If you're going to say that then bugger off from this thread because there's no proper discussion that can occur with you.Scaly piscine said:How do we know it's the right ball tho?
Scaly piscine said:How do we know it's the right ball tho?
including madugalle.... it was all a setup man, didn't you know?silentstriker said:What the hell? This discussion ends right here. I assume Hair would have recognized the ball at trial.
I suppose Geoff Boycott and everyone else who testified at trials were bought off by the PCB, right?
Scaly piscine said:How do we know it's the right ball tho?
The only people who saw the ball close up at the game are the two umpires and some of the Pakistan lot. It's hardly a stretch to think that the ICC (bent as a nine bob note to start with), PCB and the two umpires could have done a deal (Hair was after a settlement anyway and didn't look too unhappy from the pictures I've seen) and so switched the ball - that's all that was required because Boycott and the rest will give their honest opinion on a perfectly normal (and different) cricket ball. Anyone who denies that this could have happened is living in cloud ****oo land.silentstriker said:What the hell? This discussion ends right here. I assume Hair would have recognized the ball at trial.
I suppose Geoff Boycott and everyone else who testified at trials were bought off by the PCB, right?
that makes sense[B said:Scaly piscine[/B]]The only people who saw the ball close up at the game are the two umpires and some of the Pakistan lot. It's hardly a stretch to think that the ICC (bent as a nine bob note to start with), PCB and the two umpires could have done a deal (Hair was after a settlement anyway and didn't look too unhappy from the pictures I've seen) and so switched the ball - that's all that was required because Boycott and the rest will give their honest opinion on a perfectly normal (and different) cricket ball. Anyone who denies that this could have happened is living in cloud ****oo land.
Scaly piscine said:The only people who saw the ball close up at the game are the two umpires and some of the Pakistan lot. It's hardly a stretch to think that the ICC (bent as a nine bob note to start with), PCB and the two umpires could have done a deal (Hair was after a settlement anyway and didn't look too unhappy from the pictures I've seen) and so switched the ball - that's all that was required because Boycott and the rest will give their honest opinion on a perfectly normal (and different) cricket ball. Anyone who denies that this could have happened is living in cloud ****oo land.
Err wrong. Everyone is INNOCENT in the legal system until FOUND GUILTY. The burden of proving guilt lies with the accuser. So Pakistan were ALWAYS INNOCENT until someone proves their guilt. That did not happen. So the REMAIN INNOCENT. It would be a mockery of justice and highly unjust if all "not guilty" meant was "we don't have enough proof to convict you". Because going by that logic, all I have to do to muddy someone's reputation is accused them of something, whether it's true or not. Because obviously they'll never be found truly "innocent" (again based on your faulty logic).GeraintIsMyHero said:Er, no, incorrect. Not guilty = not found guilty because there is no evidence to prove you did it. It does not mean you have been found innocent. Otherwise the verdicts would be Guilty and Innocent, rather than Guilty or Not Guilty.
Is this the post that officially proves that Scaly is not right in the head?Scaly piscine said:The only people who saw the ball close up at the game are the two umpires and some of the Pakistan lot. It's hardly a stretch to think that the ICC (bent as a nine bob note to start with), PCB and the two umpires could have done a deal (Hair was after a settlement anyway and didn't look too unhappy from the pictures I've seen) and so switched the ball - that's all that was required because Boycott and the rest will give their honest opinion on a perfectly normal (and different) cricket ball. Anyone who denies that this could have happened is living in cloud ****oo land.
So you seriously think the ICC are an honest bunch? They're just as dodgy as the likes of Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akthar and Shahid Afridi. The ICC stitched Hair up, there is history of ball tampering in the Pakistan national team and their recent coaching staff, the ICC has basically caved in under PCB pressure over the past month (and to anyone with a bit of muscle since I can remember) yet all of a sudden we're supposed to believe the ICC would stand up for truth and justice which might go against the PCB and the Pakistan captain. How many times in the past have ICC gone for path of least resistance regardless of morals?Fusion said:Is this the post that officially proves that Scaly is not right in the head?
