It's Ray Stubbs' grandad.PY said:Hair is a tad foolish for doing this but I can understand why he's done it. He's looking after #1 and anyone here who claims they wouldn't do the same is deluding themselves. That's not to say I like it though.
One thing is for certain, it's re-affirmed my dislike for Malcolm Speed...he's so smarmy and self-righteous it makes me cringe.
Who can really like a person who looks like this?
No more than the overall reaction on this thread that Hair is immediately guilty of various offences when nobody as yet knows exactly what went on.Sanz said:
Pedro Delgado said:
He reminds me of those troll thingies.PY said:Hair is a tad foolish for doing this but I can understand why he's done it. He's looking after #1 and anyone here who claims they wouldn't do the same is deluding themselves. That's not to say I like it though.
One thing is for certain, it's re-affirmed my dislike for Malcolm Speed...he's so smarmy and self-righteous it makes me cringe.
Who can really like a person who looks like this?
The English papers says that ICC was adviced by its own lawyers to share the info with PCB lawyers, and ICC only acted on the advice of the lawyers.Langeveldt said:
Coz alot of ppl have realised that there isn't much in this story, as if there was anything in it Proctor would have indicated it to PCB boss and Woolmer by now.Some ppl though who had a soft corner for Hair will realise what an idiot he was, while others would still back him saying "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"
who could force them though ? PCB ? other asian boards.Langeveldt said:
Oh come on Sanz. It doesn't matter if Hair had said in an earlier interview that he was probably not gonna umpire beyond the WC. He had his BEST years (God forbid wat those would have been like) left and he wanted compensation. The sum he asked is clearly not within 1/100th of what he could have made as the most honest, law-enforcer in the game of cricket, not to mention the author of the book that is as true as the Gospel.Sanz said:
oh yeah, right... Shahriyar Khan was the one who drafted the mail... right, Scaly? They just made it look as though it was Hair.Scaly piscine said:
really Scaly? How come you are so sure that the evidence does exist? Why not think of the possibility (the probability, actually) that maybe Hair's case was a weak one all along and that this just gives them a better way of getting rid of him while not gaining any negative image themselves, since they did stand by him at the start of it all....Scaly piscine said:
So the big question is...........who is bigger of the two? Hair or Inzy?Scaly piscine said:
Bull**** . It might be a good news for PCB but that's hardly a way to please them, if ICC is bent upon pleasing them then they can easily do that by dropping charges of "so called ball tampering" against Inzi and slap him with a few matches ban for not leading his side in the test match.The sole purpose of leaking the mail to please anyone is assinine.R_D said:
I said it in my earliest post, the only bright thing that came out of that ugly match was the end of the dreadful umpire Hair.Maybe if Inzi had played the match under protest, things wouldn't have gone that far and Hair would still have been officiating matches and making life terrible for more than a dozen cricketers.
Isn't it also normal that in most of the golden handshake cases, the employee is also (and generally mostly) at fault?Steulen said:
so why hasn't Hair refuted it yet?Steulen said:
why is that crazy? It's good, I think.aussie said:
I won't say he's racist, but at the same time, i wouldn't say "no, he isn't racist"marc71178 said:
deeps said: