Could the ICC be creative?

It now seems obvious that the ICC will let the BCCI play the dollar card. Sorry, that should read "non-political-interference-in-sport-even-though-sporting-sanctions-were-applied-against-south-africa-but-thats-ok-because-the-government-in-south-africa-was-white-and-all-white-men-are-evil-and-must-be-punished" card.

It's highly unlikely that Zimbabwe will be stripped of anything.

Could the ICC be clever and create a new class of membership to sideline the crooked Zimbok administration?

Zat wrote:It now seems obvious that the ICC will let the BCCI play the dollar card. Sorry, that should read "non-political-interference-in-sport-even-though-sporting-sanctions-were-applied-against-south-africa-but-thats-ok-because-the-government-in-south-africa-was-white-and-all-white-men-are-evil-and-must-be-punished" card.

It's highly unlikely that Zimbabwe will be stripped of anything.

Could the ICC be clever and create a new class of membership to sideline the crooked Zimbok administration?

They could create an 'A' Division- possibly comprising Zim, Bangladesh, Kenya and maybe Ireland. They could play each other and, possibly the 'A' sides of the test-playing countries.

That'd be one way of doing something. Zimbabwe Cricket is beyond a joke.

The sheer hypocrisy of some people is beyond this world. When Sri Lanka was pursuing anti-tamil people policies and creating issues for LTTE to feed on, there was no issue. Democratic clampdown by army in Bangladesh is also Ok. Oh yeah, racism in selection policies is Ok in SA, Dictatorship and human rights in Pakistan till now was also Ok, but Zim should be banned because Mugabe is evil? Is applying sanctions on Zim just to protest Mugabe going to help the poor helpless citizens there in any way? On one hand we have NATO or Pan-American forces pampering dictators in Pakistan and on other giving hot pursuits in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba etc. preferably because the material, oil and resource exploitation was easier? What gives? How did boycotting nations like Iraq at all levels help the people? It only cut them off from the world and increased their hungry and the poor deprived lot and left them at the mercy of thir rulers.

Banning Zimbabwe on political high moral grounds is not the solution. Any reduction in status in ranks or ban should be taken in view of their degrading sports infrastructure and performance and in line with steps needed to help make it better. It can only be made vis a vis actions of the board and any causes the players have against it.

Taking political high grounds is as hollow and hypocritical as they come. Sporting sanctions against SA hardly worked and ultimately it was for the people led by mandela to kick off apartheid. Banning Zimbabwe is not going to make Mugabe wake upto his sins. Only severe political movements from UN and Zimbabwean people will.

If people are so dissed off at Zimbabwe because of Mugabe then perhaps they should be sending in the armies to take care of the Mugabe problem and do something about it than add to the poor lip service for the state and depriving their people all the more. And this holds not just for sporting fields but in all spheres.

Blaming BCCI by playing 'the dollar card' is as hollow as anything. There is no dollar to be earned off Zimbabwe for BCCI as no one is interested in seeing them play in India. If the ICC is convinced banning Zimbabwe is the right way then they should put it to vote and people here should not be writing 30 pages and reams of post blaming BCCI for it.

Batman wrote:The sheer hypocrisy of some people is beyond this world. When Sri Lanka was pursuing anti-tamil people policies and creating issues for LTTE to feed on, there was no issue. Democratic clampdown by army in Bangladesh is also Ok. Oh yeah, racism in selection policies is Ok in SA, Dictatorship and human rights in Pakistan till now was also Ok, but Zim should be banned because Mugabe is evil? Is applying sanctions on Zim just to protest Mugabe going to help the poor helpless citizens there in any way? On one hand we have NATO or Pan-American forces pampering dictators in Pakistan and on other giving hot pursuits in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba etc. preferably because the material, oil and resource exploitation was easier? What gives? How did boycotting nations like Iraq at all levels help the people? It only cut them off from the world and increased their hungry and the poor deprived lot and left them at the mercy of thir rulers.

Banning Zimbabwe on political high moral grounds is not the solution. Any reduction in status in ranks or ban should be taken in view of their degrading sports infrastructure and performance and in line with steps needed to help make it better. It can only be made vis a vis actions of the board and any causes the players have against it.

Batman, we've covered most of this in the Zimbot thread.

But this is a joke

'Any reduction in status in ranks or ban should be taken in view of their degrading sports infrastructure and performance and in line with steps needed to help make it better. It can only be made vis a vis actions of the board'

Because you know very well the whole reason Zim cricket is farked is because it's cash is being syphoned off to Mugabes bank account whilst at the same time he's raping his country.

Therefore Zim cricket is linked with the despot in charge of the country. There are good enough cricketing reasons to throw them out. What is different between the ban on SA and a ban on ZIM?

The difference is this is 2008 and India need the blood money Zim vote.

Spot on Lever. I totally abhor this 'buh-buh-but w-what'sss h-hap-p-pened bef-f-f-f-f-f-fore now?' argument.

