The 'Values' of the ICC

The crux of the issue which caused the Indian team to take a stand and put the tour on hold has truly got swept under all the rhetoric which has been pouring out from every news channel and any two-bit columnist with half a keyboard.

Its not like this is the first time that India (or a sub-continent team) has faced awful umpiring. Its happened before and we have always taken it on the chin and gone on. How many times have Indian fans not groaned when the Indian captain remarks after another lost test match that 'these things happen in cricket', and maybe we should have done better inspite of poor decisions. But this is definitely the first time that the Indian team has taken such a strong stand against it. The key issue here is the fact that the Indian team has not asked for the second test to be annulled. They have asked that the umpires responsible for this embarassment of a result, should not be allowed to stand in the remaining matches.

The other main issue is that the Indian team believes there is no case against Harbhajan, and there should not have been any ban imposed on him consequently. Its clearly a scenario where a group of people feel hard done by, and are demanding justice. The fact that this group of people happens to be the Indian cricket team, the so-called most powerful cricket team in terms of financial clout, is immaterial. If this situation had happened with Zimbabwe playing against Kenya, the issue would still have been as important.

There are so many organisational faults with the ICC that its just a mystery how this body manages to keep a hold on world cricket. The very fact that even the CEO of this organisation, Malcolm Speed, is incapable of sifting through the mounds of crap and addressing the real issue, is astounding. The last thing this issue needed was for Speed to call a press conference and tell the world that the ICC will not allow a different set of rules for India. We have not asked for different rules, Mr Speed, we have asked that a different set of rules currently favouring Australia be not allowed. We have asked you for justice, Mr Speed. Does that sound like a familiar word?

I would really like to know what the responsibilities or objectives of the ICC are. Have they been written down somewhere? Do the employees of the International Cricket Council know what is involved in being a cog in the wheel that runs the global game?

In fact, they have been put up on their website. Hmm.. The ICC Mission! Values!

The ICC Mission
As the international governing body for cricket, the
International Cricket Council will lead by:

• Promoting and protecting the game, and its unique spirit
• Delivering outstanding, memorable events
• Providing excellent service to Members and stakeholders
• Optimising its commercial rights and properties for the benefit of its
  Members

How do you protect the game, Mr Speed? Why has there never been any protection to Asian teams against the boorish Aussies? Do I even need to give examples here? Why didnt the ICC step in during the tens of occasions of boorish behaviour from the Australian team - the one team that has consistently claimed to be a proponent of 'hard cricket'. But they could never take it themselves, could they? So when the Indians appeal strenuously for a catch which they believe was taken, Sehwag is suspended. But here we have two cases - Ponting's awful 'cheat of the worst kind' appeal, and the equally awful 'Fifth umpire' ruling of Clarke's catch. Where is the protection, Mr Speed? Who are you protecting, Malcolm? Sehwag and the Indian team has no integrity? Whereas Ponting does?

Excellent service to members?? Clearly, Mike Procter has a different idea about providing service to the member countries of the ICC. How can you, Malcolm, overlook the fact that Mike Procter doled out a three match ban without a shred of evidence, except for hearsay from the Aussies? How do you provide for the selective acceptance of evidence from the Aussies, without considering that there was one other voice in the room which claims that the racist remark was not made? The person who that voice belonged to, was one of two people who were withing hearing distance during the incident, but he must have been lying, right? He isnt an Aussie after all. Why is it that your countrymen are considered to have more integrity than two veterans of the game, both with flawless records of having played the game with dignity and integrity? Is the ICC racist, Mr Speed?

'Openness, honesty and integrity' - these are some of the values espoused by your organisation. There is 'Accountability and responsibility', 'Respect for our diversity' and finally - 'Fairness and equity'. Please point out some instances of any of these values being upheld during and after the Sydney test, Mr Speed.

And with your comments equally distorting the real issues involved here, maybe its time to drop the hypocrisy and note down the real 'Values' you uphold, Mr Speed.

Radiohead's fans leave them 'High and Dry'

Social experiments are a way to understand society and social behaviours. As such, they can often lead to rather unglorious statements about our society.

So we have studies on how swearing at work can relieve stress. Maybe another study is required on how employees are affected when one of them starts relieving his/her stress by swearing loudly at meetings. Another on the impact on prospective customers/clients maybe?

Radiohead, the alternative rock band, decided on an alternative means of selling their new album, In Rainbows. They wanted their fans to decide the price at which they want to buy the album. The album was released on their website and allowed purchases for as low as 1 penny. This was an interesting social experiment which also had a possible econimic backlash to it. And unfortunately for Radiohead, and everyone who thought this was a path-breaking idea, its not quite gone as planned.

Studies show that more than 60% of the people who downloaded the album paid nothing! Only 38% paid anything at all, and the majority of these people paid less than 4 dollars - probably about a fifth of the price that would have been quoted for the album if it had been released the normal way. Kind of harsh!

On the flipside, Radiohead does get almost everything paid by a buyer since this model eliminates the label companies from the equation. This is a band which has a huge fan base of millions worldwide but when it comes to paying top dollar - i guess theres nothing like a freebie. But Radiohead was prepared for it, they knew it may all come to nothing at all. The website clearly informs the buyer that its upto you what you pay. Its a path-breaking way to connect to your fans definitely. And if this was Led Zep putting their new album out there and asking me to pay what I want for it - I would know what its worth and would pay it. I bet there were the true Radiohead fans out there too, who would know the albums worth and would pay the best they can.

With the worldwide popularity of peer-to-peer networks, and the high cost of buying music cd's, especially a new release, its hardly surprising that most people just helped themselves at the buffet. Being only a middling Radiohead fan, I guess I would have probably done the same - maybe I would have paid at most 4 dollars, the same price which Frys Electronics charged me for a brilliant collection of early Deep Purple classics which apparently no one was interested in. I found it in one of those discount bins, hidden in a huge pile of forgotten albums and collections.

But it must have hurt to think your fans dont think your new album is worth much. Radiohead now seems to have decided to re-launch the album in physical format. Possibly that haunting Thom Yorke refrain of "Dont leave me highhhhhh, dont leave me dryyyyyyyyyyy" must have come to mind more than once.