Symonds sent home

[Precambrian]

Not necessarily it doesn't. In fact, if Jones knows he's (Jones) acted like a douche in the past and understands what Symonds' might be going through when everyone's all over him like clalmine lotion, his opinion may well be pretty informed.

Exactly, so if he's up to some douche thing, he might as well be prepared to face the consequence!
Lol at Symonds having his fishing boat tugged from his home to Darwin, WTF was he thinking this series was, a holiday?

 

[Burgey]

Why? Judge Hansen was neutral. And his verdict outlined pretty much that no racial abuse was involved.

Coz they (the accusers) mailed it in - it wasn't an issue by the time the hearing came around, the deal had been done. He (the judge) decided to have a full blown hearing (or at least that's how it's been treated by everyone, like the issue of whether he'd racially abused Symonds was really up for grabs - it wasn't, they'd tossed it in before hand) when the parties already decided the charge wasn't being pressed.

The more I've thought about that, the more bizarre it actually is - it's the equivalent of a prosecutor and a defendant reaching an agreement there will be a manslaughter case, and the judge decides "well hang on, you might want a manslaughter case, your witnesses are here to talk about a manslaughter case, the accused might be happy with manslaughter and his witnesses have come to talk about a manslaughter case, but I'm gonna run a murder hearing anyway".

The irony of it all was the racial charge had been dropped beforehand.

I don't want to recapitulate it all coz I said all along he never should have been charged based on the evidence, but suffice to say "not guilty" in this context doesn't always equal "innocent", and he certainly didn't find hime "100% innocent", he said there was insufficent evidence (which I think was right anyway) .

 

[Top_Cat]

Why? Judge Hansen was neutral. And his verdict outlined pretty much that no racial abuse was involved.

Oh for goodness sake, read the judgement;

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/media-release/2008/january/media-release20080130-59.html

[48] As I say the standard to be applied by me is a high one I have to be sure that
the words were said. That they were probably said is insufficient. I have not been
persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am left with an
honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of
misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and the fact that
none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh. It
is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were
said in the course of the exchange.

The clearest message from the whole judgement is that the charge fails only because no-one could be sure what Harbhajan said, not that there was no racial abuse involved.

 

[Precambrian]

Huh, there was no incriminating evidence found, even the 'victim' was not sure he heard the right word, then how the media can pronounce that Bhajji was racist?

Anyway, innocent till proved guilty. I think that's the mantra adopted by judiciary worldwide rite?

 

[pup11]

Oh for goodness sake, read the judgement;

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/media-release/2008/january/media-release20080130-59.html

[48] As I say the standard to be applied by me is a high one I have to be sure that
the words were said. That they were probably said is insufficient. I have not been
persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am left with an
honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of
misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and the fact that
none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh. It
is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were
said in the course of the exchange.

The clearest message from the whole judgement is that the charge fails only because no-one could be sure what Harbhajan said, not that there was no racial abuse involved.

Yeah we can never be sure as if to what was said between those two, so we can never be confident in saying that this didn't happen or that didn't happen, if we do that then that's pure speculation.

 

[Top_Cat]

Huh, there was no incriminating evidence found, even the 'victim' was not sure he heard the right word, then how the media can pronounce that Bhajji was racist?

Forget what the media said (the coverage was crap but no-one said 'Harbhajan is a racist' otherwise they'd have been rightly sued into oblivion), that's not what you said. You said 'no racial abuse involved'. That's entirely different to Symonds allowing for the possibility he misheard what was said.

There wasn't 'no evidence' either, just that it was contradictory what Sachin said he heard vs what Symonds and the Aussies were claiming i.e. conflicting evidence, not none. You've misinterpreted the judgement.

 

[pup11]

Huh, there was no incriminating evidence found, even the 'victim' was not sure he heard the right word, then how the media can pronounce that Bhajji was racist?
Anyway, innocent till proved guilty. I think that's the mantra adopted by judiciary worldwide rite?

The media doesn't need any evidence mate to bash someone down to pulp, and that's something that every sportsfan in particular should know.

 

[sanga1337]

http://content-aus.cricinfo.com/australia/content/current/story/368175.html

Its a bit much when people like Doug Walters tell symonds to pull his head in.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh for goodness sake, read the judgement;

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/media-release/2008/january/media-release20080130-59.html

[48] As I say the standard to be applied by me is a high one I have to be sure that
the words were said. That they were probably said is insufficient. I have not been
persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am left with an
honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of
misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and the fact that
none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh. It
is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were
said in the course of the exchange.

