It's Just Not Cricket

[ma61_turbo]

So, apparently Harbhajan Singh isn't a racist, and never has been, nor has any other Indian player. Also, Andrew Symonds, Ricky Ponting, Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke are all liars, along with Mike Proctor, the match referee. At least, that's essentially the conclusion after yesterday's appeal hearing.

Yet again, the spineless leadership of

Comments

[dragontail]

The latest according to the TV news (which I watched, being at home today and all) is that Symonds started it by calling Harbhajan "a vulgar slur" than could not be repeated. The judge said there was doubt Harbhajan actually used the words "big monkey" due to "cultural, language and ethnic barriers".

What comes of all that? Reasonable doubt, that wonderful concept that governs guilt and innocence in the western world. The judge cannot be satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Harbhajan started it - nor can he be satisfied anyone was called a monkey. The stump mic didn't pick it up... in the absence of evidence, how can you go ahead?

Knowing the world was watching, the judge did the reasonable thing: he changed the punishment. He's not saying Harbhajan is innocent, or that he acted properly. Indeed, he's saying quite the opposite. But because no one can prove Harbhajan said anything of a simian nature, he's removed the harsh penalty previously imposed.

You both know I have neither interest nor stake in cricket and the jumped-up jocks who perpetrate it on the public for six months of every year. Just bringing in the legal perspective.

[falcadore]

I understand what your saying, and maybe because of other incidents I've jumped in.

Did I hear right in that India has called for punitive punishment for the Australians involved. Corrrect me if I'm wrong, but not quilty is not to be confused with innocent.

[dragontail]

Precisely.

And yes, the Indians are not calling for retribution.

[falcadore]

Sorry but I have to ask (because I don't know) because the sentence doesn't make sense.

'And yes, they are now calling...'
or
'And no, they are not calling...'

[dragontail]

D'oh! Stupid typo!

Yes, the Indians are now calling for penalties. Sorry - my bad :)

[ma61_turbo]

Yes, they now want penalties applied against Symonds and Proctor. Laughable to be honest. It's like they've never deal with anything offensive before in their lives and can't cop it on the chin.

If anything becomes of this it will be proof enough that the ICC doesn't run the whole show, but the Indian cricket board...

[ma61_turbo]

Well, that's the first mention I've seen that Symonds started it with a "vulgar slur". But what was it? Sounds like it wasn't of racist basis. Fair enough if Symonds called Harbhajan a curry-munching towel head, but from the sounds of it he didn't. It was probably something that the Aussie team have used in the past.

I think the main issue is that CA did a deal with India prior to the appeal hearing to get the charge against Harbhajan downgraded. I don't believe the Judge has actually said that there wasn't enough evidence(there appears to be. If testimony under oath(I assume) from four players on the Australian team isn't enough, what is?) to find him guilty or not guilty. I'd have to check the news articles again to be sure, however that is the implication of what I have read.

[dragontail]

*shrugs* It may well be, buddy. You'd know more than I do, simply 'cause you care more than I do. Just wanted to pass on (what was then) the latest in the saga.

On legal stuff, tho... sworn testimony, under oath, is never enough to convict anyone of anything. How many people really take that oath seriously? I've watched more people than I care to think about commit perjury on the stand. Judges might be out of touch, but they know human nature - people can and will re-tell the truth in a light that's best for their interests. If any of our courts were to rely on sworn testimony alone, we'd all be rightly fucked.

"Vulgar slur" - that came out of the 6pm news on Channel 7, which crossed live to the FedCourt in Adelaide. Being network TV and a prime-time slot, they didn't say which slur it was.

And yes, reading on, I now see the judge was playing with a downgraded deck thanks to CA's intervention, and I understand more your disquiet. Quite rightly, you're expressing your anger at them rather than the judge. Just as a judge in a criminal case can only use the laws as written by Parliament, this judge could only extend his powers within the boundaries defined in the CA bylaws.

[ma61_turbo]

Fair enough...

I have no problem with the Judges findings, he has done his job with what he was given. I keep forgetting as well, that the stump transcript as I posted above was *not* allowed as evidence by the Indians...funny that. So what it contains had no bearing on the hearing.

I wonder if there is any record of what the "vulgar slur" is that Symonds used. I saw the footage from the hearing on the late news last night where the judge got stuck into Symonds. I guess it's getting to a point where the ICC needs to set down specifically what is and what isn't acceptable as far as "sledging" goes. This would need input from all nations as obviously what is a fairly light comment or insult for us may be much more for sub-continent nations.

Oh, and for what it's worth I'm damn certain that back in the 70's and 80's far, far worse things were said to players from the sub-continent. But you never heard them complaining....