Arjuna Ranatunga and Aravinda de Silva are the latest players to have beencleared of the match-fixing charges made by bookmaker Mukesh Gupta’s in theCentral Bureau of Investigation (CBI) report
Charlie Austin15-Jul-2001Arjuna Ranatunga and Aravinda de Silva are the latest players to have beencleared of the match-fixing charges made by bookmaker Mukesh Gupta’s in theCentral Bureau of Investigation (CBI) report.According to Gupta, De Silva and former captain Ranatunga had agreed tounder-perform in the Lucknow Test Match against India in 1994 and de Silvahad been paid US$15,000 after the game. Gupta further alleged that the pairhad been willing “to do” other Tests.Desmond Fernando, however, appointed by the Sri Lankan board to investigatethe allegations in November last year, was unable to question or cross-examine Gupta and was therefore forced to accept the testimonies of theplayers.Fernando handed over his report to the Sri Lankan board this week and isbelieved to have recommended that no action be taken against the twoplayers.This follows the news that England wicket-keeper Alec Stewart, accused by Gupta of accepting US$5000 for providing pitch, weather and team information, was also cleared by the England and Wales Cricket Board after Gupta’s steadfast refusal to face legal cross-examination by the Lord Condon’s ICC Anti-Corruption UnitThe Sri Lankan enquiry focused entirely on the claims made by Gupta. Noindependent evidence was uncovered and cross-examinations were restricted tothe two players directly concerned and present captain Sanath Jayasuriya,who is believed to have turned down an offer of US$500,000 to fix aninternational game.Extracts from his report, published in the Sunday Times this weekend, revealthat Fernando described Gupta’s CBI statement as “inadequate and untested”and believed that there were “infirmities which rendered his statementimpossible to be acted upon”.”In my view, the inquiry held by me has a higher evidentiary value than themere statement of Mr Gupta. His statement lacked precision,” he argues,pointing to the failure to state where the conversations took place, wherethe money was handed over to de Silva and whether it had been handed over incash or otherwise.”On the other hand, I saw the two cricketers, I heard them giving evidence,and they also indicated their willingness to answer any question put by me.”De Silva admits to having established a relationship with Gupta andidentified him from a photograph during his interview. Ranatunga was not socertain, saying that he might have met Gupta, but he was not sure that hecould remember the face.Describing Gupta as a person with “an immense knowledge of cricket”, DeSilva reveals that he first met Gupta in India, but was not introduced tohim by Manoj Prabhakar, as is alleged. The first meeting was apparentlycasual and after that Gupta would sometimes phone de Silva in Sri Lanka.He categorically denies having agreed to under-perform or having acceptedmoney, claiming: “We did not perform as a team. We did not produce the goodsand that was the reason for our debacle.”De Silva does though refer an incident, “in 1996 or 1997,” when he wascontacted by Gupta and asked to meet an associate, who was trying toorganise a series of exhibition matches. When de Silva met this man in hishotel room the subject quickly turned to fixing the match the following day.De Silva claims to have ended the meeting immediately and contacted the teammanager, Duleep Mendis, who then ordered a team meeting to warn the players.Mendis has confirmed to Fernando that de Silva had approached him.After that incident, De Silva says: “Every time he called I used to say,’please don’t call’, because I had a little bit of doubt. I just wanted to tryand keep away from him.”Ranatunga has vehemently denied the allegations all along, which he arguedwere “based entirely on the wholly uncorroborated evidence of aself-confessed rogue”. In a characteristically abrasive letter shortly afterhis interview, he described the allegations as “patently ridiculous”, arguingthat Gupta’s statement was riddled with logical shortcomings.Most colourfully, he alludes to the apparent failure to set a price beforethe alleged under-performance, stating: “Even Judas Iscariot agreed upon aprice of 30 pieces of silver before he betrayed Jesus Christ!”In Fernando’s report Ranatunga explains away his and de Silva’s failure(both batsmen scored an aggregate of 33 runs in their four innings) as theresult of poor umpiring: “Both of us were two batsmen only. The umpiring hadbeen terrible. So I was one of the victims on this particular one.”After the disastrous tour the Sri Lanka board launched an internal inquiry,later called the Skanda Kumar report. The report, which was highly criticalof Ranatunga’s captaincy and de Silva’s attitude towards other team members,stated that: “There is evidence that a bookmaker of Indian origin hasattempted to make his presence felt in the national cricket scene.”Ranatunga denied to Fernando any knowledge of the bookmaker referred to inthe report.Fernando’s final report will now be analysed by the Sri Lankan board. Noofficial statement has so far been given and it is not known as to whetherFernando has recommended a general inquiry into matching fixing in SriLanka.