Harbhajan reignites racism storm

[pasag]

Anyways this is more or less settled and I'm not really interested in this anymore, especially as it's clear we're dealing with bunch of childish, immature morons more than anything (I mean Symonds, ffs what was he thinking?). Whilst the wider issues need to be discussed, they were all really pathetic there. I'd attribute it all to the stunted emotional development of young prodigy sportsmen (although that doesn't explain why so many can be so well behaved). Anyways 50 posts on the topic is more then enough for me and I think I've said what I've needed to.

What I will say however is that I don't like the gross generalisations made on the Australian media. What I have noticed is that there are many diverse opinions some in support of the Australian team and some very critical as we can see in that link Rajeev provided. This has occurred since the controversy started.

I was reading yesterday in my copy of Endless Summer - 140 years of Australian Cricket in Wisden, about the 1995 Boxing Day controversy "the home team found themselves subject to increasing criticism from their own public." The generalisations are unfair.

 

[JBH001]

This guy should be awaded for this piece, what an article,

Shock And Awe

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/meninwhite/archives/2008/01/shock_and_awe_1.php

loved the ending

There was a time in Test cricket (a very long time) when Australia and England were more equal than the rest and the game survived that asymmetry. It'll survive this one.

I thought the article a tad one-eyed, but I did like how it stressed that it was the Indian senior players, headed by Sachin and Kumble, who decided that enough was enough (I respect them both a lot so it weighs considerably in my opinion of this bad joke). However he does, I think, make a good point with regards to the past where England and Australia held the money bags and the cricketing chains and affairs were heavily weighted in their favour. I read an interesting article a while back on some of the antics of these two back in the day (will try and trace it if I can). So enough of the hypocritical hand wringing about the take over and impending world domination of the BCCI.

Anyway, both Symonds and Harbhajan are a pair of A grade muppets. Idiots the both of them.

 

[Craig]

I'll say my bit and go, what a bloody farce.

 

[biased indian]

Ban symmonds and Harbhajan for life....it will be double delight for india i think

and may be also sreesanth if he dont behave himself this series....

 

[Burgey]

Ban symmonds and Harbhajan for life....it will be double delight for india i think

and may be also sreesanth if he dont behave himself this series....

The solution.....

"Not acceptable! Off to the naughty corner with you both"

It's about what they deserve, and she's better qualified than Procter.

 

[honestbharani]

The fuss isn't really that he got off, which imo is fair enough. The fuss is that the proceedings seem to have been hijacked and held to ransom.

Look, I don't have a problem with the fact that some people can BELIEVE it to be so, but I do have a problem when they come out here sprouting out nonsense about wanting India to do badly etc. simply because they take their own opinions on matters to be FACTS. That was what was wrong with Burgey's post....


Personally, I think Bhajji might well have said whatever he was alleged to have but the lack of sufficient evidence and the emotive nature of such an indictment meant that he was always gonna get away with this... Indians may or may not have held CA and these guys to ransom.. There is no real way to prove anything here... But the judgement itself seems fair enough to me and I think, even if it had been Zim and Ban there instead of Aus and India, the judge would have acted the same way. His observations looked more closer to the truth than anything said by guys from either camps on this issue.... The only thing I can think of is that the CA or the ICC might have intentionally screwed up on giving all the instances of Bhajji's previous errors... And even that can't be proven.

 

[honestbharani]

Preach, my brother...

There are plenty of people here from BOTH sides that suffer from that particular brand of hypocrisy.

lol, never mean to deny that... I myself have been guilty of such feelings before...

 

[Burgey]

Look, I don't have a problem with the fact that some people can BELIEVE it to be so, but I do have a problem when they come out here sprouting out nonsense about wanting India to do badly etc. simply because they take their own opinions on matters to be FACTS. That was what was wrong with Burgey's post....


Personally, I think Bhajji might well have said whatever he was alleged to have but the lack of sufficient evidence and the emotive nature of such an indictment meant that he was always gonna get away with this... Indians may or may not have held CA and these guys to ransom.. There is no real way to prove anything here... But the judgement itself seems fair enough to me and I think, even if it had been Zim and Ban there instead of Aus and India, the judge would have acted the same way. His observations looked more closer to the truth than anything said by guys from either camps on this issue.... The only thing I can think of is that the CA or the ICC might have intentionally screwed up on giving all the instances of Bhajji's previous errors... And even that can't be proven.

I see your point mate, but at least for a while I'll keep hoping they go bad. But after a night's sleep I will barrack for them v England

I think if one good thing came out of all this, it was that the judge, even though they had the agreed statement put together, still heard the evidence and gave very, very thorough reasons. Compare that with the record before Procter - 4 or 5 pages for a hearing like that. Surely the ICC have to assist their referees better than that - provide a transcript typist, allow them to get someone in to give them some advice on quasi-legal ideas (from a neutral country - even if it means delaying the hearing for a day while someone flies in), maybe get training on these matters, rather than just let them get into things for which they aren't really qualified.

lol, never mean to deny that... I myself have been guilty of such feelings before...

