***Official*** Pakistan in England

[Sanz]

So you're saying the "full" lack of support is tit for tat? Not anything to do with what's right and wrong?

I posted my views before Rajeev's post and Rajeev's post doesn't change my stance at all. If you remember, I posted a thread about Inzi's ;eadership immediately after the incident and needless to say at that moment I had no idea about Pakistan's support on Dennes issue.

 

[Fusion]

I posted my views before Rajeev's post and Rajeev's post doesn't change my stance at all. If you remember, I posted a thread about Inzi's ;eadership immediately after the incident and needless to say at that moment I had no idea about Pakistan's support on Dennes issue.

Actually I wasn't referring to your support, but the BCCI's. In any case, the BCCI have a full right to take whatever stance they want, whether that be to support PCB or not. I don't think PCB should be seeking anyone's support. Their case, IMO, is good enough that they can stand on their own.

 

[Scaly piscine]

You tell me where the proof is then. Infact show me the footage in which a Pakistan player is shown to be tampering with the ball.

This is getting so tedious. Any evidence isn't going to be released to the public if the ICC get it first (which it most likely will) for a while, if ever. So could you stop jumping to gormless conclusions for 5 minutes and actually wait til some details are released.

 

[Kweek]

you prove to us that they havnt cheated, this is getting tedious and stupid.

 

[Fusion]

you prove to us that they havnt cheated, this is getting tedious and stupid.

Innocent until proven guilty. Or is that logic tedious and stupid?

 

[Scaly piscine]

Innocent until proven guilty. Or is that logic tedious and stupid?

They're not innocent or guilty because it's an ongoing case with no verdict as of yet, that's why they have all these processes, reviews of the evidence, solicitors etc. involved to get a fair judgement. That is why you don't jump to conclusions - although I'm sure if you could get your hands on Hair you'd lynch him anyway because you've already made your mind up without knowing anything.

 

[Fusion]

They're not innocent or guilty because it's an ongoing case with no verdict as of yet, that's why they have all these processes, reviews of the evidence, solicitors etc. involved to get a fair judgement. That is why you don't jump to conclusions - although I'm sure if you could get your hands on Hair you'd lynch him anyway because you've already made your mind up without knowing anything.

I would expect you to say something so crass. Lynch him? Which one of my statements led you to believe that? I have questioned his judgement, the way he handled the whole affair, but I haven't gotten personal. I'm entitled to debating his actions and commenting on them. You do the same all the time (no matter how idiotic those comments are). And by the way, they ARE INNOCENT no matter what the process is until DECLARED GUILTY. Got that?

 

[barmyarmy]

Has it been printed yet or are they going to print it next year ?

Don't quite understand your post. These were todays headlines.
I can't believe that Cricinfo are still one of the only sites to be ignoring the Afridi story; it's all over the web now.

 

[Tom Halsey]

You tell me where the proof is then. Infact show me the footage in which a Pakistan player is shown to be tampering with the ball.

Until the hearing on Friday, you have no idea whether they have proof or not.

 

[steds]

And by the way, they ARE INNOCENT no matter what the process is until DECLARED GUILTY. Got that?

Going by that, Pakistan are guilty, because Darrell Hair DECLARED so. Proven may be the word you're looking for.

 

[Fusion]

Going by that, Pakistan are guilty, because Darrell Hair DECLARED so. Proven may be the word you're looking for.

He's not the final word on that. He can accuse them, but only the ICC makes the final determination.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Although the example with the dying wife is hyperbolic, it does get the point across. There also seems to be a false dichotomy suggested by some between "the letter of the law" and "common sense". You can actually apply common sense without necessarily compromising the letter of the law.

That's probably true in a lot of situations, but I'm not sure Hair could have done it in his particular circumstances.

If he thought Pakistan were tampering with the ball the letter of the law dictates he should've done what he did (i.e. change the ball & impose the 5-run penalty); I'd personally say common sense would've steered him in another direction. It might mean I lack moral fibre, but I strongly suspect I'd have fudged the issue were I in his shoes.

One might question Hair's man-management (I doubt his best mate would say he comes across as a warm fellow), but really would a smile have made all that much difference given the gravity of the accusations? However he presented it to Inzi it ultimately boiled down to his believing they were indulging in a bit of skullbuggery.

 

[maxpower]

He's not the final word on that. He can accuse them, but only the ICC makes the final determination.

I'd say ICC will stand by and charge inzi with tampering, but they might tone down the language with their final verdict, and Inzi will obviously challenge the ban, which will be most likely reduced a bit. All in all we will see something like this crap again.

 

[Sanz]

Don't quite understand your post. These were todays headlines.
I can't believe that Cricinfo are still one of the only sites to be ignoring the Afridi story; it's all over the web now.

Afridi's story that was published by the tabloid(aka times) of India 6 months ago ?

And I dont see any newspaper saying that Asif was the one accused of match fixing by Fletcher.

 

[Tom Halsey]

And I dont see any newspaper saying that Asif was the one accused of match fixing by Fletcher.

Today's Daily Mail for one.

 

[Sanz]

Today's Daily Mail for one.

You mean this one from the Dailymail ?


"Seams OK: Asif examines the ball under the watchful eye of Billy Doctrove"

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Missed that, what did he say?

Can't remember all of it. He was upset by Hair's actions, calling them insensitive, and he was possibly even more upset as Inzamam's reaction and the refusal to come out and play - he remarked that 'Inzamam will have to live with that over him for the rest of his life'. He also criticised Musharraf for getting involved in it.

 

[Fusion]

He also criticised Musharraf for getting involved in it.

As a member of the opposition, he would criticize President Musharaf for breathing. Musharaf is the patron in cheif of the PCB. He had a right to comment on this issue.

 

[Neil Pickup]

Musharaf is the patron saint of the PCB.

I think you might have a superfluous word in that sentence...

 

[Fusion]

I think you might have a superfluous word in that sentence...

Reworded. Better?