Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Cevno]

Yes, indeed they do. However, Harbhajan had to have known that calling Symonds a monkey was an offensive term after the ODI series.

Believe it or not, but it's that simple.

Another thing is Simple is that indian's worship a monkey god and no one admitted that it was racist even after the india tour.

 

[JBH001]

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.

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.

My point was that the evidence gathering process is usually subject to a greater degree of rigour, challenge, checking and cross checking. In this case, what we may have is a system which has a veneer of a legal process but without a similar degree of efficiency or safeguard. Something that may be inadequate to the needs and context of the present instance. And yes, I do not (and did not) deny that Procter has a great deal of experience in cricket matters. The operative word, however, is cricket matters which as I outlined earlier is the usual run of the mill of umpiring decisions and bending the rules. But I doubt he has the relevant experience or skill to deal with a case such as this. Afaik, it is the first case where a player has been found guilty of racial abuse towards another player on the field of play. A damning and serious allegation which has only been supported by the unsubstantiated word of 5 individuals of the opposing team. It is even worse when you consider that the incidents seemed to happen on the pitch or close to, but neither of the two umpires (who ought to be well in range given the location) heard a thing.

This brings me to another point. Your assumption that it is difficult to conceal lying. I dont see this as anything than what it is - an assumption that is unjustified and even sanguine. Come to that, does Procter given his administrative experience really have the skill and the expertise to filter and sift through varying accounts of what went on during a tense passage of a test match? Especially considering that rarely, if ever, do eye witness acccounts of the same thing agree? I sincerely doubt it.

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.

It depends on what the rules were originally devised to handle. Racial charges on the field of play seem to be a whole new kettle of fish (on the face of it, more seems to have been done to protect players from spectator taunts than from each other) and I would therefore not be surprised to see a whole new raft of procedures come into effect as a result of this. The corroboration of 5 biased witnessess is quite frankly suspect (and would most certainly be open to, at least, question in a legal proceeding) given the context of the situation (and dare I say it, the fact that Harbhajan is hardly a favourite of the Australians) as well as the ethos of team and mateship. And it opens up a flaw in the process that the verdict of the members of the opposing team is not open to contestation (something that will probably - I hope - be covered in the appeals process). Especially when we consider that when the incident first came to light, the first question everyone asked was "what do the umpires say?".

Let me say again, that if Harbhajan did do it - he deserves everything that comes his way. Ignorance is no excuse and he should know better. My point was that a dubious process has been followed and I see no two ways around this, and for this Procter (and the ICC, I suppose) are responsible.

 

[Johnners]

Another thing is Simple is that indian's worship a monkey god and no one admitted that it was racist even after the india tour.

Gah, don't you get it, Symonds finds it racially offensive to be called a monkey. That's almost as obvious to anyone after the ODI series in India than that edge he got to Dhoni on day 1. It doesn't matter what the Indian players think when they call him a Monkey, Symonds finds it racially offensive. Just the say as Brad Hogg probably doesn't think it's overly offensive calling an Indian a bastard, It doesn't matter what he thinks if the other player finds it racially offensive.

 

[Smudge]

Um, would have thought that's just as bad as monkey, ITBT.

Coconut = black on the outside, white on the inside.

Yep, thrown around a lot between Aussie-Indians. Not a very well known insult though.

Huge in Nunga/Koori/Murray communities too.

And popular among South African rugby commentators when describing Polynesian players....

 

[Cevno]

Gah, don't you get it, Symonds finds it racially offensive to be called a monkey. That's almost as obvious to anyone after the ODI series in India than that edge he got to Dhoni on day 1. It doesn't matter what the Indian players think when they call him a Monkey, Symonds finds it racially offensive. Just the say as Brad Hogg probably doesn't think it's overly offensive calling an Indian a bastard, It doesn't matter what he thinks if the other player finds it racially offensive.

If that's the prcedent then fine,but then only result would be to treat all abuse equally and ban all the slight abuser's too whether "it is a thing australians do"(john howard) or not.
Another way will be that every player submit a list of words he finds "offensive" and it be published on icc website.

