NEWS
SCHEDULES
COLUMNS
PREVIOUS TOURS
OTHER SPORTS
STATISTICS
INTERVIEWS
SLIDE SHOW
ARCHIVES

Cronje's June 21 testimony - the post lunch session

Prem Panicker: All in all, a rather disappointing session, this. There are no real details, no probing into the events mentioned. What we have got thus far has been a rephrasing of his own statement of Thursday last, nothing more, nothing less.

Regrettably -- and this being an Indian site, we are looking at it from an Indian point of view -- even the Azhar angle was not probed on cross examination. The questions that needed to be asked where: Did Azhar give any indication of knowing what Gupta wanted to talk to Cronje about? Did Azhar at any point subsequently refer to the incident and ask Cronje about it (as, you will notice, he says Salim Malik did, implying that Malik knew what John wanted to discuss with Cronje).

The only thing, on that particular aspect, is that Cronje says Azhar introduced him to Mukesh Gupta, as a friend. And Azhar for his part denies that he knows any Mukesh Gupta.

In other words, we are right back where we started from. And with that, we will be shutting down for now, back at 1730 IST.

Okay, here we go again -- the post lunch session at Cape Town, with Cronje on the stand responding to questions.

A problem with the live radio link to SA caused us to miss the first few minutes of the post lunch session. We are now picking up, live.

Since when have you been involved, since turning professional?

Cronje: Since I started coming to the subcontinent. On several occasions, you have someone come up to you jokingly. It would be wrong of me to name anybody, since I do not have proof.

Prem Panicker: Uh oh, here we go again -- a teaser, followed by the withdrawal. Hansie obviously is saying players in the sub-continent had approached him, "jokingly" or otherwise, but he can't take names. Right!

Cronje: Until April 7, I didn't know that betting was not allowed in India. The talk in the subcontinent is, from what I gather, about forecasting of the match, if not fixing.

Till the 11th of April I was fighting within myself that I had lied to the baord. I was trying to say in the statement was that it was four matches that I spoke to players to fix games. I spoke to Gibbs and Williams. I want to make it clear that Strydom and Boje were not involved.

Prem Panicker: At this point, I wish someone would ask Cronje this: Are you aware of what spread-betting means? If yes, are you aware that it involves the betting on various little factors within the game, as opposed to the overall result? If yes, would the knowledge of how many runs a batsman will make, who will bowl the first spell, how many runs he will go for, and such help bookies adjust odds on the spread? If yes, would you say that "forecasting" is in effect helping bookies adjust their spread? If yes, have you ever indulged in that -- notably, for instance, when you told the bookies how many runs Gibbs and Boje would make, or that Crookes would bowl the first spell?

What about the fifth Test?

Cronje: I was trying in my statement to deal with the five one-dayers of which I have been accused.

Were you trying to cover for the players?

Cronje: Not only the players but for myself as well. I repeat that even though we agreed to fix the match we still played to our full potential. I testifed that I spoke to some players before the Test.

You spoke of the need to come clean, what did that mean?

Cronje: I realised that it was affecting other players and their careers. I didn't want that to happen.

When did you decide eventually to come clean?

Cronje: I consulted my legal poeple in Cape Town.

Was this some time ago?

Cronje: Yes, I took legal advice, and then spoke to David on April 12th but I was untruthful to him

So it wasn't an attempt to come totally clean?

Cronje: No, I realised it had gone too far to fit in the 7 pages of my hand-written testimony.

Prem Panicker: Does this mean there is more, that he hasn't told us? What is it he hasn't said? And who limited him to seven pages anyway?

At this point, Cronje's lawyers, led by Michael Wallace, are arguing that it is irrelevant to ask Cronje for the kind of information the court has been wanting -- about when he decided to come clean, what the motivation was, what steps were followed, whether the typed statement read out on Thursday last was complete, and so on.

Cronje: I was covering up for Gibbs. I realised that I was putting him in a very difficult position. I have said in my testimony that it was not the right thing to do.

Would you have done so had Gibbs not spoken to the commission?

Cronje: I can't answer that one. I don't know.

