Lack of evidence - A rogue's defense

Those familiar with the politicians in India know that even when confronted with unassailable facts they claim that there is no proof and are hence innocent. A host of sportsmen including cricketers when caught cheating has adopted this ploy.

 

For example, the whole world knows about Asif's drug problems, however, his lawyer is going to argue that since the A and B urine samples reported two different quantities of the banned drug nandrolone he is innocent. (A technicality, nevertheless it will save Asif's career).

 

Mushtaq takes a similar tack. Despite the fact that the Quayyum Report found him guilty of match fixing and associating with gamblers he claims:

 

'Wherever you go in the world you need evidence to make accusations, and when you don't have any evidence you cannot assume any wrongdoing. I am a very satisfied man. I never associated with gamblers and never want to.'

 

To show how blatant his denial consider this, the ICC has asked ECB to make sure that Mushtaq abides by the code of conduct also takes an anti-corruption course. The ICC has also reserved the right to study his mobile telephone bills.

 

I wonder if this is not clinching evidence then what else will stand up to these rogues exacting standards.