The clearest message from the whole judgement is that the charge fails only because no-one could be sure what Harbhajan said, not that there was no racial abuse involved.

I tend to think that pretty much the only reason the Aussies actually dropped the charges was because there was equally vile (though not racial) stuff said by Symonds to Harbhajan and it was obvious he initiated the exchange for absolutely no reason and hence this.


The judge himself talked about the discrepancy about Clarke's statement.. Him saying he heard most of the stuff that Harbhajan said while he didn't hear anything that Symonds said.


For my part, thinking about it with a more clear head now than in the heat of the moment, I think, whatever Harbhajan may have said, the Aussies (at least Symonds, Clarke, Ponting and Hayden) felt pretty sure he said "monkey" and tried to frame him on that. Unfortunately, once the matter was taken up by a professional judge and not the match referee, the background and other stuff were going to be interrogated and they perhaps understood that having initiated the exchange and led it into this direction, Symonds was going to be guilty too, while there was no real way to prove the "racist" part of the charge on Harbhajan.


That must be the only reason these guys actually backed down. I just don't see Messrs. Ponting, Hayden and Co. giving up simply because the BCCI bullied the CA to get them to do so. Some lawyer must have convinced these players that their chances of proving the charge on Harbhajan conclusively were pretty slim and the chances of Symonds getting into hot water over this were pretty high..... Which is the truth, anyway.

 

[Burgey]

I tend to think that pretty much the only reason the Aussies actually dropped the charges was because there was equally vile (though not racial) stuff said by Symonds to Harbhajan and it was obvious he initiated the exchange for absolutely no reason and hence this.


The judge himself talked about the discrepancy about Clarke's statement.. Him saying he heard most of the stuff that Harbhajan said while he didn't hear anything that Symonds said.


For my part, thinking about it with a more clear head now than in the heat of the moment, I think, whatever Harbhajan may have said, the Aussies (at least Symonds, Clarke, Ponting and Hayden) felt pretty sure he said "monkey" and tried to frame him on that. Unfortunately, once the matter was taken up by a professional judge and not the match referee, the background and other stuff were going to be interrogated and they perhaps understood that having initiated the exchange and led it into this direction, Symonds was going to be guilty too, while there was no real way to prove the "racist" part of the charge on Harbhajan.


That must be the only reason these guys actually backed down. I just don't see Messrs. Ponting, Hayden and Co. giving up simply because the BCCI bullied the CA to get them to do so. Some lawyer must have convinced these players that their chances of proving the charge on Harbhajan conclusively were pretty slim and the chances of Symonds getting into hot water over this were pretty high..... Which is the truth, anyway.

Nah. They can't have tried to "frame" him, if they genuinely thought he said it.

And I don't think it was in anyway at all the players' idea to drop it - it was CA who very much lent on them, not the other way around.

I don't know how I'd go to a hearing as a witness, knowing even if every word I said was believed the accused bloke wasn't going to get convicted of the alleged abuse, because of the deal that was done beforehand. Once the deal had been done, that really should have been it.

The judge said he wanted the hearing to "clear things up", and it really didn't clear a bloody thing up, other than he thought Clarke's stuff was ordinary, Tendulkar's and Hayden's was impressive, and he thought Symonds' attitude to the game was wrong (like it matters what he thinks about how Symonds plays the game when that wasn't the thing he was asked to decide in the first place).

More I think about it, the more the hearing seemed a nice exercise in self-aggrandisement for the person presiding than really achieving anything, especially when everyone had decided the result before they even went in there.

 

[howardj]

I loved the clobber the Aussies wore in court.

Someone forgot to tell them the hearing wasn't being held at the local RSL.

 

[Burgey]

I loved the clobber the Aussies wore in court.

Someone forgot to tell them the hearing wasn't being held at the local RSL.

Good stuff that. Selective reporting though - Tendulkar and HBS turned up in their team polo shirts as well.

Looked like it was gonna be a two-up game or somebody forgot to bring the barbeque after a Sunday morning training run.

 

[Precambrian]

Nah. They can't have tried to "frame" him, if they genuinely thought he said it.

And I don't think it was in anyway at all the players' idea to drop it - it was CA who very much lent on them, not the other way around.

I don't know how I'd go to a hearing as a witness, knowing even if every word I said was believed the accused bloke wasn't going to get convicted of the alleged abuse, because of the deal that was done beforehand. Once the deal had been done, that really should have been it.

The judge said he wanted the hearing to "clear things up", and it really didn't clear a bloody thing up, other than he thought Clarke's stuff was ordinary, Tendulkar's and Hayden's was impressive, and he thought Symonds' attitude to the game was wrong (like it matters what he thinks about how Symonds plays the game when that wasn't the thing he was asked to decide in the first place).

More I think about it, the more the hearing seemed a nice exercise in self-aggrandisement for the person presiding than really achieving anything, especially when everyone had decided the result before they even went in there.

Ah, so i see, now you are questioning the integrity of the judge himself. BCCI didn't appoint him for sure.

Apart from that, there was no doubt that as honestbharani said, it was Symonds who started the fiasco with an unprovoked and unsavoury remark, to which to his infinite ill judgement, Bhajji responded with a terrible verbal abuse.

I believe that both of them should've got hefty punishment. I do know Bhajji didn't say anything racist, but whatever he said did deserve harsh stuff.

 

[honestbharani]

Nah. They can't have tried to "frame" him, if they genuinely thought he said it.

And I don't think it was in anyway at all the players' idea to drop it - it was CA who very much lent on them, not the other way around.

I don't know how I'd go to a hearing as a witness, knowing even if every word I said was believed the accused bloke wasn't going to get convicted of the alleged abuse, because of the deal that was done beforehand. Once the deal had been done, that really should have been it.

The judge said he wanted the hearing to "clear things up", and it really didn't clear a bloody thing up, other than he thought Clarke's stuff was ordinary, Tendulkar's and Hayden's was impressive, and he thought Symonds' attitude to the game was wrong (like it matters what he thinks about how Symonds plays the game when that wasn't the thing he was asked to decide in the first place).

More I think about it, the more the hearing seemed a nice exercise in self-aggrandisement for the person presiding than really achieving anything, especially when everyone had decided the result before they even went in there.

Perhaps "frame" was the wrong choice of word.


But I do think they definitely genuinely believed Harbhajan said it, but there was no real way to prove that. And the fact that they could not get their guy off IF they did tell everything must have played a part on them deciding not to push the charge..


Quite frankly, no judge is going to believe that these Aussies heard everything that Harbhajan said but nothing that Symonds said, when it was evident that both of them were saying things to each other..


They may have very well felt that Harbhajan said the word "monkey" but the fact that proving it was going to be a very difficult exercise (because of the word "maa ki" s existence) and the fact that if all the facts did come out, it will result in some censure and punishment for Symonds himself, must have weighed on their minds when they agreed to drop the charges... A compromise, if you will and extremely practical..


And IMO, I wouldn't put it past Symonds or the Aussie team to have planned a strategy of going after Harbhajan whenever they got a chance.. He is a bit of a loose cannon with the mouth and is generally stupid and impulsive enough to say something foolish at the slightest provocation. It wouldn't surprise me if it were a planned strategy of Australia to have a go at blokes like Harbhajan and Sreesanth with some choice words every now and then and see if they can push them off the edge into telling something stupid and landing themselves in hot water. The support that Symonds got for doing what he did (stupidly interfering when nothing untoward had happened) from Ponting, Clarke and Hayden does suggest something like this was in their minds, at least to me.


Of course, to all the Aussie posters here, I am not insisting my opinion is the truth and quite obviously, there is no real way to find out now unless someone decides to write a tell-all book about this (and even then doubts would remain about the author's credibility) but this is what I think.. Aussies targetting certain guys in the opposition (for being soft and ready to go off easily) is nothing new..

 

[pasag]

I tend to think that pretty much the only reason the Aussies actually dropped the charges was because there was equally vile (though not racial) stuff said by Symonds to Harbhajan and it was obvious he initiated the exchange for absolutely no reason and hence this.


The judge himself talked about the discrepancy about Clarke's statement.. Him saying he heard most of the stuff that Harbhajan said while he didn't hear anything that Symonds said.