Prem Panicker: "I don't know"? I would at this late stage have expected Cronje to say that he would have come totally clean anyway. Here, he is not that certain -- which leaves us with the impression that had Gibbs not spilt his guts before the Commission, Cronje may well have hidden facts. That in turn brings up a question -- what else is Cronje not telling, simply because no one else has done a Gibbs and done the full monty before Edwin King?

Have you spoken of fixing with other players, have you had any such discussion with Austrlian players?

Cronje: No.

Have you seen any Aussie player indulging in anything?

Cronje: Yes, I saw Warne being accused by that woman. (laughter fills the courtroom).

I said that in 1995, Kepler told me that some players were approached. I did not say any Aussies were involved. I read a report that said that Mark Waugh and Warne were offered money. I never tried to indict Australia or say that there was a cover up.

Was it the same John?

Cronje: I didnt say that it was the same man. I have not seen their description of this man.

So you did keep abreast with irregularities in the cricket world?

Cronje: Yes I did. I haven't seen their testimonies or description of the man. I only guessed it was the same man because it was in the same time frame, the same opponent and same name.

Prem Panicker: Sorry to be a gripe, but do you, like me, get the feeling that there is a lot of meaningless questions being asked, and meaningless responses given, while all the hard questions are being given the go-by?

Cronje: I do not remember exactly when Kepler told me about the Test, I think it was about the Karachi Test match. We were told that Warne and Mark Waugh were approached by Salim Malik to throw the game. The first time I was aware of match fixing was when the Warne episode happened.

How did you react to the Warne episode, given the passion and love you had for the game?

Cronje: There were times when I took money and did nothing in return, took money and played along without affecting the match.

You are not responding to my question?

Cronje: I thought it was wrong. I didn't believe that a South African would get involved in this.

Would you like to see this removed from world cricket?

Cronje: It has been two and a half months since it came out. I think that I let my country down by talking to John the first time. I can tell you that it has effected me sub-consciously.

Didn't you think after reading about Warne and Waugh that you should have complained to the board or told everyone about it, if you were ever approached?

Cronje: Yes, I should have done that, but I didn't. It was my mistake.

I rationalised it by taking money and not doing anything in return. My great passion for my country, my teammates and my unfortunate love for money. But I have always given my all for South Africa on the cricket field. (voice choking).

Have you told everything you know about match-fixing?

Cronje: Within the terms of reference, I have.

Prem Panicker: Ouch! I thought that bit about whether Cronje would like to see it removed (presumably, the evil of fixing) from world cricket was the equivalent of a nice long hop. But this last takes the biscuit -- what does it mean, within the terms of reference I have? I would think the followup question is, do you know anything at all about match-fixing in cricket, forget all about terms of reference and suchlike bureaucratic stuff? If so, what do you know?

Tell us about the Centurion Test against England?

Cronje: Marion called me, I think he was uncomfortable talking on the phone. He came back to me later. If my memory serves me right it was a matter of three phone calls.

What did you discuss with him?

Cronje: He said that he was into the game since childhood. He was critical of me, he said that public perception was that I was too defensive, he was saying that I was having a bad time as captain. Also my batting was suffering. He was trying to have a go at me.

We were discussing the matter with Bacher, the local board representatives, and the umpires. Bacher suggested that we make it a one-day game. We stated that the sponsors were different and thus it wouldn't be possible.

I was thinking back to the Test match at Eden when we set them 265 and thought, I am not sure of the number of runs though, that it would be enough. He didn't ask me to fix the game, but he asked me to give the public something.

Did he say he was doing this so the game would be the winner and you would walk away the hero?

Cronje: No, he was trying to improve my position. At no stage did I try to contrive the game. Anyone could have won

Prem Panicker: Hang on a minute -- who is this "he" Cronje keeps talking about? Was it Bacher, or the gent on the phone? At one point he talks of the phone-man, the next minute it is Bacher he is discussing things with. Cross examination was supposed to clarify matters, here it is only leaving the issue hopelessly confused.

Maybe he was trying to get the game going and have a result that he could bet on?

Cronje: He said that he wanted to give the public something. He wanted to improve my image.

At the time my image was low, I was dull and boring and this was my chance to improve that and become a hero.

At the time, he offered 200,000 Rand to any charity I chose, or it might have been 500,000 rand, it was definitely a large sum of money. Like I said, though, it never came up again.

