Muralitharan a burglar,a thief and a dacoit : Bedi

[Richard]

Btw if Murali is suing Bedi because he calls him a chucker then the next man on Murali's list could be John Howard , anyways there are millions of people out there who think Murali chucks and probably Murali is just trying to send a message across to all of them by suing Bedi.

I certainly think that by dealing with someone who has gone OTT he might be able to make pretty much everyone else think very, very carefully about what they say, and quite rightly IMO.

 

[Richard]

I dont think anyone is totally convinced

Erm, probably more are than aren't.

 

[Engle]

Murli runs the risk of ' winning the battle, losing the war '
Even if he wins the case against Bedi, he would garner greater attention to his image of being the bowler with the most dodgy action in the history of the game.

 

[Richard]

That's totally impossible. That image, for those who want to see it, will always loom large.

However, what he will do is hopefully make people think twice about voicing their ill-informed opinions.

 

[honestbharani]

Daryl Harper's a hopeless Umpire though. I can't understand why the fact that he doesn't take some of the more controversial (and yes, of times silly) decisions should mean he should do more games and Hair less.

And yeah, the Indians have had an issue with Bucknor the way the Lankans and Pakistanis have with Hair. That doesn't neccessarily mean they're any of them right, though I've always said it's understandible of times for them to feel that way.

It is my point too. Look, the Indians may or may not have a point reg. their issues with Bucknor just like Lanka and Pakistan with Hair. But the point is, in some instances, it is clear why they would feel the way they do about Hair. I mentioned it in my previous post as well, sometimes they were in the right, sometimes they weren't. But it was obvious that Hair treated them with a lot of high-handedness even before the Ovalgate and what happened at Oval just put them above boiling point. The best umpires hardly ever get noticed and that is the problem with blokes like Hair, who seem to enjoy getting attention any which way they can.

 

[Richard]

I don't know about that. The best Umpire ever, Dickie Bird, was certainly noticed. It's just he was noticed for the right reasons, rather than the wrong ones. He's not the only one, either. Shep and Brent Bowden are similar, though in Bowden's case I've had reason to doubt the calibre of his decision-making more than once (howardj - I think - once said "bloody Bowden should never be allowed near any Australia game, never mind an Ashes Test").

Someone like Taufel is very different, and is noticeable only for his decision-making, which is usually excellent. Aleem Dar to a lesser extent, too.

I don't know Hair well, neither does (in likelihood) anyone on this board. So we don't really know whether he made the controversial decisions (mostly concerning Sri Lanka and Pakistan) that he did because he wanted the attention, because he saw himself as some sort of crusader, or just because he did what felt right at the time. It's unfair, I think, to pre-suppose - we have to have substantial evidence to make such accusations.

Hair was stood down because his position had become untenable, no other reason. I fully agreed that him Umpiring games involving Sri Lanka and Pakistan was no longer possible as the trust had completely gone, and in such a situation problems will arise at the smallest provocation. However, I think it's a shame he wasn't kept on to Umpire other teams, as none of them have ever had any real issues with him.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't know about that. The best Umpire ever, Dickie Bird, was certainly noticed. It's just he was noticed for the right reasons, rather than the wrong ones. He's not the only one, either. Shep and Brent Bowden are similar, though in Bowden's case I've had reason to doubt the calibre of his decision-making more than once (howardj - I think - once said "bloody Bowden should never be allowed near any Australia game, never mind an Ashes Test").

Someone like Taufel is very different, and is noticeable only for his decision-making, which is usually excellent. Aleem Dar to a lesser extent, too.

I don't know Hair well, neither does (in likelihood) anyone on this board. So we don't really know whether he made the controversial decisions (mostly concerning Sri Lanka and Pakistan) that he did because he wanted the attention, because he saw himself as some sort of crusader, or just because he did what felt right at the time. It's unfair, I think, to pre-suppose - we have to have substantial evidence to make such accusations.

Hair was stood down because his position had become untenable, no other reason. I fully agreed that him Umpiring games involving Sri Lanka and Pakistan was no longer possible as the trust had completely gone, and in such a situation problems will arise at the smallest provocation. However, I think it's a shame he wasn't kept on to Umpire other teams, as none of them have ever had any real issues with him.

well, u put it in a better way but I just tend to think from what I have seen that Hair, the umpire, likes to get some attention.... Obviously, it could well be the reverse with Hair, the person... He might be a great guy outside but that really doesn't matter here, does it? As an umpire, from what I ve seen, he seems to make some rough calls without thinking it through and has behaved in a high handed fashion a couple of times even when I have watched.... As u said, maybe they could have just banned him from SL and Pak games but really that leaves him with very few games to umpire and perhaps ICC thought that they would just be wasting money with him in that case.

 

[Richard]

TBH my thoughts were more that there aren't that many good Umpires around, and I$C$C can't really afford to dispense with someone who, when not doing games involving Sri Lanka and Pakistan, has incited little complaint.

That still leaves Eng vs Ind, Eng vs NZ, Eng vs SA, Eng vs WI, Ind vs NZ, Ind vs SA, Ind vs WI, NZ vs SA, NZ vs WI and SA vs WI... quite a bit, really, and I imagine most of those teams would prefer him than some incompetant like Harper or Howell.

 

[social]

While googling to find details or reports of the above case - stumbled on this one - Looks like Clive recently won a 10,000 Pound payout from a Sri Lankan paper for defamation.
http://www.5rb.co.uk/news/details.asp?newsid=268


Clive Lloyd obviously has a habit of winning huge payouts !!