Batman wrote:The sheer hypocrisy of some people is beyond this world. When Sri Lanka was pursuing anti-tamil people policies and creating issues for LTTE to feed on, there was no issue. Democratic clampdown by army in Bangladesh is also Ok. Oh yeah, racism in selection policies is Ok in SA, Dictatorship and human rights in Pakistan till now was also Ok, but Zim should be banned because Mugabe is evil? Is applying sanctions on Zim just to protest Mugabe going to help the poor helpless citizens there in any way? On one hand we have NATO or Pan-American forces pampering dictators in Pakistan and on other giving hot pursuits in Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba etc. preferably because the material, oil and resource exploitation was easier? What gives? How did boycotting nations like Iraq at all levels help the people? It only cut them off from the world and increased their hungry and the poor deprived lot and left them at the mercy of thir rulers.

Banning Zimbabwe on political high moral grounds is not the solution. Any reduction in status in ranks or ban should be taken in view of their degrading sports infrastructure and performance and in line with steps needed to help make it better. It can only be made vis a vis actions of the board and any causes the players have against it.

Taking political high grounds is as hollow and hypocritical as they come. Sporting sanctions against SA hardly worked and ultimately it was for the people led by mandela to kick off apartheid. Banning Zimbabwe is not going to make Mugabe wake upto his sins. Only severe political movements from UN and Zimbabwean people will.

If people are so dissed off at Zimbabwe because of Mugabe then perhaps they should be sending in the armies to take care of the Mugabe poblem and do something about it than add to the poor lip service for the state and depriving their people all the more. And this holds not just for sporting fields but in all spheres.

Blaming BCCI by playing 'the dollar card' is as hollow as anything. There is no dollar to be earned off Zimbabwe for BCCI as no one is interested ins eeing them play in India. If the ICC is convinced banning Zimbabwe is the right way then they should put it to vote and people here should not be writing 30 pages and reams of post blaming BCCI for it.

OK. So we fark the politics and look purely a cricket:

These good enough reasons for you, to demote the Zimbots?

.

It seems interesting that people seem to not differentiate between cricketing reasons and political reasons, and yet the two are so intertwined that that is the sole reason why people want Zimbabwe removed from full member status.

1. The side is so inadequate that I reckon on the Irish side so woefully smashed today by the Kiwi's would give them a run for their money.
2. The current players are paid so minimally that it is riduculous compared to what money is paid in via the ICC
3. The ZC gets millions every year, which as we all know has been the subject of financial regularities. It is also known that the report was never puclished by the ICC. I'm guessing due to the fact that the whole farking lot is residing somewhere in the caribbean with a 10 digit account number.
4. Over the past few years ALL of the best players have been run out of the game for whatever reason, and also run out of their own country.
5. Due to a combination of points 1,2,3 and 4; The whole game in Zim is a vast desolate whole of nothingness. To put it simply it is absolutely farked. Those who say by demoting them from full status would harm the game there, know fark all about what is going on there. No school cricket, no club cricket, the international side is a joke, no funding, in fact minimal number of games at all. They are hardly even a cricketing nation at present. So demote them, keep their handouts in a nice account until Mugabe gets hopefully a sharp hot rob through the eye and into his sick farked up brain, THEN promote them to full stauts again once that investment has gone back in.

All of these are perfectly viable CRICKETING reasons brought about by the current ZC being run and destroyed by the current incumbants within the ZC, whether they be Mugabe's henchmen or not.

Now if these reasons are not good enough cricketing reasons alone for Zim to lose full status then I do not know what is!

All of these points are of course due to the political situation in Zim, however they are also purely cricketing reasons which the ICC should consider.

Shame that the BCCI sprout that it would be no good for Zim cricket if they lost full status, I think you'll find that they are only interested in their own status and that extra vote they get. Which IMO is actually worse than them just being ignorant fools!

Batman wrote:The sheer hypocrisy of some people is beyond this world.

Banning Zimbabwe on political high moral grounds is not the solution.

Correct, the Indian hypocrisy on the SA issue is beyond belief.

And even just if we take political reasons throughout the 2 threads, no one who is playing suck up to the BCCI has yet given any reasons why a ban on SA was valid whilst a ban on ZIM for political reasons is not...

JKLever wrote:And even just if we take political reasons throughout the 2 threads, no one who is playing suck up to the BCCI has yet given any reasons why a ban on SA was valid whilst a ban on ZIM for political reasons is not...

Because SA has a large Indian community but Mugabe has run all the Indians out of Zim?

the sa situation was radically different. south africa

a) didnt allow non-whites to play in their team
b) didnt play against non-white nations
c) refused to play against teams that included any non-whites

if south africa still practised that it could not play against a single test nation. zim does not qualify for any of those

24 hours, and that's the best you can come up with? Sorry, you're still a WUM.

The One wrote:the sa situation was radically different. south africa

a) didnt allow non-whites to play in their team
b) didnt play against non-white nations
c) refused to play against teams that included any non-whites

if south africa still practised that it could not play against a single test nation. zim does not qualify for any of those

So TO, I'd be interested if you would actually respond to all the cricketing issues at present in Zim. Its only two posts up!

Or because I've actually set out purely cricketing reasons for them to be demoted from full status you have no comeback?

The One wrote:the sa situation was radically different. south africa

a) didnt allow non-whites to play in their team
b) didnt play against non-white nations
c) refused to play against teams that included any non-whites

if south africa still practised that it could not play against a single test nation. zim does not qualify for any of those

A. Incorrect
B. Incorrect
C. Incorrect

All of these were changed long before the abolishment of apartheid.

Just to be a bit mischievous and controversial, I might suggest that:

racism is only seen as racism when it's whites against blacks.

sexism is only seen as sexism when it's men against women.