Prem Panicker: Someone was prepared to pay a few hundred thousand rand simply to give the public something to shout about in a rain-ruined Test? And in the process, to transform Cronje the bore into Cronje the daredevil risk taker? Who is this philanthropist, the male equivalent of Mother Teresa? Geez, this ain't a cross-examination going on, this is a romance.

You beieved that he was going to give you a gift?

Cronje: After the match, he came up to me and gave me 30,000 Rand a leather jacket.

The money he gave you, did he say what it was for?

Cronje: I thought it was for future information, I don't know, if he was buying friendship.

I was satisfied with the publicity I got, though upset that we lost the Test. My teammates were not happy about it, though, some of them are pretty lazy when it comes to fielding.

Klusener and Boucher were upset because they wanted to bat on and get higher scores. But Boucher, after seeing how close we came to winning the game, came up to me and congratulated me. By giving a pitch report, I don't understand how I could have influenced the course of the game. (Cronje and the lawyer exchange a joke, which is not clear on the audio, there is some laughter).

Did Aronstam ever ask you to contrive a result?

Cronje: No, he did try to call me before the Test in Mumbai and suggested what I should do to beat India.

Your relationship with Aronstam?

Cronje: Very good, he never asked me to contrive any results.

Prem Panicker: No, Aronstam merely gave him lots of money and a jacket for improving his own image and becoming a hero! We keep hearing 'fix a result' -- will someone please, please ask one question: Has Cronje ever influenced a player's individual performance, irrespective of the overall result? Has Cronje, or anyone that Cronje knows of, taken money to bowl badly, or throw his wicket away cheap?

Did you ever tell Aronstam that you could contrive the result of a game?

Cronje: No, I believe that it takes more than one player to contrive the game

Isn't it easy to contrive a defeat, rather than to contrive a victory?

Cronje: Yes! The only gain I got out of Aronstam was the money and the leather jacket for my wife.

And the only thing he got out of me was information, sometimes accurate sometimes not. And a shirt I once gave him as a present.

Prem Panicker: Actually, a shrewd captain, by setting the wrong field, bowling the wrong bowler, changing the batting order just that bit, can influence a result without the rest of the team being in on it. Someone please ask if that is possible?

Then you met Sanjay?

Cronje: Yes

And Cassim?

Cronje: Ever since I've been at the Wanderers, I have seen him in and around the dressing room. Offering us sweets and stuff, or the odd ticket. He did share a very good relationship with the other team members as well.

He introduced you to some actress in India?

Cronje: That is correct.

Did you see him again after that?

Cronje: Then he turned up in Durban.

Prem Panicker: Nice guy, this Cassim, useful chappie to have around, always passing out sweets and tickets and occasionally an actress -- expecting nothing at all in return, all done out of the goodness of his heart!

Cronje: Cassim introduced me to Sanjay. It was a local match on televison at the time, it was England versus Zimbabwe.

Cassim was aware of the conversation that took place between Sanjay and you? Was he taking part in the conversation?

Cronje: Yes.

Prem Panicker: Finally, one little gain: Hamid Cassim knew Sanjay Chawla, he introduced Sanjay to Cronje, more importantly, he was present at and participated in the conversation where fixing was discussed. He's been saying he is an innocent businessman, who merely helps homesick Indians get good curry and bored South Africans get sweets and actresses and stuff -- now, he gets another job definition. Which makes things interesting for when Cassim finally takes the stand before King.

Sanjay was talkin about team composition and pitch forecast?

Cronje: He was talking to me about the match against Zimbabwe, and he wanted us to get a result in his favour. He wanted information on that match. We were already in the finals. He asked if the result could be contrived. I never suggested that I would lose that game.

I didn't know that Hamid Cassim was involved with anyone else. I do know that Hamid was friendly with some Indian and possibly some Pakistani players.

Is he a generous man?

Cronje: He was always hanging around the rooms, he always offered sweets to some of the players.

He has an electronics business, has he gifted equipment to the players?

Cronje: I don't know

Do you know that Hamid was instrumental in getting SA players to play benefit matches in India?

Cronje: Yes, I was. I believe he is very friendly with a lot of Indian and Pakistan players.

Prem Panicker: Like who?

Are you aware that certain playes who came here for treatment knew Sanjay Chawla?

Cronje: Maybe.