Scaly piscine said:So you seriously think the ICC are an honest bunch? They're just as dodgy as the likes of Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akthar and Shahid Afridi. The ICC stitched Hair up, there is history of ball tampering in the Pakistan national team and their recent coaching staff, the ICC has basically caved in under PCB pressure over the past month (and to anyone with a bit of muscle since I can remember) yet all of a sudden we're supposed to believe the ICC would stand up for truth and justice which might go against the PCB and the Pakistan captain. How many times in the past have ICC gone for path of least resistance regardless of morals?
Scaly piscine said:So you seriously think the ICC are an honest bunch? They're just as dodgy as the likes of Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akthar and Shahid Afridi. The ICC stitched Hair up, there is history of ball tampering in the Pakistan national team and their recent coaching staff, the ICC has basically caved in under PCB pressure over the past month (and to anyone with a bit of muscle since I can remember) yet all of a sudden we're supposed to believe the ICC would stand up for truth and justice which might go against the PCB and the Pakistan captain. How many times in the past have ICC gone for path of least resistance regardless of morals?
Scaly whatever u would like to say about the Pakistani team, which u never seem to have any positive to say, Inzamam has been cleared and thats because the team didnt do anything to be called cheats, Pakistan has been accussed of tampering before which made his decision even more idiotic, it was a very sensitive issue which should have been dealt with in a more mature manner.Scaly piscine said:So you seriously think the ICC are an honest bunch? They're just as dodgy as the likes of Waqar Younis, Shoaib Akthar and Shahid Afridi. The ICC stitched Hair up, there is history of ball tampering in the Pakistan national team and their recent coaching staff, the ICC has basically caved in under PCB pressure over the past month (and to anyone with a bit of muscle since I can remember) yet all of a sudden we're supposed to believe the ICC would stand up for truth and justice which might go against the PCB and the Pakistan captain. How many times in the past have ICC gone for path of least resistance regardless of morals?
silentstriker said:A question: do you sleep with tinfoil hat on?
Again, stop being daft. Madugalle, who has played cricket in his career has quite a credible idea on how fast a ball normally deteriorates and what is/isnt normal wear and tear. His proximity to the ball is irrelevant - i dont need to be present at the very moment of a car crash to deduce what exactly happened from the mangled remains.social said:Geez u talk nonsense
Madugalle had absolutely no knowledge of what caused the ball to deteriorate or at what rate it deteriorated because he was x000 kms away at the time. Therefore, unlike the umpires' in question, his opinion is uniformed speculation at best.
And that is where the umpire is wrong - the 'team' in question has no relevance because as i said, all the allegations had different managers, players, coaches etc, representing no continuity. That Hair thought there is continuity, like you do, underscores the inherent bias of his mind.Unfortunately, the umpires made a decision in accordance with the law and in full knowledge that the team in question had been warned on numerous previous occasions - therefore no more leniency
Yes i am serious. A part of the umpires job is to study the ball-that notwithstanding, a batsman and a bowler are in FAR more contact with the ball and know far more about the ball than the umpire does.Hughes and Boycott have more knowledge than the umpires - are you serious? It's the umpires job to study the condition of the ball and they do it for umpteen thousand deliveries and hours during their careers
You conviniently forgot that Afridi addded the English players to the list and many others have repeatedly said that some level of tampering is done by every single team. Your selective quotations, yet again, underscores the bias in your mind.As for Afridi see http://www.timesnow.tv/articleshow/1913784.cms
Concoct ? ha ha.Now I'll go away for another couple of days whilst u concoct another white supremacy conspiracy theory
He would've said that justice was served because his bias and hatred towards Pakistan prevents him from seeing things in a level headed and honest way.open365 said:Scaly, what's the point in you arguing?
What would you have said if Pakistan were found guilty of tampering?
lolFusion said:Is this the post that officially proves that Scaly is not right in the head?