[i]” I don’t buy the argument that says that if a player is involved, it will only because he has been coerced against his will: there are protections in place to prevent that, particularly as part of the ICC’s programme. If a player has done what is alleged, it will be for personal financial gain – period[/i]

I think you have perhaps simplified that a little. I am not saying that all players are doing it because they are coerced against their will. But to say it can only be for financial gain, period, is wrong.

There are many circumstances where the protections in place to prevent players being coerced would not work. I will give two examples (I am not saying they apply in this case):

1. A male player who is married with children was to be filmed/photographed in a compromising situation by the people trying to get the player to do something.

2. The people trying to get a player to do something may know that the player is Gay and have proof. The player may have a family, have not told their own family, it could be against their religion.

Both of the above the player would be unlikely to want the authorities to get involved and if by agreeing to do something that is relatively minor and unlikely to be detected may be willing to do it to keep their ‘secret’, secret.

As I say I am not saying this applies to this case but I understood what you wrote as applying in general as in that these things are always done for financial gain – perhaps I misunderstood you?

I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog …