By Daniel Brettig
January 31st 2008 @ 7:57am
View The Roar's top cricket writers.
Love new art, fashion, music? Check out Aussie site which unearths all things cool and creative.
Join Australia’s community for solo & micro business at FlyingSolo.com.au
ICC error allows Harbhajan to escape ban
A colossal International Cricket Council foul-up, a more rigorous judicial process and wavering Australian testimony allowed Harbhajan Singh to escape a ban for abuse of Andrew Symonds.
More cricket
Ponting back for Twenty20 clash
Sri Lankans score scrappy win over PM’s XI
Hodge hoping to get Twenty20 pants on
Shaun Tait to consult other depressed sportsmen
These were the primary conclusions [...]
This article is over 2000 days old and has been trimmed.
Get Australia's best Cricket opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(91)
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Hansen said ICC error had meant he was not made aware of Harbhajan’s most serious past indiscretion, when in November 2001 he and three other Indian players had been fined 75 per cent of their match fees and given a suspended one Test ban for dissent.
Strange that he finds out as soon as the hearing is over and its to late to do anything.Trust me I’m a judge.
INDIA GO HOME
lonside said | January 31st 2008 @ 10:51am | Report comment
Peter Lalor reports on the back page of todays Australian ; Obscene attempt to twist the truth.
‘ News that her son had made a derogatory remark about his opponent’s mothers VAGINA was a relief to
Harbhajan’s mum ‘
Translated into the vulgar vernacular of the English language, I now understand exactly what Harbhajan said.
Harbhajan was fortunate that the Australian players had no understanding of Harbhajans’s Indian dialect,
otherwise he would have been stretchered from the pitch.
Mick of Newie said | January 31st 2008 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Finally we get a real feel of what went on.
Symonds was a provocative dickhead, Harbijhan took the bait gave a gobful back. Judge finds insufficent evidence to establish racial vilification.
Harbie gets convicted of in effect swearing.
Your conclusion that he should have got a match ban for swearing because 7 years ago he had a suspended sentence. Technically correct.
That someone should be suspended for swearing at an Australian Test Cricket. Thats called irony.
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
What a farce , from start to finish.
johnno said | January 31st 2008 @ 12:26pm | Report comment
What a joke. Hansen is a complete joke. Hate to think of those poor sods in NZ – not much hope of justice over there.
David Boots said | January 31st 2008 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
I mean seriously – look at this…
The offences took place during the second Test against South Africa at Port Elizabeth, where the one-Test suspension of Virender Sehwag for over-appealing by match referee Mike Denness was opposed by India.
With the support of their hosts the Indians selected Sehwag for the next Test regardless, and the match was stripped of Test match status after Denness was locked out of the ground.
The INDIANS have a track record. Kick them out of cricket while we still can. WE dont neet their money.
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 12:35pm | Report comment
Australia does not have a track record of being perfect either you fool.
We do need their money, and you have not a clue what you are talking about.
Just remember, many of the current Aussie players are dying to play in India in April for the un-sancionted 20/20 event.
Think before you write
betterIwas said | January 31st 2008 @ 12:50pm | Report comment
I have read Hansen’s judgment. In my opinion, well reasoned.
Is there an offence of unsportsmanlike conduct ? If so, Symonds should have been charged.
Harbhajan was congratulating his opponent . Symonds abusively and in a foul mouthed way sticks his nose in. Good sportmanship Roy. If Harbhajan should go, so should Symonds. I am not aying Harbhajan is queaky clean but Symonds was the instigator, intentionally it would seem.
Interesting for all those who said Tendulkar was nowhere near, the vison avaliable showed he was the closest to the pair.
Ponting’s reported comments in the press this morning show him as not being suited to the role of captain. FIne batsman, fine fielder, may be a fine tacticion. Not exactly a role model for the sport, I repeat sport, of cricket.
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 12:51pm | Report comment
Phil calling someone a fool because you dont like what they say tells us everything we need to know about you.
As far as track records go look at this,
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23044267-5001023,00.html
India are the worst behaved cricket team in the last TEN YEARS. Australia ranks as the FOURTH WORST, in other words Phil despite the rubbish thrown at Australia by Spanky Roebuck and other media morons THREE OTHER TEAMS ARE in front of Australia in the bad boy stakes.
INDIA GO HOME
Mick of Newie said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Jezza, Johnno and Boots please read Hansens judgment. It is intelligent, well reasoned and sound. Hansen does not appear to be a fool.
Now if you want to believe in the grand conspiracy theory then that is fine but the reason Singh was not convicted of racial vilification was because the evidence was insufficent. This was entirely predictable. I am not wishing to piss in my own pocket but here is what I posted on 15 January on Roar
“Some have said you could not find Harbie guilty because it was one word against another. This is not correct BUT if you are going to make a finding based on such evidence I think you should publish some reasons to explain the process that led to the decision. This would have been very illuminating in this case (and saved a couple of miles of blog space).
Here is my tip for the resolution, By the time the case is heard the recollections of the various Australian witnesses will blur a little such that there are sufficient inconsistancies to make the case less than clear. The eminent NZ judge will exclude the evidence of the alleged previous occurrence (as he should), and find the evidence insufficient to maintain a “conviction.” Harbie will get off, Symonds reputation remains as the failure to prove, doesn’t mean he lied, Australia, India and ICC are happy.”
This is pretty much what happened. Symonds quite rightly gets slammed for his childish behaviour in instigating the event and Harbie gets done for swearing because he admitted it.
The BCCI do not come out of this incident well. They should have had more faith in the system. But if you want India to go home, I’ve got a better idea how about we go back to the good old days when we only play England. Wouldn’t that be great.
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Mick of Newie the judgment was written to justify the outcome that was required to keep the BCCI happy, remember this was a closed hearing and no one other than Hansen can make a comment about what took place.
Justice should be seen to be done i.e. an open hearing.
INDIA GO HOME
Michael C said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:25pm | Report comment
This whole issue is ugly now. I just hope we can all rock up to the ‘G tomorrow and just enjoy the cricket, fun and atmosphere of semi-serious cricket…..hmmm, it may be vey serious.
At any rate. All this racial vilification stuff just makes me think of the successful AFL approach that took the players into mediation, andhas worked a treat and seen the AFL effectively free of such issues and abundant with indigenous players.
One can’t help but feel that this whole issue could have been handled better and more discreetly. The process just seems wrong. Maybe because it jumped straight to ‘punitive’.
And in general,
I can’t help but remember back to when Australians whinged about too many bouncers from the Windies, and now we have an ICC rule about 1 per batter per over. And Australians and Poms effectivley called Pakistani umpires cheats (Mike Gatting had some strong views), and we got neutral umpires such that Australia now misses out on Simon Taufel.
So, it’s quite one thing to kick up a stink – and whether India was fully justified or not is probably irrelevant, but – surely, the greatest disaster and standing legacy from this whole situation is going to be the way the ICC got ‘heavied’ into removing Bucknor. Who cares about the players little gripes with each other – that’s nothing, and in a sense at least ensures that everygame will see the combatants playing to win during the ODI series. So, while the ICC has been compromised, CA must be rather pleased with the controversy and publicity – money can’t buy that…..well, maybe Indian money has…..
Mick of Newie said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Jezza
Read the judgement and tell me the error in his reasoning.
Then I will accept your grand conspiracy.
AndyS said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:42pm | Report comment
There judgement may be unassailable in its reasoning, but the precedent is now firmly set – absent a confession, a player cannot be convicted on nothing but the word of the opposition. The corollary that will be taken from this is that ANYTHING can be said on the field, so long as it isn’t heard (or couldn’t possibly have been misheard) by an umpire or microphone.
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
I called you a fool because of your childish ‘GO HOME’ rant. It is a typical reaction by people who can’t see past the bigger picture.
I don’t take anything seriously thats comes out of the Daily Telegraph. “Tabloid Journalism” ain’t my style, but it seems to please you.
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
At least Mick and Micheal C have made some sense since I had my lunch.
Australia gets a lot their own way in cricket as well. South Africa dream of being able to host us there, from Boxing Day but Cricket Australia got their own way. Does that make us evil and manipulative like the Indians??
RIP Cricket: 18 June 1774 — 29 Jan 2008 » The Roar - Your Sports Opinion said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
[...] has the won its day with the most brazen display of financial muscle flexing, and in the process cricket Australia has [...]
johnno said | January 31st 2008 @ 1:50pm | Report comment
Mick – I disagree with aspects of your comments. Look at Hansen’s claim that he was not aware of past infringements by HS. This is frankly astounding. If it is true then he is simply incompetent. If it is not true then this opinion was written to produce an outcome that was pre-determined by a corrupt and amoral group of individuals.
I want India to go home, and I have a better idea – how about we go back to the good old days when we only played countries who didnt intimidate umpires – who didnt lock umpires out of the ground – who didnt blackmail the judicial process – who didnt demand the right to choose the umpire. Wouldn’t that be great.
I believe your assertions are founded on a certain naivety. I have done business in India for many years and I am also a lawyer. If there is one thing i say that you can trust it is that Indians thinks nothing of using any means to produce the outcome they desire – this is at player and administrative level.
Mick of Newie said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
johnno
In 2001 John Hansen was presumably being a judge in NZ. I imagine he had better things to do than follow a cricket match in between India and South Africa in SA.
If as you assert you are a lawyer you will know that the relevance of any past infringements go to penalty not to proving the fact. HS previous conviction is not relevant in any way in establishing the facts in this case. It is not in dispute that he is a knob.
I rather suspect your business in India was spectacularly unsuccessful if you carry with you such broad and gross generalisations about a country of close to a billion people.
But again lets talk about the issues. You are the lawyer tell me where Hansens erred?
Millster said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
I am absolutely not writing about what the facts of the case are. And maybe you’ll all tell me to go back to discussing my preferred sport of football. But I have spent 3 weeks stunned at the indignation that this whole matter has caused.
First, Aussie culture includes the making of disparaging remarks, especially in competitive contexts. Every single one of you here on this forum would, at some stage, been called things that objectively have some element of vilification. But I suspect in 99% of cases you knew the term wasn’t meant as anything but a ribbing, and serious, cruel offence was not intended. So how come it seems like the minute these 11 men put on the whites and baggy green, that distinction is lost, and they become a bunch of over-sensitive fairies?
Second, Australia has a long and ugly history of giving it out good in the middle of the pitch. My suspicion is that Aussies past and present have given far worse than this. The words ‘hypocrites’ and ‘champion team’ do not sit well in the same sentence.
And finally, going back to the first point, perhaps another angle of conspiracy theory… What if the over-sensitivity was a premeditated, contrived one? Singh posed a reasonable threat to our batting line-up. And Australia may have decided to do whatever it takes to upset or remove him. Even if breaking some of the long-agreed “what goes on the pitch stays on the pitch” ethos between players. Not unlike the diving that is so reviled in the sport that I prefer to follow… I don’t necessarily believe this, but it has crossed my mind, and does both align with the long-term description of the Aussie team as ‘ruthess’ and also balance some of the other views on this blog.
PS: Jezza – anticipating your response already – I am not an Aussie hater, in fact a proud Australian fan. But that’s even more reason to feel shame when an Aussie national team is involved in a debarcle such as this one.
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Phil Coorey thinks Im a fool and now childish. Phil one thing you never let get in they way of your abusive rants are THE FACTS or did the Telegraph make the whole thing up.Perhaps you didnt read the article because you want to stay uninformed and ignorant.
INDIA GO HOME
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:37pm | Report comment
Millster, don’t forget Harbajhan was in the middle of an excellent innings when this mess all started. How do we know Australia didn’t report him to get under his skin while he was batting….
I agree with all your points, fwiw.
I ain’t no Aussie hater either, in fact I was very critical of India’s pathetic batting during the 2nd innings, on this website , in the aftermath of the second test. I’m sure its there somewhere…
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:40pm | Report comment
Millister once again you dont worry about the FACTS India for the last TEN years are the most sanctioned team in cricket. Have a look at the crowd in Mumbai racially abusing Andrew Symonds, Harbhajan has recent form in India for calling Symo a monkey. Sledging is a part of most sports RACIAL ABUSE is NOT.
INDIA GO HOME
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:45pm | Report comment
jezza, has never a word of racial abuse been shouted out by Australian fans???
Millster said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:47pm | Report comment
Jezza – you know what, for al that it’s inflamatory, I’m not against you for being against racial abuse. I am too.
But I have an example for you to think about. The striker in my soccer team a few years back was damn good. He was also homosexual. Some opponents knew this, others didn’t. Not a game passed where he, and many other players, weren’t called “f#@king poofters” or suchlike, directly related to homosexuality. Now is that vilification? Or is that just crude, but not truly ill-meaning sledging? You make the call. I can’t.
Also, about sanctions. Doing the crime and being caught are two very different things.
johnno said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Mick – keep playing the man and not the ball and you will miss the issue. Hansen mistake no.1 – he totally broke every procedural rule. Check out the ICC rules if you dont believe me. Mistake no.2 – he made statements subjudice. He really should know better. Mistake no.3 – he failed to ask counsel to outline previous offences. Should I go on?
Yes… previous convictions go to sentencing – did I say otherwise?
And yes i use stereotypes… they are very efficient. And no… that doesnt excuse your willingness to exclude a valid point. This was a kangaroo court – no doubt. The outcome was pre-determined and the fact that Strenuous attempts were made to dress it up with a quasi-judicial adobe does not alter the core of the matter.
And yes… I am doing fine thank you.
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:52pm | Report comment
I did read the article.
Let me add a few more facts that the Telegraph seems to have missed…
Andrew Symonds opened his big mouth to provoke Harbajhan during the test. After he promised that he wouldn’t talk to him after the one day series in India. Is that going to become an official ICC stat for the tele to jump all over? He also infuriated the Indians by admitting he was out in the first innings? Then why didn’t he walk, if he is such a stand up guy whose word we should believe??
Lets talk about Australia’s slow over rate, and renowned sledging especially in the 90’s??? Or England throwing candy on the pitch or using sweets to help with reverse swing?? Or South Africa’s dealing with bookies??
Teams have been misbehaved for years and some get sanctioned, and some don’t. Not everything gets picked up mate. Sort of like life, in a way.
Remember the case was only about whether or not he called him a monkey. That’s why the article is a joke, because teams will push the letter of law always to get ahead. Some get busted, some don’t.
Mick of Newie said | January 31st 2008 @ 2:53pm | Report comment
Millster
Thats weird I was just dreaming up my own conspiarcy theory, lets assume Harbie did call Symonds a Monkey in Mumbai, the Australinas have that over him, Symonds provokes an incident, claims he is called a monkey again, of course Pup and his old fishing buddy will back him up, Got him.
Its ridiculous but so is the alternative conspiracy theory the central plank of which is that a retired well respected NZ judge is corrupt.
Jezza I don’t dispute your facts, just your argument which appears to be Australia are not bad sports.
Yes India have got busted the most for on field indiscretions. But look at this incident and you can see why people think Australia get away with so much. Harbie does an otherwise sporting thing in congratulating Lee on a good ball, Lee takes no offence, Symonds gets all aggro and provokes a situation, Harbie responds with crude but not racist language. Result India get another notch on your tally. They are the facts.
Mick of Newie said | January 31st 2008 @ 3:29pm | Report comment
Ah Johnno
My slur against your business acumen was my first playing of the man in this blog. I am suitably chastened and offer my heartfelt apology. I find stereotypes neither efficient or pursuasive.
I disagree with your analysis, one of his problems was he had no procedural rules to work with. He spends a large chunk of his judgement explaining his reasoning for cobbling together some form of procedure from the ICC anti doping rules. I have great sympathy for him in this exercise and it makes the ICC look like a fishing club (no offence to fishing clubs).
I don’t know what he said sub judice but I will take your word for it. (although given the whole show took about half a day its a good effort to have got any inappropraite comment out mid trial.)
My main point is that his commentary on the evidential issues and the conclusions he draws from them appear fundamentally sound. I am happy for anyone to challenge any of those matters. It is too easy to land the grand conspiracy a lot harder to back it up.
Barry Boyle said | January 31st 2008 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
The Aussies have suddenly gone Virginal.
Monkey would be very mild compared to the insults they have been directing at opponents.
They obvious are gutless.
Why complain when you have done your best to look like a monkey.
johnno said | January 31st 2008 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
Actually Mick I agree that the outcome is well within the range of legitimate outcomes. But it doesnt mean the decision was validly arrived at. Yes, the reasoning may be internally Consistent BUT that does not mean it was not externally engineered.
As to comments about a conspiracy. There was no conspiracy – this was blatant engineering designed to assure that certain parties were appeased. On a broader scale, india is out to take over cricket. Ths is not a conspiracy – you can find plenty of public statements confirming this. If we, as cricket lovers, wish to see cricket remain the way we like it – we had better act. And now. What would you suggest we do?
Arnie said | January 31st 2008 @ 4:04pm | Report comment
That’s the way the cookie crumbles !! The whole pantomime about Harbhajan being alllowed to ‘escape’ is just so that Punter et al and Cricket Australia could leave with some shred of dignity intact after these sordid events. CA had thought it could show a magnanimous gesture – ‘go forth and sin no more’ to Bhajji and leave him with a ban of perhaps one test match. However BCCI left them with no wriggle room at all.
As Hanson pointed out -First, there is no proof that the word ‘monkey’ was used (Its just one players word against another, and those cricketers who cheat on the field by claiming grounded catches, lose the right to be trusted). Second, Symonds started the whole process of abuse and then ’swooned like a virgin’ when answered back (Symonds defence – Bhajji shouldn’t have patted lee on the back because a cricket field is no place to be friendly with the opposition !!). Third, Clarke is a liar and a fool (he said Symonds said nothing when Symonds himself admitted that he started the fracas).
The fact that Bhajji had been sanctioned earlier or that India is the most sanctioned team just goes to show how the likes of Mike Proctor and ICC have loaded the dice against Asian teams. So Michael Slater, Punter and McGrath escape despite being abusive while Rashid Latif gets banned (by Proctor – surprise surprise) for falsely claiming a catch and Bhajji abd Ganguly get censured. But times are changing (hence the longing for the days when England and Aus held veto power at the ICC).
Current events as recorded by Hanson – Punter and Clarke lied and Symonds deserved what he got. Don’t think Australia will ever try such mind games with India. They will be hung out to dry. Though they might still do it SL or Pak.
