no, no, Scaly... They have obviously replaced the Oval ball even before the hearing so that Pakistan would get off scot free and Hair could be removed. It is all because the subcontinent are power hungry and will not rest until the English, Aussies and others are crushed under their feet.Scaly piscine said:
you obviously know them well since they will be your neighbours, those in that cloud ****oo land.Scaly piscine said:
so basically the ICC IS PAKISTAN, only under a diff. name? So now I understand why you hate the ICC just as much as u hate Pakistan...Scaly piscine said:
It feels stranger that those "one or two"marks would have actually helped the ball reverse swing like banana and would, in any way, benefit the bowling side.marc71178 said:
To be honest, his recent years as a commentator has shown that he has got a significant bias for Australia and Aussies. It has been mentioned in a number of "best commentator" threads around here. What he was ten years ago is not important. But in the last 2 or 3 years, he has been a bit biased. Not saying he is a Bill Lawry or anything, but then the bias has been there. And as far as his answers to those questions are concerned, I think he has made up his mind on this issue long back. And it is just like a man to be concentrating on the "bringing the game into disrepute" issue when the bigger question of "ball tampering" was hanging around. He has purposefully not gone into the fact that Hair acted on very little evidence on a very serious charge and has instead concentrated on what happened afterwards, because that is where Pakistan were obviously guilty.silentstriker said:
more like the star poster "Scaly Piscine".social said:
Aaaah, I stated that Benaud is "POSSIBLY" the most respected man in world cricket (sue me: he only reached the Final Four) and Benaud himself rejects the notion of it being a whitewashAnil said:there is clearly no balance to the view of the "most respected man in world cricket"....he is completely biased against pakistan and has made up his mind that ball-tampering took place and that the enquiry was a white-wash....
Errr right. Stop shouting. Being found Not Guilty does not make you innocent. It doesn't make you guilty either, it simply means it can't be proven that you did it. No Court of law ever finds anybody innocent. Your argument of just accusing somebody doesn't work, because you could accuse me of any sort of crime, but without evidence I'd never be charged.Fusion said:
It's a bit like the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone knows he did it, but in a court of law he was innocent until proven guilty and the prosecution failed to prove his guilt in the eyes of the jury. But then when it went to a civil court the judge was able to use his own judgement without the burden of proving "beyond reasonable doubt." In his original trial he was found "not guilty" but certainly wasn't considered "innocent".GeraintIsMyHero said:
Bad comparison, but I see what you mean. Still, according to law, he is innocent.Lillian Thomson said:
I wasn't making any comparison between the OJ Simpson and Pakistan cases. I was just trying to put some logic on the subject of being innocent in eyes of the law not meaning that you didn't commit the crime.nightprowler10 said:
The law states "innocent until proven guilty". If you're not proven guilty, you are innocent in the eyes of the law. How much simpler could it possibly get.GeraintIsMyHero said:
