miserly $200 a year. The current President Joseph Kabila, who has been in charge since the previous leader (his father Joseph-Desire) was assassinated in 2001, looks set cement another term in Government and reaffirm his Premiership. However, the 40-year-old, Kabila is far from popular. Labelled as another African autocratic, he is distrusted in the east of the country and the ten million strong capital city Kinshasa. Pledging to introduce high speed rail to a country that notoriously lacks a road network, Kabila is certain to win through a mix of weak opposition and strong arm tactics. International critics are alarmed that Kabila has abolished any run offs between first and second place candidates and feel that the ruling party will do anything to hijack victory by any means possible, including ballot rigging. So why have the DRC and its people endured such an ignominious past and what does the future hold for this huge country.

In what became known as ‘The Scramble for Africa’ the small European nation of Belgium snapped up the huge region surrounding the mouth of the River Congo. Ordained Belgian-Congo, it became a playground for Emperor Leopold II in what can be deemed as one of Europe’s darkest periods of imperialism. Reconstructed in Joseph Conrad’s early 20^th century novella, ‘Heart of Darkness’ captures the impunity and sheer subjugation of human life in pursuit of mineral wealth, most notably ivory. After World War Two when the ‘Winds of Change’ were sweeping across Africa, Belgium had highlighted that Congo may require longer transition before independence. Instead of the 50 year period that Belgium had drawn up, the Cold War forced it to fast forward independence to 18 months. The country’s first Prime Minister and pan-African Marxist, Patrick Lumumba, was deemed as a liability by Western Governments and swiftly abducted then killed by firing squad, before his remains were put in acid to prevent him being deemed a martyr. The man the West backed and who would go on to rule for 32 years was Colonel Joseph Mobutu.

The rule of Mobutu can only be deemed as bizarre and shameful for all those who kept him in power. A powerful public speaker and strong campaigner, Mobutu was a bulwark against Soviet interests. If he was ever facing political strife then he could rely on French, Belgian or American paratroopers to put down any insurgency and all the while he could rule as he pleased. His reforms included the Africanisation of his country. He became Mobutu Sese Seko which translated to ‘all powerful warrior’ and Congo was renamed Zaire, Leopoldville to Kinshasa. He introduced cultural rules including collarless shirt similar to Mao’s China, he wanted to reaffirm an identity to country that for so long had been mismanaged and corrupted. It was Mobutu who brought Muhammed Ali and George Foreman to fight in Kinshasa in 1974 in what became known as ‘The Rumble in the Jungle’ to raise the country’s profile. Yet Mobutu was the most flamboyant and corrupt of them all. Economic mismanagement saw him ordering crates of money for himself from the central bank and building massive palaces in the dense jungles. He had fleets of Concorde, had a taste for expensive pink champagne and used the Zairian Treasury as a wallet on extravagant shopping trips to Europe.

Like most dictators, ideology gradually blurred because power was everything. As long as he was in power, the West turned a blind eye to what was going on internally. If he ever felt a threat from others, they were either bought off or executed. Towards the end of his rule, Mobutu, like many dictators before him, became obsessed about plots to kill him. He retreated to his palace in the forest and let most decisions be taken by his generals.

The collapse of the Soviet Union meant that Western Governments no longer needed to fancy favours from these decrepit despots. Economic collapse and the genocide in Rwanda and Burundi forced hundreds of thousands of refugees into the East of Congo around Goma. Mobutu, now suffering from cancer, was unable to put up any resistance against the Tutsi-led armies from Rwanda and Uganda, and fled in exile to Togo and then Morocco.

The question that many commentators asked was what a post-Mobutu Zaire would look like and whether it would work? Africa’s biggest kleptocrat had plundered, yet he had stabilised tribes and created an identity for his people. The day he fled, the rebel leader Laurent Kabila declared himself President, yet peace was short lived.

What is now recorded as the bloodiest conflict since the Second World War, and seen as Africa’s world war, drawing in nine countries and reportedly leading to over five million deaths, and shamelessly ignored by most Western media outlets. Many of the belligerents have been accused of invading/co-operating purely to loot the DRC’s mineral wealth, in fact Rwanda recently handed back some money it had made from stolen diamonds. To this day, the UN’s largest peace-keeping force operates within the country, with nearly 20,000 uniformed personnel on the ground and costing over $1 billion a year. Most reports to the outside world highlight the use of rape as a weapon of war, in 2009 there were 8,900 recorded incidents of rape. Yet, in a country so huge, it is difficult to determine the number of sexual crimes that have taken place, countless have been infected by HIV.

The great new Empire of China has also been criticised for its relationship with the DRC Government. A multibillion dollar bilateral contract that exchanges infrastructure work for valuable minerals. Many criticised China for taking advantage of its African partner.

So as over 32 million people head for the polls to vote for the candidates (including Mobutu’s son) it is hard to believe that a cross in a box is really going to make a difference in a country that has a tortured history and hopeless future.

Captain Robert Scott: The worst journey in the world

Discovery and man’s defiance to tame and explore all corners of the earth has brought hundreds of stories of heroism, treachery and death. In London, the National Geographic Society brought together many climbers, who have scaled the world’s second highest mountain, Mount Qogir, better known to most of the public as K2. Lying in the Western belt of the Himalayas in Pakistan, it is seen as the world’s toughest climb and known as a graveyard for some of the great climbers of the world. Since it was first ascended in 1954 by the Italian pair of Achille Compagnoni and Lino Lacedelli only 302 people have reached its summit, compared to over 2700 who have reached the top of Everest. Known as Savage Mountain, the staggering statistic is that one in four people who have attempted to climb it have perished along the way; in fact it has never been climbed during the winter. Yet, like many challenges, we will expect this obstacle to have been completed. 100 years ago next month, it will be the centenary of the first party to reach the South Pole, the coldest and the most inhospitable place on the planet. Famously, the party lead by the Norwegian Roald Amundsen beat the British team fronted by Captain Robert Falcon Scott by 34 days. History will recognise that it was Amundsen who reached the pole first, but the world will always remember the testament and suffering that led to Scott and his team perishing on their return journey.

I have written before about the immense and daunting challenge that climbers make when tackling the Eiger and I wonder whether it is correct to make the same observation about reaching the South Pole. Before Amundsen and Scott, scientists were still unsure to whether it was a continent or a piece of ice. Its geography was just as trivial; Captain James Cook had made some basic map outlines on his travels to Australia and New Zealand, but no one knew what lay inland. The British explorer Ernest Shakleton had been closest to reach the pole in his 1909 expedition; his team were 108 miles short of the pole and were the first to climb the highest peak on the continent, Mount Erebus. The technology at the time was relatively rudimentary and the purpose of many of the expeditions was scientific. Journeys would take years to plan and finance, and the men would spend months in preparation in New Zealand.

In Scott’s Terra Nova Expedition in 1911, the team spent months taking readings on the ecology and biodiversity, plus further months in placing food and fuel depots nearer the pole for the eventual journey. It was only when they learned that the Norwegians, led by Amundsen, were planning to reach the pole before them did the Brits become concerned. Scott, who had joined the Royal Navy as a 15-year-old, ignored his party’s worries and believed his planning based on Shackleton’s earlier expedition was the best. As history now writes, it was the Norwegian’s ruthlessness to kill dogs along the way that got them to the pole first; Scott was unwilling to forsake the lives of his ponies and five men travelled the final stretch man hauling their sleighs. On the way back to base camp Scott, Bower, Evans, Oates and Wilson all began to deteriorate, particularly Evans. Disheartened by not reaching the pole first, it is unimaginable to describe the strain placed on all their bodies as they made that long, burdened return. Compared to the photos the team had taken of glaciers and penguins, the morose and crippling defeat is painted on their faces in this photo. As Scott wrote:

"The worst has happened"; "All the day dreams must go"; "Great God! This is an awful place"

 All that remains of the men and their sufferings is the eloquent account of Scott’s diary. The vivid realism and crippling acceptance of the end is piercing to any reader. In his final entry he wrote:

“Last entry. For God's sake look after our people".

As a man of Empire and Edwardian values, the words and sufferings of Scott and his men were seen as patriotic and were used in the Great War to rouse the troops. Yet many revisionists depict Scott as arrogant and believe his stoicism ultimately cost the lives of himself and his four companions. However, as our understanding of the Arctic environment has improved; scientists believe that a four man push to the pole would have saved them all. The fifth man simply used up too many of the rations. History would be different if Scott and his team could have walked the 11 miles further to the One Ton Depot. The decision to carry on with the debilitated Evans, who was first to die, may have taken have had an effect. As Oates had infamously left the tent, it is believed that Scott, after all he had seen and endured, was the final man to die.