Arnie said | January 31st 2008 @ 4:42pm | Report comment
Ah so Jonno, you have issues with the fact that there might have been some ‘external’ pressure brought about to ensure that a fair (internally consistent) outcome is reached ? You would have felt reassured if the current judge had upheld the previous decision of Proctor? Otherwise I find your arguments to be a a bit convulated.
Regards,wishing to see cricket ‘remain as you liked it’, might I suggest reclaiming the veto power that you had over the ICC in the 1980s a place to start?
johnno said | January 31st 2008 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Arnie, may i refer you to the editorial in the indian times on January 29….
So Harbhajan Singh doesn’t have to be deported to Guantanamo Bay after all. Charged with racially abusing Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds during the second Test in Sydney, Singh was facing a three-match ban, not to mention the ignominious tag of a ‘racist’. While accusing an Indian of racism sounded ludicrous to an overwhelming number of Indians, we didn’t find the possibility illogical at all, considering that racism, despite the historical protection of victimhood offered to Indians, is not the monopoly of the White world. But with much talk in the media about whether the word hurled at Symonds was really “monkey” or not, that particular issue was hijacked to be replaced by rather inane matters like ‘national pride’. Defenders either had an unquestioned innate faith in Singh’s inability skills in racial amity, or considered a terrible misunderstanding where a non-racist abuse became a racial one.
Thus, the original sentence of a three-Test ban for racial abuse was turned into a fine of half his match fee for ‘offensive behaviour’. The appeal hearing was conducted by New Zealand High Court judge and ICC code of conduct commissioner John Hansen, so one can expect an amicable end to the whole matter. But dare we suggest that the dice looked a bit loaded even before Singh’s charge was cleared? BCCI vice-president Lalit Modi had stated that “if a clean chit is not given to Harbhajan, the Indian board’s decision is to call the team home” before the sentence. With 90,000 tickets already picked up for the India-Australia Twenty20 match in Melbourne on Friday and the triangular series with Australia, Sri Lanka and India starting on Sunday, Mr Modi’s statement could have been construed as a ‘financial threat’ to ICC.
But then, Singh is free to play and has been found to have been a badly behaved boy, no racist twit, says the verdict. Why should we, cheerleaders of Singh and the Indian team, question that? Only one bit of advice for the BCCI: do consider the remote possibility of racist comments from Indian players in the future and taking subsequent action. It would be unfortunate if we are perceived to be playing post-colonial games on the field other than cricket.
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 5:18pm | Report comment
To all who claim to be followers of the Australian cricket team and yet are so quick to cast blame on them and support the Indian team pretending that sledging is worse than raceism and that Australia deserves it, I have a suggestion you are suffering from that great Australisn illness.
THE TALL POPPY SYNDROME
Hence my question earlier were do you come from. For those readers from other countries the tall poppy syndrome is a very ugly Australian phenomenom. WE HATE ANY ONE or TEAM WHO IS A SUCCESS AND TRY TO CUT THEM DOWN TO SIZE.
Temba said | January 31st 2008 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
All I can say is… I got my tickets for the 20-20 tomorrow and its going to be sparks all-round!! I hope Kumble puts Shing in to spin once Symonds comes on to bat. Lets just say it will get sorted out where it was suppose to be done in the first place… on the pitch.
All this “he said they said” BS is starting to sound like a bunch of girls in a school yard.
Its impossible to define or govern “banter” on field when you are dealing with deferent cultures and languages. Either anything goes or nothing does. Now this HUGE ISSUE should have been over with 60 seconds after it started but spite and ego turned it into this drifting piece of turd that doesn’t seem to flush no matter how many times you yank the chain.
Get over it, Symonds should not have pushed Shing (at least not when you are leading the series) it was not needed, Shing should have kept his cool and Ponting didnt have to run to the principals office.
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 5:31pm | Report comment
“THE TALL POPPY SYNDROME”
Nice try…
Between all your CAPPED comments (india go home, being my favourite) and a link to a flawed article, I have forgotten what your point is??
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 5:35pm | Report comment
Temba, thats my point.
There was not enough to ban him for 3 games with, from the start, hence this thing should never have got this pathetic stage.
Doesn’t make me un-Australian. As I have said before, I am sure Ponting wishes he never reported him at all, if he knew this was going to happen.
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 6:30pm | Report comment
Phil Coorey Im waiting for you to list the flaws in the “flawed article” and to explain the bigger picture I’m so glad you like my use of caps to help the ONE EYED pick out the main points.
INDIA GO HOME
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 7:11pm | Report comment
As I explained above, the flaw in the article is nitpicking the incidents that ICC have charged players with , when they have missed so many over the years.
That’s why I take no stock in the article, because the ICC have shown us how stupid they are , already. For example…Why was Karthik not charged with spitting at Michael Clarke at Adelaide? It was a disgraceful act that would have added to the Telegraphs numbers, but they didn’t charge him. The system is flawed.