Prem Panicker: Uh oh, now where is this coming from? Or heading to? One Indian player, definitely, has gone to SA for treatment. What is the advocate trying to suggest?

Are benefit matches very common in the subcontinent?

Cronje: Yes, it seems so. I never bet money on any game. Sanjay used to bet.

Did Cassim ever try to do more than introduce you to Sanjay?

Cronje: Hamid introduced us and then just called me and spoke to me from time to time.

The first one day game in India, did he approach you for that game?

Cronje: Sanjay called me and asked me to lose the game. I said that I would go along and would speak to some of the payers. But that was not true. I said that we would score below 220. India won the game easily. Sanjay was very upset. I told him that we would try to do something in the next game.

Prem Panicker: Hmmm... Sanjay wanted SA to lose in Cochin. Despite having 300 on the board, Sanjay lost. Yet he was upset -- which suggests that more than the result, he had bet on the kind of score SA would make.

You came in when three wickets were down, and scored 19 off 20 balls. Is that a a good score when the run chase is on? You are an attacking player.

Cronje: On the subcontinent it is difficult to hit hard immeidately, it is very difficult to get going initially.

Are you saying 19 was a good score? Were you taking singles?

Cronje: I was trying to hit as hard as I could. The infield was covered with grass, the dark ball is hard to sight. Agarkar was bowling well, was very difficult to hit him. The score should beat him.

The score should have been 335 the way SA was going?

Cronje: Gibbs played well, he hit the bowlers. In other countries you can score in the late overs, but in the subcontinent you have to get runs at the top to get going.

Gibbs had forgotten the program in mind when he was batting? You told Gibbs not to get more than 20 and Williams ot go for 50 in his 10 overs? Was Henry trying his best to give as many runs as he could? Gibbs wa batting when you came in. What did you tell him?

Cronje: I didn't take it seriously at that time. I told him that if anyone has to hit, I'll hit, you stay till the end.

Prem Panicker: There's a bit of anachronism here -- the conversation taped by the Delhi police that referred to how much Gibbs would hit and how much Williams would get was in Delhi, before the Faridabad game, and well after the Cochin game.

What were the thoughts that went through your mind when you saw Gibbs batting so well?

Cronje: I thought he had too much pride in his country to get out on purpose.

Prem Panicker: One question begs asking here -- what went through your mind when you saw the Indians fluff chances in the field, with the wicket-keeper alone miss three or four, two of them sitters off Gibbs?

Going back to 1996, explain the mood during that offer to throw the game?

Cronje: It was an inconsequential game, we were tired.

You said you thought you would take the money but do nothing? When the offer came, you discussed it at a team meeting. What are you trying to get at?

Cronje: I told Crookes in the bus, McMillan and Symcox were there.

It is unbelievable, how can a team sit down and discuss throwing a game?

Cronje: It was my fault. I took the offer to the team. It was a dishonourable thing.

Prem Panicker: Cronje's mea maxima culpa here notwithstanding, fair enough he took the offer to the team -- but why did the team then discuss it, instead of rejecting it outright and immediately?

Cronje: I am not justifying it, but I am saying that if there was ever a time to accept an offer that game was ideal for it.

You actually sat and discussed? When did you first report that incident?

Cronje: I reported it to the coach and manager.

Did the coach make an announcement to the media?

Cronje: Yes, maybe.

After how many years?

Cronje: Can't say, maybe two, maybe three years.

Cronje, you've had a long day. (some discussion, followed by an adjournment, and indications are this is probably it for the day)

Prem Panicker: I don't know about you, but today's cross examination of Cronje, by his own lawyer Malcolm Wallace, was pretty aimless.

The first rule of such an exercise would be to stay sequential, to take things in order, to probe each incident before moving on to the next, and thus to build up the story in logical sequence. Here, Wallace jumps around, from 1994 to 1999 and back to 1996 and then forward in time and then back again -- in the process, confusing the heck out of all of us.

But it needs pointing out that today's questioning was by Malcolm Wallace, Cronje's own lawyer. Will the other lawyers, who would by definition be against Cronje, be more probing? One would hope so -- otherwise, this is going to be pretty much an exercise in futility.

Meanwhile, that is it for the day -- we will see you tomorrow. Good night, all.

PART I: The morning session