 

[Johnners]

If that's the prcedent then fine,but then only result would be to treat all abuse equally and ban all the slight abuser's too whether "it is a thing australians do"(john howard) or not.
Another way will be that every player submit a list of words he finds "offensive" and it be published on icc website.

I think this clearly confirms that no, you still don't get it.

 

[Cevno]

I think this clearly confirms that no, you still don't get it.

so,you have not still removed those rose tinted glasses?
have you?

 

[sideshowtim]

so,you have not still removed those rose tinted glasses?
have you?

Lol @ you accusing someone of having rose tinted glasses.

 

[Top_Cat]

My point was that the evidence gathering process is usually subject to a greater degree of rigour, challenge, checking and cross checking. In this case, what we may have is a system which has a veneer of a legal process but without a similar degree of efficiency or safeguard. Something that may be inadequate to the needs and context of the present instance. And yes, I do not (and did not) deny that Procter has a great deal of experience in cricket matters. The operative word, however, is cricket matters which as I outlined earlier is the usual run of the mill of umpiring decisions and bending the rules. But I doubt he has the relevant experience or skill to deal with a case such as this. Afaik, it is the first case where a player has been found guilty of racial abuse towards another player on the field of play. A damning and serious allegation which has only been supported by the unsubstantiated word of 5 individuals of the opposing team. It is even worse when you consider that the incidents seemed to happen on the pitch or close to, but neither of the two umpires (who ought to be well in range given the location) heard a thing.

AWTA. Don't think there's been a similar circumstance.

This brings me to another point. Your assumption that it is difficult to conceal lying. I dont see this as anything than what it is - an assumption that is unjustified and even sanguine.

DAWTA. Sorta. One person lying their butt off about something might pass the bull**** test but co-ordinating several people and making sure they all lie consistently is a completely different story. In my investigative experience, the first few lies might be okay if they crooks had a bit of time to plan but as soon as the question start to diverge from the script, their stories quickly fell apart. I guess it depends on how deeply Proctor interviewed them which brings me to the next point;

Come to that, does Procter given his administrative experience really have the skill and the expertise to filter and sift through varying accounts of what went on during a tense passage of a test match? Especially considering that rarely, if ever, do eye witness acccounts of the same thing agree? I sincerely doubt it.

I know the decision was reached in an evening but I doubt Proctor waited until the end of play on day 5 to start looking into it. Still, it's possible he doesn't have the investigative experience to know what questions to ask and how but he might have. For example, he might not know exactly what a cognitive interview is but might do it by default. Who knows?

t depends on what the rules were originally devised to handle. Racial charges on the field of play seem to be a whole new kettle of fish (on the face of it, more seems to have been done to protect players from spectator taunts than from each other) and I would therefore not be surprised to see a whole new raft of procedures come into effect as a result of this.

That might be good or not. Depends. If the insistence is that there must be microphone evidence or something similar to sustain a charge and corroborative evidence isn't to be used, that would be knee-jerk, CSI effect and all that.

The corroboration of 5 biased witnessess is quite frankly suspect (and would most certainly be open to, at least, question in a legal proceeding) given the context of the situation (and dare I say it, the fact that Harbhajan is hardly a favourite of the Australians) as well as the ethos of team and mateship. And it opens up a flaw in the process that the verdict of the members of the opposing team is not open to contestation (something that will probably - I hope - be covered in the appeals process). Especially when we consider that when the incident first came to light, the first question everyone asked was "what do the umpires say?".

All decisions of this nature should be reviewed carefully. But, if it's referred to the ICC or a court of some sort and it's found that Proctor's decision was justified and that the corroboration was significant enough to sustain the charge, will you accept it? You might, many others won't.

The umpires did say something, though, "We didn't hear anything.". That's why there was the call for other evidence. And, as I said, corroboration may not prove something conclusively but it's far from worthless either. The witnesses may be biased but there would have to have be plenty of consistency in their stories for this charge to be upheld I reckon and it would have to be defensible. Proctor should know this and should also know that if he makes conclusions without enough evidence, well, he probably won't have his job for much longer, further decreasig the probability that the evidence he had was insufficient under ICC guidelines. If the BCCI is arguing that the guidelines need to be changed, whole different ball game and beyond Proctor's reach.

Let me say again, that if Harbhajan did do it - he deserves everything that comes his way. Ignorance is no excuse and he should know better. My point was that a dubious process has been followed and I see no two ways around this, and for this Procter (and the ICC, I suppose) are responsible.

You're assuming it's dubious. Many people more experienced than you or me came up with the guidelines so let's just see what happens from here before deriding the process, hmm?

And popular among South African rugby commentators when describing Polynesian players....

Isn't thart for a different reason, though?

 

[GotSpin]

This thread makes me want to throw my computer out the window

 

[JBH001]

Interesting points, Top Cat. Nice talking with you about this.

In retrospect, dubious process may be too strong a term. Inapplicable may be a better fit, I think.

Also, out of interest: given that eye-witness accounts of the same event often differ markedly, does that not mean that the Aussie players dont necessarily have to get their story dead straight? That it be right only perhaps in terms of essentials?

Fwiw though, I still Harbhajan hard done by in terms of the process followed. Its a terrible allegation to have over ones head and over ones career.

 

[Top_Cat]

In retrospect, dubious process may be too strong a term. Inapplicable may be a better fit, I think.

Possible. We'll see soon, hopefully.

Also, out of interest: given that eye-witness accounts of the same event often differ markedly, does that not mean that the Aussie players dont necessarily have to get their story dead straight?

There's no science to it in my experience. What I used to do was not only to listen to what I was being told to see consistency but also see how I was told it. If the same people use the same language, tone of voice, etc. (again, more art than science), it would raise my suspicions regarding collusion. You're right, if there's a seriously large chasm between what Harbi + Sachin was saying and what the Aussies were saying, it raises the bar (in my opinion) for the standard of evidence needed to convince that Harbhajan dd utter the phrase and so puts more pressure on the Aussies. Either Proctor is a baised idiot, the Aussies stepped up the plate and Harhajan did say it or there was reason to doubt Harbi and Sachin. Hard to say at this point.

Fwiw though, I still Harbhajan hard done by in terms of the process followed. Its a terrible allegation to have over ones head and over ones career.

Yeah it is. Second to match-fixing or perhaps even equal. I hope Proctor has got it right and his conclusion is defensible.

 

[Evermind]

This thread makes me want to throw my computer out the window

Good idea.

 

[jeevan]

Good idea.

Except for the hazardous materials in these gadgets.

 

[Stu274]

I hope the appeal is like the AFL tribunal & Harbajhan ends up with a 5 match ban instead....roflmfaro.....

 

[Laurrz]

I hope the appeal is like the AFL tribunal & Harbajhan ends up with a 5 match ban instead....roflmfaro.....

heh.. that would burn

 

[silentstriker]

Well, either Tendulkar is lying, or the four Australians are lying. Proctor might have just gone for the numerical advantage. I don't know who is right, but I don't remember anyone being banned for three matches (Gibbs was banned for two, and Lehmann for some ODIs) for being a racist. It should be said that in the previous two cases, there was audio evidence of a racial slur, where in this case its just hearsay. That doesn't mean Harbhajan shouldn't be - and I'd be happy to have the penalties increased, but I would like to know the reasoning behind Proctor's decision.

 

[Laurrz]

Well, either Tendulkar is lying, or the four Australians are lying. Proctor might have just gone for the numerical advantage. I don't know who is right, but I don't remember anyone being banned for three matches (Gibbs was banned for two, and Lehmann for some ODIs) for being a racist. It should be said that in the previous two cases, there was audio evidence of a racial slur, where in this case its just hearsay. That doesn't mean Harbhajan shouldn't be - and I'd be happy to have the penalties increased, but I would like to know the reasoning behind Proctor's decision.

ok im not saying he lied... but you do get the feeling that Tendu ... being such the nice guy he is.. isn't the greatest lier if told to lie

 

[silentstriker]

ok im not saying he lied... but you do get the feeling that Tendu ... being such the nice guy he is.. isn't the greatest lier if told to lie

I have no problem if I find out either side lying. I don't think Tendulkar is above it all, and neither are the Aussies. One side is lying, I am just wondering how Proctor decided which one.

 

[Laurrz]

do you know who the 4 aussies are btw?

Symo Hayden Clark Lee yea?