The bigger picture is the fact that the reasons behind the 3 game suspension were hysterically stupid. He was going on the word of Aussie players and didn’t consider Sachin. Whether he did it or not became irrelevant, when they had no evidence. Plenty of criminals get off, due to a lack of evidence.
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 7:15pm | Report comment
I did like this quote from teh end of the Telegraph article….
“West Indian great Michael Holding, who travels the world as a commentator, says the Indians are by no means well behaved, but says they are among the best of a bad bunch.
“I have seen a lot of all the teams and I don’t find India to be the worst, not at all,” he said.
“I wouldn’t say they are well behaved, but they are not the worst. These days there aren’t too many well-behaved teams in cricket. Unfortunately, the game has become win at all costs – whatever it takes to win.” “
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 7:43pm | Report comment
Nice one Phil so Aussie players are liars but Indian players arn’t. Holding is stating opinion his, the Telegraph is stating facts from the ICC. Facts Phil are what argument is based on, try it some time.
INDIA GO HOME
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 7:48pm | Report comment
It was a classic case of having two sides to the story. Procter should have seen that and dismissed it. Can’t you see that?? He didn’t have enough to suspend Singh. Clarke messed his story up second time around for starters….
The facts are that the ICC system is FLAWED. Too many players are getting away with bad behavior. We all know that, I am not saying anyone is above the law, but they should have been careful with what they went ahead with.
I named Karthik as someone who should have been charged!!! Why wasn’t he??
Jezza said | January 31st 2008 @ 7:54pm | Report comment
Say goodnight Phil, goodnight Phil.
Phil Coorey said | January 31st 2008 @ 7:58pm | Report comment
Your last post didn’t contain your favourite catch cry. Everything OK???
Goodnight
Millster said | January 31st 2008 @ 9:06pm | Report comment
Ok Jezza, over to you then. I promise to have an open mind if you will do me this favour.
Describe in your own terms the playing ethos of the Australian cricket teams of recent time and their standard of behaviour (say, just to limit it, since Border).
Irrspective of any facts, any evidence, any articles – and not questioning you as a proud supporter of the team – I’d like to hear your open and honest view of how the team behave and whether they do you proud in every single thing they do.
Oscar The Grouch said | February 1st 2008 @ 11:07am | Report comment
Hansen got it right – ‘not proven’ – probably because he had access to a crucial piece if information not presented to Procter. That was – as stated by the BCCI attorney, Harbhajan himself and Tendulkar – that Harbhajan used the word ‘maaki’ which is pronounced as ‘maun-key’. In the Procter hearing, the Indians (apparently) simply stated that ‘monkey’ was not said but did NOT provide evidence as to what was in fact said. Had they been forthright, it is highly probable that Procter would have realised that the Australians had made an understandable mistake and likely imposed the lesser charge.
Other aspects of the Hansen hearing are either high farce or a new low in quasi-judicial proceedings; the proposition by Harbhajan’s attorney that he was so badly ‘provoked’ by Symond’s use of the word ‘fuck’ that he was not able to contain his rage is ludicrous, given the video evidence of Harbhajan’s gratutious use of the same word to Pietersen. Hansen’s acceptance of the ‘of course we have no intention of going home, that’s all media beat-up’ by Mohendra, is equally a sad joke and for that matter has no bearing on the facts of the case anyway.
Almost nobody seems to have given any slack to Symonds for being hyper-sensitive to Harbhajan – and it would have been entirely preferable that he had let it rest between Lee and Harbhajan, for sure. However, it seems to have been forgotten that the Australian team did NOT lodge an official complaint after the Mumbai incidents which were accepted by the BCCI as overtly racist and directed entirely at Symonds; indeed the team were thanked by the BCCI for their tolerance. Given the word ‘monkey’ was agreed as a no-go word, given the Australian team had acted with commendable restraint after Mumbai, is it any wonder they would feel that their actions then had been repayed with provocation by Harbhajan?
Let’s all move on. Tonight we have a 20/20 between these two teams and the playing field is considerably levelled; we have each team captained by a player with video evidence of claiming a possibly bounced catch (although Dhoni’s effort is incontravertible whereas Ponting’s is open to interpretation of the rule); we have on both teams batsmen who have palpably stood their ground, we have players on both sides who are unarguably users of ‘foul’ language on the field, we have two teams comprising some of the world’s most exciting cricketers. Bring it on.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 11:18am | Report comment
Hi John O,
I read that editorial, but confess am still a bit puzzled. You being a lawyer could perhaps clarify. Read Hansen’s verdict and perhaps inform us as to which of his statements or conclusions may have been tainted by the BCCI ‘threat’? After all the BCCI ‘threat’ could have been issued to make sure that CA or ICC do not delay or obfuscate the hearing any further. I mean – would we want Cricket Australia to say ’sorry’ to the Indians after 150 years where they would not ‘apportion blame to the current Australian criciket team’? I know that’s how it works in Australia, but do consider the possibility that the Indian team might not accept that.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 11:55am | Report comment
Cause…
BCCI vice-president Lalit Modi had stated that “if a clean chit is not given to Harbhajan, the Indian board’s decision is to call the team home” before the sentence. With 90,000 tickets already picked up for the India-Australia Twenty20 match in Melbourne on Friday and the triangular series with Australia, Sri Lanka and India starting on Sunday, Mr Modi’s statement could have been construed as a ‘financial threat’ to ICC.