In which case he would've finished out of pocket!

FYI, when courts award costs, the amount is also subject to arbitration. Typically, they award the "victor" about 60-70% of his actual costs.

In a case like this, it would've cost Lloyd many, many times 10,000 quid just to get to court. Once there, 10,000 pounds goes nowhere.

In other words, he's gone through all this trouble to be awarded a miniscule amount in a case no-one's heard of and he's paid for the pleasure.

Remind me not to use his lawyers as this is !@##$ off money not damages

 

[Richard]

Increasingly these days, losers of said cases are being ordered to pay payouts + costs.

 

[Matt79]

Stepping back a bit, do you think Murali will actually be able to sue Bedi? Is he suing him for his original comments "burglar, thief, etc" of several years ago, or something more recent?

Because, from my layman's perspective, to sue for libel or slander, don't you need to show that a) the statement was false or unfair, b) the person making the statement was malicious or reckless in making it.

Now the technicality I can see Bedi exploiting to get off would be that at the time he made the statement, Murali was actually breaking the rules. The fact that those rules were wrong has been discussed at length and generally agreed, but at the time Bedi made that original statement, I'm pretty certain they were the rules of the game. Can it be considered to be actionable if Bedi called him a cheat when he was actually breaking the rules that then were in place? Not fair maybe, but that would be my guess...

 

[honestbharani]

Stepping back a bit, do you think Murali will actually be able to sue Bedi? Is he suing him for his original comments "burglar, thief, etc" of several years ago, or something more recent?

Because, from my layman's perspective, to sue for libel or slander, don't you need to show that a) the statement was false or unfair, b) the person making the statement was malicious or reckless in making it.

Now the technicality I can see Bedi exploiting to get off would be that at the time he made the statement, Murali was actually breaking the rules. The fact that those rules were wrong has been discussed at length and generally agreed, but at the time Bedi made that original statement, I'm pretty certain they were the rules of the game. Can it be considered to be actionable if Bedi called him a cheat when he was actually breaking the rules that then were in place? Not fair maybe, but that would be my guess...

He said he was a cheat just days ago. I reckon he can't get off on any technicality there....

 

[Lostman]

Stepping back a bit, do you think Murali will actually be able to sue Bedi? Is he suing him for his original comments "burglar, thief, etc" of several years ago, or something more recent?

Because, from my layman's perspective, to sue for libel or slander, don't you need to show that a) the statement was false or unfair, b) the person making the statement was malicious or reckless in making it.

Now the technicality I can see Bedi exploiting to get off would be that at the time he made the statement, Murali was actually breaking the rules. The fact that those rules were wrong has been discussed at length and generally agreed, but at the time Bedi made that original statement, I'm pretty certain they were the rules of the game. Can it be considered to be actionable if Bedi called him a cheat when he was actually breaking the rules that then were in place? Not fair maybe, but that would be my guess...

seems like he already has his defense planned out, "ITS THE ICC'S FAULT"
http://content-sl.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/story/307281.html

love the line "It's not poor Murali's fault"

 

[honestbharani]

seems like he already has his defense planned out, "ITS THE ICC'S FAULT"
http://content-sl.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/story/307281.html

love the line "It's not poor Murali's fault"

can we sue anyone for hypocrisy?

 

[Lostman]

amazing what a threat of a $7 million lawsuit can do.

 

[JASON]

amazing what a threat of a $7 million lawsuit can do.

What a real tone down from a Burglar, Thief and Dacoit to not Poor Murali's fault. I Just hope Murali hires the best lawyer In India and files it in India or the best QC in England and files in England. I really want Murali to take this to court and settle it there , now more than ever.

 

[JASON]

seems like he already has his defense planned out, "ITS THE ICC'S FAULT"
http://content-sl.cricinfo.com/srilanka/content/current/story/307281.html

love the line "It's not poor Murali's fault"

I wonder if the ICC can now sue Bedi for slander ?? They would be able to File the action in British Courts for a bigger payout ...

Or wonder if they can sue Bedi along with Murali in the British Courts ...for a bigger amount....I really want this to go to court and Bedi taken down...

 

[Anil]

What a real tone down from a Burglar, Thief and Dacoit to not Poor Murali's fault. I Just hope Murali hires the best lawyer In India and files it in India or the best QC in England and files in England. I really want Murali to take this to court and settle it there , now more than ever.

I wonder if the ICC can now sue Bedi for slander ?? They would be able to File the action in British Courts for a bigger payout ...

Or wonder if they can sue Bedi along with Murali in the British Courts ...for a bigger amount....I really want this to go to court and Bedi taken down...

the question is whether bedi has anything close to 7 mil to dish out...

 

[Matt79]

He said he was a cheat just days ago. I reckon he can't get off on any technicality there....

Yeah, that makes things harder for Bedi's lawyer

 

[social]

Increasingly these days, losers of said cases are being ordered to pay payouts + costs.

Point is that being awarded costs does not actually equal the total amount spent

As an example, let's say Lloyd spent 100,000 pounds on legals and court awarded him 10000 quid damages + "costs"

The costs order is simply not to pay all Lloyd's costs

Two sets of lawyers will first have to thrash out what Lloyd should've spent as opposed to what he actually did. Generally, this figure works out to be 60-70% of amounts paid.

So in this case, Lloyd has spent 100,000 and got back a max of 80,000 (10,000 + 70,000) for "winning."

As usual, only happy parties are the lawyers.