As stirring and emotional the accounts of Scott and later Cherry-Garrard are it is unlikely that such disasters could happen again. The revolution in satellite communications has meant that explorers can pinpoint their latitude to their nearest degree. In Scott and Amundsen’s day it was simply a team of British and Norwegians in Antarctica. Today, thousands of scientists inhabit the pole; in fact many who have man-hauled are surprised by the small village at 90 degrees south. Planes fly in and out every day, and the journeys which took months to undertake, now take days. The land that was once mystic and desolate now has tourists and a legacy of rubbish streamed on its shore. Completely different for the challengers of the centenary race.

It is important to remember the scientific breakthroughs that people like Scott made and the information it gave for future cross continent expeditions for people like Sir Ranuph Fiennes and Dr Mike Stroud. Scott was not simply a man that lived a life that ended in glorious failure, but one that showed the ability of human endurance and mental strength. When Amundsen learnt of his death he said:

“In a career as an explorer which spanned more than 25 years he achieved more than most people do in a whole lifetime.”

Football's money men

Over the past few weeks there have been several stories in the back pages that have caused a great deal of comment regarding football finances and an inevitable look into how the game is run. Stan Kroenke, the reclusive majority shareholder of Arsenal said to several football journalists that the Glazer family, the controversial owners of Manchester United, had done a good job in running the football club. The American family, who bought the club through a leveraged takeover in 2005, have faced opprobrium from fans that have seen ticket prices soar and millions of pounds worth of debt secured against the club. Kroenke, who like the Glazers owns a National Football Team (NFL) in America, said that United fans should be thankful to the owners for their recent success the club has had domestically and in Europe. Last week, Newcastle United fans were venting further fury at owner, Mike Ashley, who has renamed the 119-year-old St James’ Park to the Sports Direct Arena. Ashley has never endeared himself to club’s fans and has openly been looking to sell the club to the highest bidder for the past few years; to fans, neglecting the club. Stories like this are not new to English football, yet fans continuously feel they have an axe to grind against corporate ownership, so what vision do they expect of English football and how is it supposed to work?

Some football commentators reserve certain clichés for different clubs, Everton are often dubbed a ‘well-run’ club. Most Premier League fans have an admiration for the Liverpool club and certainly believe their manager David Moyes has done a fantastic job for almost a decade. In the early years of the Premier League, Everton flirted with relegation on a number of occasions, yet under Moyes, the club attracted quality signings, reached the FA Cup Final in 2009 and most notably finished fourth in the Premiership in 2005. Put into perspective, Everton, one of England’s most dominant teams in the 1980s, have continuously punched above their weight. Yet, the club are stagnating financially compared to other clubs around them. They do not have an Arab Sheikh or Russian Oligarch bankrolling them, Goodison Park lacks corporate facilities and is in a location that would prevent it from being redeveloped. Current owner, the impresario Bill Kenwright, is openly looking for new investment but compared to other clubs, Everton are seen as unfavourable. Long gone are the days when the local rich man owned and bankrolled the club e.g. Jack Walker (Blackburn) and even the modern day comparisons like Wigan’s Dave Whelan are more realistic in what they can spend. Several years ago Kenwright, prevented the club from being sold to a Russian tycoon called Alexander Gaydamak. Eventually Gaydamak bought Portsmouth on the South Coast and with his funding they were able to spend freely on the transfer market and won the FA Cup in 2008. Portsmouth have subsequently faced administration, the first Premier League side to do so, after Gaydamak withdrew funds from the club. It is perhaps ironic that Kenwright has received criticism from Everton fans because he is more frugal on transfer policy, yet the sensible policies are seen as backward and unadventurous.

The English and the Scottish leagues are the most historical in the world and each club has a deep sense of community spirit within it. Yet, through the mass television deals that open new markets to clubs, cosmopolitan owners that come from different backgrounds and teams that do not feature a local youngster, it does make a difference to what the club means. Although it wouldn’t work, it is not crazy to believe that many of the owners would prefer an American style franchise system where clubs are relocated to different parts of the country after a boardroom meeting, the size of the UK and amount of clubs that already exist would have an effect. The issue for clubs is that prize money for the Champions League is enormous and clubs would be foolish not to chase such golden tickets. This has meant selling their history to the largest bidder, either to finish in the top four or to stay in the Premier League. Most clubs in the top two divisions of the English football league have either moved or improved their stadium infrastructure over the past two decades. Games cost between £40-£80 to watch rather than 50p at the turnstile. The sponsors are no longer the hi-tech Japanese electronic brands of the 1980s but from the Gulf Arab states. The change from what fans saw when they were growing up is profound and only highlights the difference new investment has made, yet for footballing institutions like Everton and Newcastle new money is the only way to survive.

