The point was your analogy to a criminal or other legal process. The analogy is clearly wrong and misplaced as the two scenarios and processes are fundamentally different. Therefore, as I said earlier, the rigour that usually applies in the judicial context has no hope of applying here. Therefore seeking to support this decision by reference to judicial processes is mistaken, at best. It was also mistaken because it appealed to a skill set that Procter does not possess, either by expertise or by experience.
Eh? I wasn't making an anology to a specific judicial process only that the same standards of evidence gathering, legal process, etc. would apply.
There are a ton of examples where someone of legal standing (who isn't a lawyer) is called upon to arbitrate between two aggrieved parties. It's treated as if a legal process but it's eminantly challengeable. Small scale disputes here are handled by local council members between residents for example. The hearing is set up as per a legal process and the results are legally binding but the person arbitrating doesn't not necessarily have legal training. The persons can bring lawyers who may then question the ruling or appeal to a higher court to affect the legislation being used in the ruling but either way, there's not necessarily someone with legal training involved. Same with just about an internal review/arbitration. Police internal reviews, for example, have no qualification required other than a Police background to administrate. Proctor's position is limited legally which means it doesn't require legal training but would require an extensive knowledge of cricket in general, administrative procedures, etc. Something he amply covers.
Furthermore, it needs to be clarified what is meant by 'experience in the field'. Basically, what experience? And, which field?
Experience in arbitration on cricket matters? Proctor, whether you agree with his decisions or not, is well qualified as he's been a match referee for many years now.
Therefore, it sadly may well (and should imo) come down to lawyers due to the severity of the charge and the complete lack of corroborating evidence (besides the word of players who undisputably have a vested interest in the outcome). As I said, I think your defense of the decision rather weak, and Harbhajan certainly has considerable grounds for believing himself hard done by (even if he did mouth a racial slur at Symonds).
It's not a defense of his decision as much as acknowledgement of reality. This system of arbitration is applicable in a wide variety of contexts so whether you agree with it or not, it's everywhere. As it happens, these sorts of processes can be (and should be able to be) challenged legally. I'm just reacting to peoples' assertions that the sort of evidence presented isn't good enough because there was no recording of what he said. Well, actually it is and that sort of corroborative evidence is just fine in even a criminal context and was obviously good enough to satisfy the conditions to the charge that Proctor had to apply. It's not as if the BCCI has no further recourse if they believe there are wider issues that need to be addressed, just like any arbitration process. Like I said, Proctor just applies the rules and looks for fairly limited types of info to support a charge.
If BCCI wants the rules changed or any aspect of satisfactory evidence, etc., let them fight it out in the proper forum because this one, owing to the fact that Proctor isn't a judge, can't effect change in legislation, etc., this ain't it. I find it somewhat difficult to believe that the BCCI had no opportunity to address these sorts of things when the rules themselves and match referees were enacted. The persons who created these rules had a vested interest in ensuring that they hold up to legal scrutiny as far as they can otherwise every decision would get referred upwards.
I don't think he should have been banned either but the assertion that the corroboration of five witnesses, even notwithstanding the fact they play for the same team, isn't enough without a recording of some sort is rubbish. If any legal process relied solely upon objective evidence to establish an offence, the already pathetic conviction rate for ***ual assaults would probably halve at least.
Nor, better still, have I ever needed to.
