Ed Hawkins is an award-winning sports journalist who has twice been named the Sports Journalists Association's Sports Betting Writer of the Year. He recently rose to fame after the publication of his book "Bookie Gambler Fixer Spy: A Journey to the Heart of Cricket's Underworld" in which he examined the thorny issue of "fixing" in cricket matches and exposed the scale of corruption and the match-fixing that now runs rife throughout world cricket. 

On the basis of his tweets regarding suspicions of foul play in the recent series between West Indies and Pakistan, PakPassion.net sought clarification from Hawkins on the specific allegations as well his views on illegal betting and the validity of the case against the now disgraced Pakistani trio of players prosecuted for "spot fixing". 

by Pakpassion Staff (23rd July 2013)

PakPassion.net: What makes you think that the current series between Pakistan and West Indies warrants a close examination by ACSU?

Edward Hawkins:There were suspicious betting patterns on a betting exchange. A suspicious betting pattern, simply, is a flood of money wagered on an outcome just before it happens. There were some noticeable examples of this during the West Indies-Pakistan series.

Seasoned, veteran watchers of these betting markets can spot a betting pattern. They see a flow of money come into a market which is wholly out of context with the amount wagered so far. For people like this, who spend their lives watching odds and money flow on cricket matches, it is not difficult to spot. It is not an exact science. And the folk who spot these things are rational observers. In the example of the tied match between West Indies and Pakistan, a weight of cash arrived on the tie market before the start of Pakistan?s innings. 

The timing and amount was wholly out of context for this game and other Odis. There were other suspicious betting patterns involving the match odds in the 2nd and 4th ODIs. If I was part of the ACSU I would be analysing betting data in those two matches at the innings breaks and just before the last 10 overs respectively.

It is important to note that a betting pattern is not proof of corruption but a signpost for the ACSU to begin investigations. It is vital the ACSU garner betting expertise because currently they are without it. Betting data is such an incredible tool in the fight against fixing and it is not being used.


PakPassion.net: In general, how are betting syndicates affecting the results of games? If it's so well known, why doesn't the ICC act?

Edward Hawkins:It is so hard to prove. But as I said, betting expertise is something which the ACSU lack. I have said it till blue in the face. Do the ACSU really know what it means when a side is 1.57 to win a match when they should be 1.80? I doubt it. 

They are good, honest workers in the ACSU and with, no doubt, have a weight of info to sift through. If the ACSU had betting experts they would be able to cut that workload in half and focus on a smaller amount of investigations which yield results.


PakPassion.net: In your book you referred to a script that you read during the Mohali semi-final - based on this are you convinced that match was fixed? Do you feel this type of circumstantial evidence should be looked into further by the ACSU?

Edward Hawkins:Of course this match should be investigated. Statistically it was a 405-1 chance against that the script would be accurate. It is crucial that statistics are used in this manner to help the ACSU prioritise investigations.


PakPassion.net: You highlighted that no bets were placed on the no-balls bowled during the spot-fixing fiasco, because it isn't possible. Do you therefore feel the bans and sentences on the trio were too harsh?

Edward Hawkins:I don?t understand how a team of lawyers were unaware that it was not possible to bet on a no ball in the illegal markets, which, let?s not forget, was the whole context of the trial. The judge said thousands were being made in India on those bets. Not possible. How can three guys be guilty of conspiracy to cheat at gambling when there was no opportunity to cheat at gambling?

  Discuss!