http://blogs.cricinfo.com/robslobs/archives/2007/08/muralitharan_v_bedi.php#comments
August 15, 2007
Posted by Rob Steen 20 hours, 10 minutes ago
Muralitharan v Bedi
So it’s come, finally, to this. Muttiah Muralitharan, the first truly plausible challenger to SF Barnes as the bowler likeliest to win a Test singlehanded, has hired some extremely learned friends to file a defamation case against his most voluble and repetitious critic, Bishan Bedi. A sad week for cricket perhaps, even, arguably, for free speech, but a damned good one for those who maintain that this is one argument that has gone on for far too long.
After a decade of stoicism and cheek-turning, Murali has certainly decided he has had more than enough. The facts seem plain enough. In what was merely his latest tirade, Bedi had not only alleged that he was consciously taking advantage of that deformed right elbow and likened his action to that of a shot-putter (it’s a wonder he didn’t accuse him of taking steroids); he also insisted that the ICC had created a “monster” by allowing the Sri Lankan to continue bowling. The Sri Lankan Cricket Board stood by their man, charging that Bedi’s remarks were intended to "harm the bowler's reputation and achievements".
According to the Daily Mirror in Colombo, Murali’s manager, Kushil Gunasekara, had a series of meetings last Sunday with Sudath Perera from legal eagles Sudath Perera Associates. "We are writing a letter to Bedi,” confirmed Perera, “and if needed, he will be dragged into a court of law." Colombo's leading lawyer Romesh De Silva, the President's Counsel, is also in Murali’s corner. Although Murali is receiving support from his board, Perera and company, who have also represented former Test captain Arjuna Ranatunga, will file an independent case against Bedi without having to bother those busy little bodies at the BCCI.
If there’s one priceless advantage an ex-player has over active ones it is that their tongue is not gagged and bound by fussy and over-sensitive administrators. They can fire both barrels with something approaching impunity. There is, however, the law of the land to contend with.
Most retirees, as members of a largely convivial transcontinental brotherhood who usually like nothing better than staying nice and friendly so they can land a plum post in punditry, choose not to step over the line distancing fair comment from needless and pointless abuse. Bedi, sadly, has long been one of those rare exceptions. I wonder why. Is it really that his sense of justice and fair play has been so grievously offended (in which case, surely he had already made his views on the subject abundantly clear a dozen times over)? Or might it just be that, like so many ex-players who see their records smithereened, being a good loser is no more a part of his repertoire now than it was three decades ago?
There is a precedent for Murali, albeit not a terribly encouraging one. In 1996, Ian Botham and Allan Lamb sued Imran Khan for libel after he accused them in print of ball-tampering and being "racist, ill-educated and lacking in class": they were not successful. The jury accepted by a majority of 10-2 Imran's claims that he had been misquoted and was only trying to defend himself after admitting that he had once tampered with a ball in a county match. Branded a "complete exercise in futility" by the judge, the trial left Botham facing an estimated legal bill of £260,000 and Lamb one for £140,000.
The difference between the two cases appears to be twofold: Imran did not accuse Botham or Lamb by name; he was also contrite. George Carman QC, his heavyweight counsel, informed the jury that his client had offered an apology to Botham and Lamb, insisting that he had been misquoted, and that he had been willing to send a letter to The Times for publication, to make that apology public. “Sorry”, however, seems to be Bedi’s saddest word. Mind you, to be fair, given that his darts have been aimed with such unerring accuracy and consistency, nobody would believe him if he did express any regrets.
Now it may just be that Murali’s extremely learned friends are taking him for a ride. To my almost certain knowledge, the concept of “no win, no fee” does not yet exist in Sri Lanka. Yet at the risk of sounding hopelessly naïve, I seriously doubt they are extracting the Michael quite so blatantly as that. Murali is an icon, a national treasure, a symbol of possibility in that beautiful but benighted island, its greatest gift to the planet since the tea plantations opened for business. Given the Botham-Lamb result, why even consider recommending such a costly plunge unless the President’s Counsel sincerely believed there was a decent chance of success?
Of course nobody wants to see such a case come to court, especially those of us who recall Bedi’s maverick spirit and unmatchably gorgeous action with huge affection and heartfelt gratitude. On the other hand, if you are also of the opinion that it may be the only way to silence those bitter snipers, bring on the wigs.
But for Sean's interference (
) that'd be 15 in a row, almost threatening LA-ICE E's record.
