Less general, more topical; this week’s theory pertains to the ongoing question of whether former New Zealand cricket great, Chris Cairns, is guilty of the charges looming before him.
Is Chris Cairns a match fixer and, by implication, a perjurer?
To perceive Cairns’ situation from afar, his case does appear decidedly weak; the court battle in question seems to have been in progress now for half an eternity. The question therefore: why would the Prosecution show such resolve in convicting a man unless they were certain that he was guilty? Further damning to Cairns’ case is that practically every witness called to the stand is quick to implicate Cairns in this match fixing scandal.
Then there’s bloody old Lou Vincent. He is a confirmed match fixer. He’s also a piss-ant, and he’s queer-looking. He is vehement in his testimony of Cairns’ guilt – but so what, some might say, Vincent’s a dirty cheating liar, and he’s queer-looking.
Every time the media has shown Chris Cairns making his way to court, dapper in his pristine blue suit, his curly locks svelte as he struts across the pavement, his tall physique oozing aplomb from every orifice, he never appears to be under any pressure at all; so I put it to you, how could someone who has influenced the hands of so many then outright lied about it, while on trial no less, look so damned suave?
Just thinking of it though, that’s likely the facade he’s going for – the too cool to be crooked image.
I doubt I’m the first to make the association, but this prolonged court case is in fact remarkably akin to the Lance Armstrong scandal a few years back. For so many years Armstrong was resolved in his denial of cheating; yet for years they pressed him. Finally, although the doping authority could never actually prove it, they managed to hang the charge on him. (Word is he later confessed, I wouldn’t know, I was too disillusioned to notice.)
Similar to that Armstrong case, Cairns seems to know that for as long as he maintains his innocence, technically, hearsay and conjecture notwithstanding, the authorities cannot prove otherwise.
My Theory therefore, is that Chris Cairns is just like Lance Armstrong: he’s guilty, he’s just a very convincing liar.
Article by Tim Walker
Edited by Dart E Ritton-Lyre
Photography by Mash Fissure