KARACHI: Suspended fast-bowler Mohammad Amir has said that he did not intend to violate the International Cricket Council (ICC) tribunal’s orders, which stipulates that participation in a friendly match is an offence, and claims it was all a misunderstanding. Amir featured in a practice match at the Pindi Stadium, Rawalpindi this week despite a ban from all cricketing activity until a verdict was reached on his spot-fixing case.
The ICC, following reports of Amir playing the match, expressed discontentment and sought an explanation from the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB).
The three-man ICC tribunal which heard the case of the suspended trio, that also includes former captain Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif, has withheld the ban on the players until the hearing scheduled for February 5.
However, the 18-year old pacer said he did not intentionally violate the ban. “It was just a friendly game and was not a PCB-organised event,” Amir told The Express Tribune. “If it is an offence then it happened due to sheer misunderstanding as I did not intend to violate the order.”
Amir claims that he was unaware that he was even banned to play any club game and denied reports suggesting the PCB was involved. “The PCB wasn’t involved at all so I thought I could play in it.”
PCB questions Amir
Meanwhile, the PCB has contacted the fast-bowler to seek an explanation over the violation of the tribunal orders. “Yes, the PCB has contacted me to seek an explanation from me,” said the fast-bowler while refusing to give further details of his answer. “I gave them my version and cannot give further details of it.”
‘Amir apologised’
Meanwhile, a PCB official said Amir had apologised for his actions. “Amir apologised for the violation and explained that he was not aware of the limitations of his ban,” said the official.
However, Amir neither accepted nor denied that he apologised for his appearance in the match.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 27th, 2011.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