Obama - a year to go.

When Barack Obama was inaugurated as America’s 44^th President, he used the Bible of his political hero, Abraham Lincoln, to be sworn into office. Throughout his election campaign, Obama had highlighted his inspiration for America’s 16^th President and particularly the work that he performed during the dark days of America’s Civil War, illustrated in the book ‘Team of Rivals’. As a bust of Winston Churchill had adorned the office during the Presidency of George W. Bush, Obama soon replaced it with one of Lincoln. Immortalised at Mount Rushmore and the grand Athenian-style memorial in Washington, Lincoln was famed for his ability to negotiate with sworn enemies and eventually reunite the Confederacy with the Union after four years of fighting. At the moment of victory, ‘Honest Abe’ was assassinated at Ford’s Theatre on Good Friday, and nearly 150 years later he is still revered by most, though not all, Americans. Obama, now  less than a year away from the 2012 Presidential elections  and with approval ratings hovering ominously low around the 45 per cent mark, America’s first black President will be hoping that he does not cede office after one term and can overcome hostilities like Lincoln fared during his tenure.

It was a moment that the whole world appeared to revel in. America, a country that for decades was torn apart by race relations had elected a black President (mixed-race to be specific). The First Lady’s Michelle Obama genealogy revealed that a remarkable five-generation journey from slavery to the White House.  Fifty years before him, America’s most famous black orator and civil rights campaigner, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his ‘I have a dream speech’ and yet the early part of his prose, which is often forgotten, speaks of how America reneged on its promise he said:

“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today [Lincoln], signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.”

It appeared the world had now come full circle. Here was a man, in the shadow of Lincoln and King, completing the Trinity. Obama, the community campaigner from Southside Chicago had become President.

For most international observers, he was importantly not George W. Bush. He was much more circumspect with his words; he wasn’t as moralistic as his predecessor and he appeared to hit the right note when talking to his audience. Obama had written his own political verse ‘The Audacity of Hope’ in 2006, a manifesto of his own thoughts. It is true that many Americans appreciated the honesty of George W. Bush and his world view; however it was clear that his perspective was often blurred by American exceptionalism and the neo-conservative ideology, which is coarse by most standards but became toxic after eight years in office. Despite the whirlwind election campaign that firstly knocked out Hilary Clinton and then Republican candidate John McCain, Obama tried to play down his ambitions. He was not a lifesaver, but just had a different perspective. Here was someone who had opposed the Iraq War that had bogged down American foreign policy, he was not an establishment figure.

There have been some high points during his Presidency, the extension of Medicare to poorer citizens, the killing of Osama bin Laden and the general bonhomie has returned towards America from abroad. Yet as this blog has mentioned before, Obama has been prostrated by the global economy and a militant Republican Party/Tea Party. So a year away, what chance does Obama have to a second term in office and does he deserve it.

As any public relations or electioneer expert will tell you, the secret to success is to keep expectations low and then to exceed beyond those boundaries. Obama, who was reluctant to accept the ‘Yes We Can’ slogan during his campaign has found it difficult to make the transition of some of his promises and in turn as received a great deal of criticism. He has been unable to close Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Pakistan have became major  foreign policy headaches, the operation to clean up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico directed criticism at him and the stimulus packages have caused great rancour from across the country. Some states such as Wisconsin and New Jersey have almost come to a standstill as the fiscal crisis puts increasing strains on the American economy and the public sector. Unemployment remains high around nine per cent, the credit ratings agency Moody’s downgraded US debt and the economy continues to stagnate.

Critics have labelled him a ‘do-nothing President’, the man who is known to think before he speaks is seen and labelled as weak. Not to mention rumours that he wasn’t even born in the US. The midterm elections that saw him lose control of the Senate and encounter an extremely right-wing Republican Party has done him no favours either. The brinkmanship nearly the pushed the country into default as the two sides could not agree an amendment on the debt ceiling in August. Although he has been able utilise their robustness as a tool of politics, it seems unlikely that Obama will be unlikely to use the economy as the platform to be re-elected. Certainly, the measures put forward by Republican candidates are hardly enviable (more tax cuts to the rich) but as Apple guru Steve Jobs said to the Obama he was heading for a one-term Presidency if he did not sort out his growth and business policies.

It seems most likely that his election strategy may be built on the better than the alternative idea. Although Mitt Romney appears to be the candidate that most deem to be Presidential, he is mistrusted by much of the Republican faithful. The alternatives of Herman Cain or Rick Perry could be possibilities. If he is unable to surmount past the 50% approval ratings then we are likely to hear musings of squeeze the middle and favour the wealthy, it will be about economic inequality. Though whichever candidate he faces will determine what line he plays. The last thing he wants to do is ostracise both blue and white-collar white voters, a place where he built his victory on in 2008.

