By Jonathon Taylor, editor for Magazines Today
As a bit of cricketing tragic, I followed the career of Chris Cairns with interest. When he called time on his international career, I doubt anyone questioned that, when on the park, he’d done anything other than give his all. So when I heard his name associated with match fixing I damn near fell off me chair!
It was a radio report on the libel action Cairns took, and won, against Indian Premier League founder Lalit Modi for a 2010 Twitter comment suggesting Cairns fixed matches in the ICL Twenty20 competition. Cairns’ case was that the allegation was ‘’wholly untrue’’ and a libel which would destroy what he had achieved in a 20 year career if uncorrected.
Without exception, everyone I’ve spoken to about this trial had no idea in the world Cairns had been accused of match fixing – until he began formally defending himself.
Now you can’t blame a man for defending his reputation, especially if he’s convinced he’s been wronged, but if the defence does more damage to your reputation than the initial insult then you have to ask if it’s the wisest course of action.
The general consensus on defamation cases is that there are simply no winners; both sides end up with slurred reputations due to the nature of the trial being one big slagging match.
But if you throw enough mud, eventually some will stick and in the finest traditions of ‘where there’s smoke, there’s fire’ Cairns’ defamation suit brought to light a Pandora’s Box of goodies.
From former Indian Cricket League anti-corruption officer Howard Beer saying he had “no doubts” Cairns was involved in match-fixing, to four former team mates who testified to Cairns’ guilt, and the $100,000 paid into a Dubai bank account in 2008 for work with a rough-diamond trader’s business for which Cairns could produce no documentation.
The public airing of these accusations and insinuations did illustrate one thing very clearly – if you want to protect your good name, there’s probably no worse way to do so than with a libel suit.
If all things go well, as they did for Cairns, you win the case and get given some money for the damages incurred. But this doesn’t even come close to repairing the damage your reputation has taken, ironically, during the case taken to protect that reputation.
In his attempt to defend his name, Cairns damaged himself to a far greater extent than Modi ever did.
The other aspect is just how easy it is to overstep the mark. The online world may have given a voice to any and all, but it pays to think before you tweet, because once your words are out there, there’s no taking them back.
If someone’s really managed to tear your nightie, then the temptation to take an online swipe at them is near on irresistible, as it offers an instant retort to a perceived wrong.
But before you start gleefully hurling globs of invective, take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard and consider that you may well be held accountable for your comments.
Also these kinds of comments generally reveal more about you than they do of your subject. So either way, you’re more than likely to come out second best when you play the reputation game.
