Sir Paul, what took you so long?

Today's news that Indian bookmaker Mukesh Gupta has been asked to front up by July 1, and give evidence to back up his earlier claims of having paid players from around the world for information, is welcome.

Apparently, the head of the International Cricket Council's Anti-Corruption Unit, Sir Paul Condon, has already met twice with Gupta and discussed his claims.

He is now asking Gupta to front by July 1 and provide formal evidence and be available to present that both inside and outside India.

Now we are getting to the nub of the matter.

But, in a society where people accused are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, the time between Gupta's unsubstantiated claims to the Indian police and this demand has been too long.

The implications have been serious for players named: Martin Crowe, Brian Lara, Alec Stewart, Mark Waugh and Dean Jones, to name a few.

The players named have been tarnished, possibly forever, by the suspicion that now hangs over them and so many of the games that have produced results regarded as being even a little out of the ordinary.

A cynical view would be that the just-completed meeting of the ICC demanded that Condon play the Gupta card once and for all and rid the game of the stench emanating from what has become a gangrenous limb.

If the ICC didn't make the demand, it certainly should have.

From the time Gupta's remarks were made, there should have been a much more rapid response to his claims.

The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but there has been no excuse for the amount of time taken here.

It may be that Gupta fronts and provides evidence that backs each and every one of his claims. So be it.

At least the facts will be clear and action towards much more complicated legal hearings can begin.

But the way things have gone so far, the only thing lacking in the proceedings has been an available Australian marsupial to preside over a court that forever bears its name.

If Gupta doesn't front, then some serious questions will have to be asked of the terms of reference of the entire process by which this investigation has been done. And that Gupta's claims were allowed to be given such weight.

No evidence was provided in the Indian Police report to substantiate his claims regarding the players named.

It is interesting that Condon has been reported as saying that while he is concerned that some problems are still occurring in games there will be no names of players announced who are suspected of being implicated.

That has been consistent with the view of this columnist since the former Pakistan coach Javed Miandad made utterances about the New Zealand tour earlier this year. Utterances which have since been claimed to have been the subject of mis-reporting.

Accusers should provide evidence to match their claims or run the risk of being suspended themselves for bringing the game into disrepute.

"There will be no naming and shaming. No one can play fast and loose with the laws of defamation," Condon said in The Times today.

Where does that leave the players who have already been named?

What protection have they been given from the laws of defamation?

And if Gupta doesn't produce the goods on July 1, where does that leave all the investigations being carried out by most of the national associations of the players named by Gupta?

What of the cost of those investigations, presumably being borne by those countries who would probably be far happier spending the money involved in coaching, marketing or development?

The blood-letting to cricket has been too expensive so far, both in monetary terms and in image.

July 1 now has to be a significant date in the history of the whole sad saga.

If Gupta says 'yes' then the cricket world will wait with bated breath to hear the evidence to back the claims he has made against players.

If Gupta doesn't then the egg on the faces of some recipients at the prosecution level of this exercise is going to make omelette making, at a personal level, easy for a considerable period of time.

© CricInfo