I think we all have, some of us more recently than others

 

[honestbharani]

Because they are doing no such thing. The suggestion that Procter was biased against the Indians is questionable at best, but the suggestion that the New Zealand Justice is also going to be biased is downright laughable.

The idea that the only way that an adjudicator can arrive at a disagreeable decision is due to a preconceived bias is simply wrong. The reason behind appointing someone independent is that they can examine the evidence presented before them, assign what they, in their independence, believe to be the appropriate weight to each witness, and arrive at the verdict that they believe to be supported by that evidence.

But for that process to not only be valid, but to be SEEN to be valid, a few things are necessary. Firstly, the witnesses' testimony has to be seen to be untainted by outside influence, and then the adjudicator himself must be similarly unencumbered by any fear or favour.

Now, the BCCI considered the first hearing to have been unfair. My personal view is that Procter was almost certainly unqualified to conduct such a hearing, but that the failing was the ICC's (and, by the fact that the BCCI has as much influence within the ICC as anyone, theirs also), rather than Procter's. The felt aggrieved, and threatened to pull out of the tour.

I think that making threats of this nature is an awful way to conduct themselves, but there is a (however thin) argument that they are supporting their player.

After the appeal was announced, and the arbitrator was decided, my view is that the BCCI had to do one of two things: Either object to the chosen person, or accept him and whatever verdict that he might come up with. To accept the Justice as an impartial adjudicator, and then publicly demand that the verdict match their wishes on the threat of a tour boycott is simply an abhorrent act.

Now, the truth behind whether or not the Australians were pressured, and the truth behind who was ultimately responsible for that pressure (whether it was just CA themselves wanting to insure themselves against a possible loss, or whether ESPN warned CA that they would sue, and this caused CA to go to the players, or if the BCCI made the approach to CA and that led to it) is still to be uncovered, but the fact is that it was the BCCI threat that made the suggestion that the Australian witnesses' testimonies credible, and therefore ensured that while justice may well have been done, it certainly wasn't SEEN to have been done- which is ultimately as important to ensure a trustworthy, transparent process.

The BCCI has absolutely no cause to have questioned the impartiality or qualifications of the Justice, and therefore had no reason to expect anything other than a reasonable, justifiable verdict based on the evidence presented. Threatening to withdraw from the tour if they didn't get the verdict that they wanted therefore had nothing to do with protecting their player against bias, but was simply a case of using their financial might to demand that their view be considered fact.

And that, in my view, is completely outrageous.

Well, to be honest, even I don't know how they decided that the justice was biased or not, but even forgetting the bias part, if they felt he was not competent enough and was making mistakes, they could still raise a stink.

And yes, threatening to walk out was cheap, esp. after the neutral judge was appointed. But again I ask, if the Indians felt that, with the evidences and stuff available to them, there was no way any adjudicator in the world could indict Harbhajan, then surely, in that scenario, they can say with confidence that IF Harbhajan still gets indicted, it is surely injustice and therefore, they will walk out????? Again, I am not saying BCCI acted on these lines of thought, but there is still a possibility??? Although, I guess the probability of it basically depends on the person's mind....

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The solution.....

"Not acceptable! Off to the naughty corner with you both"

It's about what they deserve, and she's better qualified than Procter.

May need separate corners, else better clear the tarmac outside the day care...

 

[honestbharani]

AWTA. The issue is that racist comments aren't borne out of pure racism as such - but out of ignorance, a much more common affliction. What some Indian fans and Harbhajan have taken umbrage to is that we're accusing them of systematic racism. We're not. We're accusing them of being ignorant enough to fail to recognise that words that bear racist connotation might be construed as offensive elsewhere in the world.

yeah, but still a word which CAN be considered to be racist shouldn't be said. The basic awareness should be there and I am sure Harbhajan knew that if he called Symonds "monkey", it could be considered racist.... EVen He can't be that dumb.

 

[vic_orthdox]

But again I ask, if the Indians felt that, with the evidences and stuff available to them, there was no way any adjudicator in the world could indict Harbhajan, then surely, in that scenario, they can say with confidence that IF Harbhajan still gets indicted, it is surely injustice and therefore, they will walk out?????

When I go and fight my ticket evasion fine at the courts, which I got because of the stupid public transport system and wasn't my fault, I might bring in 80 of my mates and say that they'll bash the judge and the prosecution if I don't get my way.

 

[howardj]

This sums up the legal aspects of the case (particularly the applicable standards of proof for each offence) fairly succinctly, and highlights why Singh was never likely going to be found guilty.

 

[silentstriker]

This is statement of agreed facts by both parties:

During the 116 over on Day 3 of the Sydney Test, Harbhajan Singh made friendly contact with Brett Lee. At the end of the over while the umpires were changing ends and the fields was crossing over to their new positions, Andrew Symonds approached Harbhajan Singh and told him that he had no friends amongst the Australians (he admits he used the word ‘****’ or a derivation thereof).

