Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Richard]

Any defence would have to be along the "misheard" lines, not "nothing was said" ones.

 

[RhyZa]

But mostly a good dose of common sense and logic. Look at the video, look at the reaction of Symonds and the Australian players, use your brain and ask why the hell would the Australians lie about something so bloody serious as racism? Why wouldn't you make the allegation against a better player, like Tendulkar or Laxman if you were lying and doing it for the sole purpose of getting someone banned? Why wouldn't you do it in the first Test?

There is no bulletproof evidence that Harby said it, but if you use your brain it's pretty clear what happened.

.. or misheard.

Innocent until proven guilty. Welcome to a democracy.

 

[jeevan]

Interesting development here



It does look like he relied on just the word of the accuser.

Maa ki or monkey. What a ridiculous controversy.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Bhajji needs to take that to heart.

It says four players, but goes on to name three (Symonds, Clarke and Hayden).

 

[jeevan]

Any defence would have to be along the "misheard" lines, not "nothing was said" ones.

Need precision in this matter. Harbhajan's own statement to the public is along the lines of 'didnt say anything racist" and not "didnt say anything".

 

[Salamuddin]

But mostly a good dose of common sense and logic. Look at the video, look at the reaction of Symonds and the Australian players, use your brain and ask why the hell would the Australians lie about something so bloody serious as racism? Why wouldn't you make the allegation against a better player, like Tendulkar or Laxman if you were lying and doing it for the sole purpose of getting someone banned? Why wouldn't you do it in the first Test?

There is no bulletproof evidence that Harby said it, but if you use your brain it's pretty clear what happened.

Nope. For anyone using their brain and on the outside its impossible to detremine what was said in that situation.

And merely looking at the reactions of players is dumb....given that Symonds always looks pi$sed off when someone hits him for a few runs.

And given the prior history between Harbhajan and the Australian players, as an impartial adjudicator I'd want a lot more than just the testimony of Australian players in indicting Harbhajan.

Proctor has screwed up here bigtime IMO.

 

[Richard]

pi$sed

Neither piss nor pissed are filtered, Sal. Though they did used to be (:****ed: used to result when you were trying to post ), but not any more.

Proctor has screwed up here bigtime IMO.

Agreed.

 

[Perm]

sideshowtim, as I said in the Official Tour thread, why must your judgement be clouded so much whenever Australia is involved? You can't ban a player from Test cricket on the basis of "He-said, no he-said". As somebody else said, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[social]

sideshowtim, as I said in the Official Tour thread, why must your judgement be clouded so much whenever Australia is involved? You can't ban a player from Test cricket on the basis of "He-said, no he-said". As somebody else said, innocent until proven guilty.

Why?

Weight of probability is used in civil courts around the world everyday.

Remember OJ? How do you think they convicted him

 

[Smudge]

Remember OJ? How do you think they convicted him

Ummmm, they didn't.

Worst example ever? I think so.

 

[Perm]

Why?

Weight of probability is used in civil courts around the world everyday.

Remember OJ? How do you think they convicted him

Too young to fully remember the OJ Simpson case, but I'm sure there was a lot more evidence than somebody saying "You killed them" and OJ replying "No I didn't", therefore leaving the judge to decide who he wanted to beleive.

 

[social]

Ummmm, they didn't.

Worst example ever? I think so.

Convicted before a civil court and ordered to pay 60 odd million to the victims' families

In civil court, decision is based on weight of evidence (e.g. word of 3 cricketers vs 1) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (as was the case in OJ's criminal trial weher he was found not guilty)

Thankyou gentlemen, next case please

 

[jeevan]

Convicted before a civil court and ordered to pay 60 odd million to the victims' families

In civil court, decision is based on weight of evidence (e.g. word of 3 cricketers vs 1) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (as was the case in OJ's criminal trial weher he was found not guilty)

Thankyou gentlemen, next case please

BTW, there was LOTS of physical evidence in the OJ case that was key to the civil case (and should've been for the criminal case, another matter). Hair, blood, gloves, bruises on OJ, car like his driving away. So very poor example for your point.

Equivalent physical evidence in this case would've been atleast the stump mic's, and would've been more than enough.