Obama has overseen a different type of America and is trying to reduce its footprint on the international scene. He was most notably quiet during the Arab Spring and reticent during the NATO campaign in Libya. Although he has managed to use his stardom in the international arena, he doesn’t necessarily flaunt it. He has been happy to allow Secretary of State Clinton to be take stage internationally and isn’t as convivial abroad as predecessors like JFK or George W.Bush . Americans are used to their politicians being able to feel their pain and yet be the Commander in Chief and ebullient statesman, something Clinton and Reagan managed with ease, yet Obama doesn’t conform to nor want to. It appears that the many of the qualities that Obama came to office with have become his handicap. With 37% of American voters declared to be independents and 14 million currently unemployed, Obama may need to dig into the stardust that brought him to power if he wants a second term.

Dirty money in sport.

Today was an important day in the world of sport. Southwark Crown Court in London found the former Pakistani cricket captain Salman Butt and fast-bowler Mohammad Asif guilty of plotting to bowl deliberate no-balls in the 2010 Lord’s Test as part of a spot-fixing plot. Another player, teenager Mohammad Amir had already pleaded guilty to conspiracy to cheat and conspiracy to accept corrupt payments before the trial. The trio who had already received sporting bans from their sports may also receive prison sentences for the duplicity. Though many cricketing administrators will see this as justice, it only opens further questions of how pervasive and corrupt the game and sport as a whole is.

If you do not already know the story or have not seen the footage of the players’ misdemeanours then it is simple to explain. The News of the World (NOTW) and the ‘Fake Sheikh’ (a notorious undercover tabloid reporter) met with the UK based sports agent, Mazhar Majeed and recording him boasting that he could arrange Pakistan players to rig games for money. Majeed was paid £150,000 by the newspaper and in return Amir and Asif, following instructions from the captain Butt, bowled no-balls (an illegitimate delivery) at specific timings through the game. With foresight of the deliveries any individual could make a fortune through the vast, yet illegal; betting industry in South East Asia. Anyone watching the game may have been surprised by the errors, though it probably would have been deemed to be an aberration, yet the newspaper headlines and undercover footage led the Police to the same banknotes found in the player’s hotel rooms.

The maximum sentence for cheating is two years in jail and an unlimited fine, while accepting payments carries a maximum sentence of seven years and an unlimited fine. Unfortunately for cricket, this was not a new story. In the 1990s many players were wrongly accused of match-fixing including England’s most capped test player Alec Stewart, whereas others including the former Indian captain Mohammad Azharuddin and Pakistani captain Saleem Malik were both found guilty. The most famous case was that of Hansie Cronje, the South African captain who had led the country out of its sporting wilderness and made it one of the world’s most dominant and competitive teams. Cronje was a national hero and yet a chance find Delhi police implicated him receiving money to help fix matches. Most famously a test match between England and South Africa at Centurion Park in 2000, after a rain delayed match, Cronje forfeited an innings to see whether England could chase down the target and achieve an improbable result. Some saw it as an act of great sportsmanship, yet we now know that Cronje received £5000 and a leather jacket in return for inducing a result. The world of cricket was aghast at the news and Cronje, who would later die in a plane crash, became a fallen figure and national disgrace.

Both incidents were chance findings and tip offs. It is more than likely that the ICC would have been unable to detect these crimes without third party investigations. This is where the problem lies; the cricketers were guilty of accepting corrupt payments from unregulated bookmakers. In the West, suspicions would be raised immediately if someone bet £100,000 on a no-ball, as one statistician said the probability of calling a no-ball is around is 1.5 million to one, yet in South East Asia where gambling is illegal, who is there to police it? Some arguments have been put forward that these men were not cheating, nor influencing the result, they were simply making a bit of pocket money from a game that is not necessarily well-paid. Yet, the court heard that Butt was asked to rig the results of One-Day Internationals, a request which he says he declined. Like all cheats, there is always a complicity to break the rules; spot-fixing is just as bad taking sport enhancing drugs, who is not to say they would move onto rigging contests?

The problem for sport, not just cricket is that we just don’t know how to solve the problem and this case has simply highlighted the problem. Who is there to monitor football matches that aren’t televised or to question double faults in tennis? Sport today is about winning and money, but how much of that money is dirty?