Effect…
HS cleared of being a racist.
Work it out yourself.
Mick of Newie said | February 1st 2008 @ 12:11pm | Report comment
johnno
The BCCI and those who have purported to speak on its behalf have acted poorly in this whole matter. That is not in dispute.
But the case against HS was weak and Proctor was let down by the ICC and its non-existant procedures. The outcome was predictable because the case was weak. The BCCI’s behaviour means just that many people wont accept it.
My bet is the Australian players will let this go as quickly as possible, they like the rupee as much as CA and the ICC.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 12:16pm | Report comment
Hi Jonno,
I did try. Still not clear about the cause and effect. Sounds like a co-incidence.
How about facts? Did Hansen allow the threat to cloud his judgements? The transcript is freely available. Did the facts prove that Bhajji was racist? Or are we supposed to take your speculations at face value? Might want to read Andrew Bolt’s column today.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23142904-5007146,00.html
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Hi Jonno,
Your cause and effect appears too much like a co-incidence. Unless you can dispute the facts as laid out by Hansen and that little thing known as presumption of innocence.
Have you read Andrew Bolt’s column today?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23142904-5007146,00.html
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 12:57pm | Report comment
Dang,
my last 2 comments wern’t posted !! Don’t tell me Proctor is refereeing herre as well
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Lets try again.
Hi Johno,
Your cause and effect appears to ignore the impact of ‘facts’. The effect would have been on CA finances – how does the BCCI threat impact on Hansen’s verdict?
Hope you have read Andrew Bolts column today:
IF Harbhajan Singh has been fined for abuse, why not Andrew Symonds?
The Indian spinner, on the evidence of a formal hearing, has done nothing that the Australian all-rounder didn’t do first and worst.
But such is our boorish love of the oi-oi-oi macho that few Australians want to believe we’re no better than the Indians we’re so keen to condemn.
Sure enough, Singh is no angel, and India’s cricket administrators have acted like thugs against the umpires and the game’s administrators.
But check the excellent 8000-word judgment of John Hansen, the New Zealand judge who heard Singh’s appeal against his three-match suspension for his alleged racial abuse of Symonds during the second Test.
See there how the swaggering aggression and foul language of our team has at last caught up with it, and learn that before Australians lecture Indians on manners we might go find our own.
*****
Consider the following evidence, taken from Hansen’s judgment.
On that last tour of India, Symonds and Singh shook hands on a deal not to talk trash to each other again, but Symonds snapped in Sydney when Singh paid bowler Brett Lee a compliment, of all things.
Says Hansen: “I have reviewed the television evidence . . . It is clear that Mr Lee bowled an excellent yorker to Mr Singh, who was fortunate to play the ball to fine leg. As he passed Mr Lee, while completing a single, Mr Singh patted Mr Lee on the backside. Anyone observing this incident would take it to be a clear acknowledgement of well bowled.”
Good sportsmanship, no? Just what we like to see, I’d have hoped.
Indeed, remember how moved we were when England captain Andrew Flintoff put his arm around Lee after the Australian batted so gamely — but in vain — to save the Edgbaston Test?
But what was fine from the English Flintoff was foul from the Indian Singh. Says Hansen: “Symonds took objection to this and . . . approached Mr Singh, telling him he had no friends among the Australians in foul and abusive language.”
This clearly was just the kind of sledging for which the Australians are now infamous — the crudity that too many fans admire, but which comes over to Indians as the kind of colonial crud they no longer need tolerate
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Well we would all like to forget it as quick as possible. My Indian mates are just as embarrassed as i am.
It is also true that the power of money can heal many things. I must ask this though – is anyone worried about this sort of behaviour (threats/tantrums/blackmail) becoming entrenched in cricket? Is this the very sharp edge of a big fat wedge?
It seems to me that cricket will become a game where the outcome will be pre-determined before a match starts. Sort of like the old days when teams visited India. Funny that.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:11pm | Report comment
Hansen should not have made any mention of Symonds behaviour. He was not on trial. Singh was. It is like a judge blaming a victim for provoking an attack – injudicious and reprehensible. Hansen has clearly lost the plot in retirement. I must read some of his NZ judgments to see if any rape victims were blamed for wearing provocative clothing.
