Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[Prince EWS]

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.

Yeah, you'd have to assume the standard of proof would be written into the ICC laws regarding the judiciary. Perhaps not though.

 

[Bracken]

Yeah, you'd have to assume the standard of proof would be written into the ICC laws regarding the judiciary. Perhaps not though.

Actually, given the general half-arsed nature that seems to riddle the ICC, I'd assume the opposite. I'd guess at the standard being along the lines of "in the opinion of the Match Referee", or something similarly variable.

 

[Salamuddin]

3 eyewitnesses is enough to convict anyone

But none of them are impartial. That's the point you keep overlooking .

 

[pasag]

User banned and posts removed.

 

[Smudge]

User banned and posts removed.

I'm still here.


Oh, it wasn't me...

 

[JBH001]

Who has been banned?

 

[Jamee999]

Just a very racist troll. No one important.

 

[Burgey]

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).

correct. A civil standard - balance of probabilities - is 51% plays 49% - that's enough.

Beyond reasonable doubt is much, much higher, but there's no defined % - it's not like 75% consitiutes BRD. It has to be a very high level to pass the BRD test.

 

[chaminda_00]

But none of them are impartial. That's the point you keep overlooking .

The thing is in most civil type cases such as this you are unlikely to find someone impartial. Usually it is always one guys word against another. Its up judge or in this case match referee to decide which pieces of evidence is more plausable(sp). The fact that Harbhajan keeps changing his story makes it hard to believe his side of it.

The only real question mark I personally have is Porter's belief that Tendulkar was too far to hear what was being said. When he claims he heard the whole thing and nothing racist. That just seems strange to claim he could not hear it, when he said personally he heard what happened.

 

[Salamuddin]

The thing is in most civil type cases such as this you are unlikely to find someone impartial. Usually it is always one guys word against another. Its up judge or in this case match referee to decide which pieces of evidence is more plausable(sp). The fact that Harbhajan keeps changing his story makes it hard to believe his side of it.

The only real question mark I personally have is Porter's belief that Tendulkar was too far to hear what was being said. When he claims he heard the whole thing and nothing racist. That just seems strange to claim he could not hear it, when he said personally he heard what happened.

No one knows exactly what Harbhajan said in the trial so its a bit presumptious to say he keeps changing his story.......

Harbhajan is at an obvious disadvantage here because the fielding side obviously is going to have more players in the vicinity. To suggest that he is guilty beacuse three Aussies allegedly heard him use the slur whereas there are only two (possibly one ?) witnesses supporting Harbhajan's stance is just plain silly.....Proctor's gotta have more than that IMO.

 

[Salamuddin]

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.

You say prior history has nothing to do with yet you conveniently bring up an incident involving Harbhajan and Pietersen to cast aspersions on Harbhajan's character.
Well let me be equally pragmatic and point out that Michael Clarke was involved in a well publicised run-in with Harbhajan in India. Given that, As an impartial adjudicator would you be happy accepting Clarke's testimony on face value about Harbhajan without looking for some corrobative evidence ?

 

[luckyeddie]

No one knows exactly what Harbhajan said ....

You'd be surprised.......

 

[Salamuddin]

You'd be surprised.......

Well certainly not the mandarins of CricketWeb, that's for sure

 

[chaminda_00]

No one knows exactly what Harbhajan said in the trial so its a bit presumptious to say he keeps changing his story.......

Harbhajan is at an obvious disadvantage here because the fielding side obviously is going to have more players in the vicinity. To suggest that he is guilty beacuse three Aussies allegedly heard him use the slur whereas there are only two (possibly one ?) witnesses supporting Harbhajan's stance is just plain silly.....Proctor's gotta have more than that IMO.

You don't need more to have that though. That basically all that required to someone to be folund guility on the balance of probability. It might be unfair but the way the law works.

 

[Salamuddin]

Ok I'm a medical student so I'm not into the intricacies of civil law vis a vis criminal law per se.
But that just sounds WAY, WAY off to me......so if Proctor is more inclined to believe the Aussies because there are three of them versus one Indian point of view, that's enough for an indictment ??????????????

 

[chaminda_00]

Ok I'm a medical student so I'm not into the intricacies of civil law vis a vis criminal law per se.
But that just sounds WAY, WAY off to me......so if Proctor is more inclined to believe the Aussies because there are three of them versus one Indian point of view, that's enough for an indictment ??????????????

Has more to do with how accurate he felt each side of the story is then how many people claimed what. All it really takes is for one side to alter thier side of story slightly and another to have to same base througout. I doubt Proctor would have found Harbhajan gulity unless he caught him out on his claim of events.

 

[Richard]

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.

That's what's bothered me in recent times. Heck, you don't even need to be a lawyer - a primary-school teacher (or, indeed, one-time primary-school student) will be able to tell you that.

The "terra maan ki" (or whatever it is) suggestion was made (by jeevan on CW IIRR) very early on. Why anyone deviated from this I just don't understand.

It makes me think Harbhajan is almost certainly being economical with the truth, TSTL.

 

[luckyeddie]

That's what's bothered me in recent times. Heck, you don't even need to be a lawyer - a primary-school teacher (or, indeed, one-time primary-school student) will be able to tell you that.

The "terra maan ki" (or whatever it is) suggestion was made (by jeevan on CW IIRR) very early on. Why anyone deviated from this I just don't understand.

It makes me think Harbhajan is almost certainly being economical with the truth, TSTL.

All will be revealed, sooner than you think.

 

[jeevan]

Apparently the stump mic's may have picked up something after all.

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/story/333733.html

Hope it is audible enough, will be able to settle this matter once for all.
We've all been speculating way too much.

 

[Burgey]

You say prior history has nothing to do with yet you conveniently bring up an incident involving Harbhajan and Pietersen to cast aspersions on Harbhajan's character.
Well let me be equally pragmatic and point out that Michael Clarke was involved in a well publicised run-in with Harbhajan in India. Given that, As an impartial adjudicator would you be happy accepting Clarke's testimony on face value about Harbhajan without looking for some corrobative evidence ?

No, but there was corroborative evidence - that's what Symonds and Hayden's evidence was - it corroborated Clarke's. I'm not saying there's a smoking gun there, but that's what corroborative evidence is.

So what if Clarke had a run-in with Harbhajan? It's like me saying you shouldn't believe Tendulkar because he's a convicted ball-tamperer. Unless you hear the evidence, none of us can say.

But as I said before, if you change your story a copule of times, it detreacts from, rather than enhances, your credibility in any type of hearing.

I think you're right when you say the batsman will be at a disadvantage in these situations, because of weight of numbers. But you don't just look at these things in a vacuum - I can only imagine the hearing would have involved looking at the tapes, etc.

Anyway, I guess one day it will all come out. Then again, who knows?

When is the appeal hearing anyway? If it's tonight, it will be a nice way for Gilly to spend his 1st night of retirement.