Mike Atherton in the Times (subscription required) captures something of the sense of loss that many cricket-lovers will be feeling over the allegations that Pakistani players have rigged their own performances in aid of a betting scam. 'Any sport', he writes, 'is based upon the simple but crucial premise that the participants are giving of their best'; and he continues:
At the heart of everything was the knowledge that an 18-year-old bowler, a boy-man of astonishing talent, someone who only days before had lit up a ground for the right reasons, should be at the centre of allegations that, if proved correct, could finish his career for good. It was the loss of innocence, and the notion that a young cricketer could risk so much for so little, that was so profoundly sad.
Amir, remember, had spilt the guts of England's batting all over Lord's on that second morning, with the kind of bowling seen once in a generation. Now, on the final day, he walked to the pitch, head bowed, a nervous smile on his lips, to one or two boos, then silence. Just silence. A game that started so brilliantly ended in ignominy as Swann pegged back his off stump to the fifth ball he faced. A pair and the long walk back, again to silence. There could have been no worse feeling.
This is part of it, but I don't think it's the whole of it. Though the claim may raise an eyebrow (or something more impatiently dismissive) amongst those who have no interest in Test cricket, many who love the game regard it as one of the very splendours of human competitive effort, and it is the feeling of a thing of rare ingenuity and excellence being so cheaply sullied that contributes to that sense of loss.
When, therefore, Mike goes on to add that, should the players be found guilty of what is alleged against them, moral judgement ought to be 'clouded' - on the grounds of their youth, and of the influence upon them of older others, and of the difficulties of an impoverished family background - I for my part say: let moral judgement take its course, and if there are grounds for these men to be forgiven, whether immediately or in due course, so be it; but they should not further be associated with Test cricket, which needs to insist on the clearest of boundaries in this matter. The delinquents, if such they prove to be, are not permanently excluded from other fields of activity, and it isn't only their personal interests that are at stake; cricket doesn't need them or their example, however talented they may be.
More briefly put: the understanding view has its place; but a strict liability attitude towards wrecking the game of cricket also does.