For my part, thinking about it with a more clear head now than in the heat of the moment, I think, whatever Harbhajan may have said, the Aussies (at least Symonds, Clarke, Ponting and Hayden) felt pretty sure he said "monkey" and tried to frame him on that. Unfortunately, once the matter was taken up by a professional judge and not the match referee, the background and other stuff were going to be interrogated and they perhaps understood that having initiated the exchange and led it into this direction, Symonds was going to be guilty too, while there was no real way to prove the "racist" part of the charge on Harbhajan.


That must be the only reason these guys actually backed down. I just don't see Messrs. Ponting, Hayden and Co. giving up simply because the BCCI bullied the CA to get them to do so. Some lawyer must have convinced these players that their chances of proving the charge on Harbhajan conclusively were pretty slim and the chances of Symonds getting into hot water over this were pretty high..... Which is the truth, anyway.

Doubtful.

 

[Top_Cat]

Good stuff that. Selective reporting though - Tendulkar and HBS turned up in their team polo shirts as well.

Looked like it was gonna be a two-up game or somebody forgot to bring the barbeque after a Sunday morning training run.

Can confirm that - bumped into Sachin at Adelaide Arcade immediately afterwards and he was wearing an Indian team shirt.

And yes, I only brought this up so I can say I talked to Sachin.

 

[Top_Cat]

And IMO, I wouldn't put it past Symonds or the Aussie team to have planned a strategy of going after Harbhajan whenever they got a chance.. He is a bit of a loose cannon with the mouth and is generally stupid and impulsive enough to say something foolish at the slightest provocation. It wouldn't surprise me if it were a planned strategy of Australia to have a go at blokes like Harbhajan and Sreesanth with some choice words every now and then and see if they can push them off the edge into telling something stupid and landing themselves in hot water. The support that Symonds got for doing what he did (stupidly interfering when nothing untoward had happened) from Ponting, Clarke and Hayden does suggest something like this was in their minds, at least to me.

You think they'd risk their reputations and credibility going after Harbhajan for something which was ultimately unproveable? I don't know (obviously) but geez, I find it unlikely. Surely, they wouldn't be that stupid.

Of course, to all the Aussie posters here, I am not insisting my opinion is the truth and quite obviously, there is no real way to find out now unless someone decides to write a tell-all book about this (and even then doubts would remain about the author's credibility) but this is what I think.. Aussies targetting certain guys in the opposition (for being soft and ready to go off easily) is nothing new..

Yeah, on the field, mate.

 

[Salamuddin]

Crap. He backed down because he had to. No-one in the Aussie set-up had heard of Maa-ki and Symonds said he heard monkey but had to acknowledge in the heat of the moment, with crowd noise, etc. that he might have misheard it. It was never shown that he lied, only that he was mistaken.

What I never understood though why he was adamant that Harbhajan had racially abused him before Procter and why weeks later in front of the judge, it was "I'm not sure" - "I could have misheard".

If you're gonna accuse someone of racism you gotta be pretty damn sure what they said.

 

[Precambrian]

What I never understood though why he was adamant that Harbhajan had racially abused him before Procter and why weeks later in front of the judge, it was "I'm not sure" - "I could have misheard".

If you're gonna accuse someone of racism you gotta be pretty damn sure what they said.

And Proctor came out looking the biggest idiot out of the fiasco. I mean he acted too eager in the first place, acting solely on the Australian's words and taking a wholly unilateral decision. That was what really enranged the BCCI. Obviously, the Indian team, which till that point were feeling at the receiving end of poor umpiring decisions, and the like, felt all the more victimised when one of them was handed out a ban for probably the worst active crime in sports today, racism, and that too without a proper hearing.

 

[Sanz]

Oh for goodness sake, read the judgement;

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/media-release/2008/january/media-release20080130-59.html

[48] As I say the standard to be applied by me is a high one I have to be sure that
the words were said. That they were probably said is insufficient. I have not been
persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am left with an
honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of
misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and the fact that
none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh. It
is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were
said in the course of the exchange.

The clearest message from the whole judgement is that the charge fails only because no-one could be sure what Harbhajan said, not that there was no racial abuse involved.

But if no one could be sure what was said and (according to judge Hansen) none of the Aussie players appeared to hear anything (as opposed to their claim in the stump mic recording), doesn't it mean that Harbhajan was innocent ?

The Primary accusers didn't hear anything, according to the Judge, so how can we say that there was any racial abuse ?