 

[social]

BTW, there was LOTS of physical evidence in the OJ case that was key to the civil case (and should've been for the criminal case, another matter). Hair, blood, gloves, bruises on OJ, car like his driving away. So very poor example for your point.

Equivalent physical evidence in this case would've been atleast the stump mic's, and would've been more than enough.

3 eyewitnesses is enough to convict anyone

 

[jeevan]

3 eyewitnesses is enough to convict anyone

In a kangaroo court, may be.

 

[Burgey]

Nope. For anyone using their brain and on the outside its impossible to detremine what was said in that situation.

And merely looking at the reactions of players is dumb....given that Symonds always looks pi$sed off when someone hits him for a few runs.

And given the prior history between Harbhajan and the Australian players, as an impartial adjudicator I'd want a lot more than just the testimony of Australian players in indicting Harbhajan.

Proctor has screwed up here bigtime IMO.

Interesting comment to say the least. The article's also interesting because it says Tendulkar didn't hear the words said. I thought he said it wasn't said - there's a pretybig difference there.

But all I would say is, read Symonds' zinc-coloured (and apparently simian) lips mates. He looks at HBS and says "So I'm a monkey now am I?". It's pretty obvious what he heard. Harbhajan's defence has moved from (via Tendulkar at the day's press conference) "it was all friendly" to "nothing was said" (pre-hearing) to "something was said but mis-heard" (now). I mean, as a lawyer let me tell you - if you want your story to be believed, it's really best to only have one story to start with.

The prior history has nothing to do with it - ffs, look at the video mate, if you can't see Symonds and Hayden's reaction is spontaneous and seriously annoyed, then you haven't seen it. What's prior history got to do with whether they heard it or not? Or do you mean the prior history of his having said it to Symonds before when they were in India? The only thing the prior history has shown with Harbhajan is that he's a complete idiot - and it's not just this incident in Australia. Check out that wonderful video where he doesn't walk after he's bowled by Pietersen. It pretty much sums up the man's level of intelligence and, fwiw, integrity.

 

[chaminda_00]

It should be noted that in a civil case its just proven belong resonable doubt. It is only crimial cases that you are basically innoccent until proven gulity with no doubt. Can't remember the exact term though. You don't actually need video evidence (stump mic) or a independent party (umpires) to be found gulity. If one story seems more accurate then the other, then its enough to find someone gulity.

 

[Tony]

It should be noted that in a civil case its just proven belong resonable doubt. It is only crimial cases that you are basically innoccent until proven gulity with no doubt. Can't remember the exact term though. You don't actually need video evidence (stump mic) or a independent party (umpires) to be found gulity. If one story seems more accurate then the other, then its enough to find someone gulity.

Yep - but more importantly if he said it hopefully his captain and team mates have told him to pull his head in.

 

[Prince EWS]

It should be noted that in a civil case its just proven belong resonable doubt. It is only crimial cases that you are basically innoccent until proven gulity with no doubt.

Actually, the standard of proof in a criminal case is "beyond all reasonable doubt." In a civil case, it's "balance of probability" (ie. whichever account of events seems more likely).

 

[BoyBrumby]

It should be noted that in a civil case its just proven belong resonable doubt. It is only crimial cases that you are basically innoccent until proven gulity with no doubt. Can't remember the exact term though. You don't actually need video evidence (stump mic) or a independent party (umpires) to be found gulity. If one story seems more accurate then the other, then its enough to find someone gulity.

Nope. In criminal courts the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt; in civil cases it's just a balance of probability. There's always some doubt (like when DNA tests give a result that proves a secretion belongs to someone with an error margin of 50 million to 1), but most fair-minded people would agree that this isn't reasonable.

As I think I've said before, Proctor's choice of "beyond reasonable doubt" is unfortunate, because I think there are grounds for reasonable doubt, but equally I'm pretty convinced that Harbhajan did use the slur, given what we know of the case.

EDIT: What PEWS said.

 

[JBH001]

Actually, the standard of proof in a criminal case is "beyond all reasonable doubt." In a civil case, it's "balance of probability" (ie. whichever account of events seems more likely).

Interesting. Thanks for that. I did not know that (although it seems awfully subjective). However, this case is neither is it? Neither civil or criminal within the purview of the legal apparatus, despite how much we might like to pretend otherwise.

Edit/ Feck, I am wasted. Almost home time methinks.