Singh used similar language to Symonds and neither took offence at that stage. However the exchange caused Singh to become angry and he motioned to Symonds to come towards him. Singh then said something to Symonds. There is a dispute as to what was said. However all of the players who gave evidence to the hearing before Match Referee Procter of what was said between Harbhajan Singh and
Andrew Symonds namely, Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds, Mathew Hayden and Michael Clarke, are all clearly of the view that in the circumstances, Harbhajan Singh used language that was (and intended by Singh to be), offensive to Andrew Symonds. Symonds took immediate offence at the language and behaviour of Singh.


After the exchange between Singh and Symonds, Michael Clare spoke to umpire Mark Benson and complained about Singh’s behaviour, Clarke then told his captain Ricky Ponting what he had heard. Ponting went to Umpire Benson and told him that he had been informed by Clarke of the use by Harbhajan Singh of offensive language towards Andrew Symonds. On his way back to the slips position Ricky Ponting
spoke with Harbhajan Singh, Sachin Tendulkar then approached Ponting and Singh and asked Ponting to allow him to manage the situation.

Ricky Ponting then went into the slips. During over 117 Mathew Hayden informed Ponting that he had heard Harbhajan Singh use offensive language towards Symonds at the conclusion of the preceding over. At the end of Over 117 Ponting went of the field and told the Australian Team Manager (Steve Bernard) about the incident.

Harbhajan Singh (Signature), Ricky Ponting (Signature), Andrew Symonds (Signature), Adam Gilchrist (Signature), Sachin Tendulkar (Signature), Michael
Clarke (Signature) and Mathew Hayden (Signature).

“MR MANOHAR: You had any objection to that patting on the back?
MR SYMONDS: Did I have an objection to it – my objection was that a test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection.”

Judge Hansen: If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is.

Wait - so both sides admit that Symonds started saying '****' or some derivation and informing Harbhajan that he had no friends amongst AUstralian team after Harbhajan (admitted by both sides) made 'made friendly contact with Brett Lee'. So much for the assertion of Social. That's just dire.

Reading the full twenty-two pages of the report, it seems clear to be that Harbhajan said 'big monkey', and should be banned. However, without tapes and the evidence of Clarke (that he somehow only heard one side of the conversation) doesn't help the case, plus Symonds just came off like an arrogant bully on the stand, so that didn't help his case. But even though the verdict was right, Harbhajan IMO did get away with using racist language. The fact that he doesn't admit it means I lose all respect for him, forever. I lose respect for Symonds too, but for a different reason (see quotes above). But in my book, being a racist ass is a bigger transgression than just being an arrogant idiot, so Harbhajan is still the culprit here.

 

[social]

This sums up the legal aspects of the case (particularly the applicable standards of proof for each offence) fairly succinctly, and highlights why Singh was never likely going to be found guilty.

A precedent has now been set where you can say anything you like so long as it out of range of the stump mikes (hardly a stretch given that they couldnt pick up what Rashid Latif said whilst standing on the popping crease), earshot of the umps and you have an excuse at the ready

Rather than discouraging sledging, this will simply serve as a deterrent to those with a justifiable complaint

 

[social]

This is statement of agreed facts by both parties:







Wait - so both sides admit that Symonds started saying '****' or some derivation and informing Harbhajan that he had no friends amongst AUstralian team after Harbhajan (admitted by both sides) made 'made friendly contact with Brett Lee'. So much for the assertion of Social. That's just dire.

Reading the full twenty-two pages of the report, it seems clear to be that Harbhajan said 'big monkey', and should be banned. However, without tapes and the evidence of Clarke (that he somehow only heard one side of the conversation) doesn't help the case, plus Symonds just came off like an arrogant bully on the stand, so that didn't help his case. But even though the verdict was right, Harbhajan IMO did get away with using racist language. The fact that he doesn't admit it means I lose all respect for him, forever. I lose respect for Symonds too, but for a different reason (see quotes above). But in my book, being a racist ass is a bigger transgression than just being an arrogant idiot, so Harbhajan is still the culprit here.

Symonds comes across as honest yet hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer - one is a rare commodity in a professional sportsman, the other is not

 

[silentstriker]

Symonds comes across as honest yet hardly the sharpest knife in the drawer - one is a rare commodity in a professional sportsman, the other is not

He comes off like an ass, to be honest.

 

[social]

He comes off like an ass, to be honest.

Seriously, how?

Gave Harby benefit of doubt in India when he could have filed similar complaint

Didnt change his story or attempt to make mileage out of it in media

Took second example through proper channels

Didnt change his story or attempt to make mileage out of it in media

Gave honest answers to questions even though they did not reflect well upon him nor colour test cricket as being anything other than what it is

The only people that can have a problem with that are those that long for the village green

 

[silentstriker]

The only people that can have a problem with that are those that long for the village green

Perhaps I long for the village green but if you think patting someone on the back after a good delivery is out of place in cricket, than I think its a sad state of affairs. Lee patted Tendulkar on the helmet after his innings, and no one gave an earful to Lee, did they? It's a ridiculous thing that Symonds believes.

 

[social]

Perhaps I long for the village green but if you think patting someone on the back after a good delivery is out of place in cricket, than I think its a sad state of affairs. Lee patted Tendulkar on the helmet after his innings, and no one gave an earful to Lee, did they? It's a ridiculous thing that Symonds believes.

Maybe because Harby's action werent so friendly?