As to sledging – the Australians may be famous for it but that does not mean they are the worst offenders. Look at the facts. Arnie – did you see four Australians run 40m to sledge a batsman in the third test? No. But we did see the Indians run up to Clarke.
At the end of the day – these are the facts – only one team and its officials attempted to pervert the course of justice. For this – shame on India. Shame.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:13pm | Report comment
Hi Johno,
I suppose we are as worried about the fact that lying, cheating, abusing opposition players being passed off in the name of as ‘professionalism’ and ‘and being hard and fair’. But hey if that’s the only way you can win as events in Perth showed.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:15pm | Report comment
Does everyone out there know that the Indian players separate their match fees from a sponsorship logo fee. This is done with the sole purpose of escaping fines for reprehensible behaviour. If you dont believe me then check it out.
Jezza said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Arnie abuse and racial vilification are poles apart. The Indians never abuse anyone on the cricket field tell me another one.
Remember Hansen works for the ICC thats not independant.
Its sad to see how many Australians are happy bashing our cricket team.
INDIA GO HOME
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
I suppose we are as worried about the fact that lying, cheating, abusing umpires will become an accepted part of the game.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:17pm | Report comment
Yes Johno I know Bhajji was on trial foisted by the kangaroo court of CA and ICC. Alas Hansen changed that. Which is why we have all the heart burn. Please explain how is Symonds the ‘victim’ here how is it Bhajji’s fault if you start to dish it out but can’t take it back
Gotta run – but keep thinking along the lines. will get back to the debate soon
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:22pm | Report comment
Arnie – and here we have it. What a conspiracy. Apparently Australia has lied and cheated in every continent, with many different umpires, against many different teams, in many different conditions for well over ten years. That must be the greatest conspiracy ever.
We keep winning because we train harder than any other team. Finito.
You keep whinging because, despite an inordinate amount of talent and money, you keep losing. Simple. Finito. I do have one suggestion for India, perhaps taking money out of the game would benefit their team as well. Instead of prancing around like the princesses they behave like, they might knuckle down and do some hard work.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:24pm | Report comment
Wasn’t Tendulkar convicted for ball tampering? He’s a great batsman, sure, but how many Australians have been done for ball tampering in the last 20 years?
Arnie – please give examples of “lying” and “cheating” you refer to. I am sure, if you can, that I can cite a better example by an Indian player in the current series, save for claiming a close catch: the Indians did not take too many of those as I recall.
Jezza said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Simple Arnie Roy was racially abused AGAIN by Singh who has form on this including doing the monkey roll which no one has mentioned.Both captains agreed to report any racial taunts before the first test Ponting stuck to that the Indians didnt.
INDIA GO HOME
Mick of Newie said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:37pm | Report comment
When were these bad old days. Australia has a good record in India.
Aust won series in 56, 60, 69 and 2004, drew series in 59, 64, 86. Take out a 1-0 loss in ‘79 when Australia sent the B team, the loss of a one off test in 96 umpired by known cheats Venkat and Peter Willey, 2-1 series loss in 1998 with one neutral umpire and again 2-1 loss in 2001 (principally due to Steve Waugh enforcing the follow on) and that is a pretty good record.
Or did India only fix games against other countires.
Mick of Newie said | February 1st 2008 @ 1:49pm | Report comment
Jezza
Monkey Roll!!
Top marks for originiality, in all the miles of blogs I have read on this matter finally an original thought.
Please someone call Andrew Hilditch we have found our next great spinner.
And Johnno as Hansen was independent he can say what he damn well pleases and if it places the situation in some context that is helpful.
To take your point to its illogical conclusion his judgement should have been one sentence “I find the charge not proven.” Now wouldn’t that have been illuminating.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
Mick – out of interest, what is the ratio of win/loss games in India against all foreign teams? Im guessing their win/loss ratio at home far exceeds anyone else (perhaps with the exception of pakistan).
Hansen independent? I merely say he was a cog in an engineered process designed to produce only one outcome. I mean seriously – how can he not know Singh has form or at least enquire as to his form from counsel? Thats a joke right? An articled clerk wouldnt get that wrong.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:14pm | Report comment
Look at this comment by Hansen…
“(India’s legal advocate) Mr Vasha Manohar has assured me that that is not the position of the BCCI and it is no more than media speculation and exaggeration.”
Thats a joke right? We have audio and video of the BCCI saying this.
It is truly implausible that anyone seriously attempting to establish the truth of a matter would accept this on face value. Hansen has suffered a huge blow to his credibility – long may he live with the shame of his actions.
If Manohar was an Australian lawyer who lied like this he would be up in front of the responsible professional board to be struck off the role. But being a kangaroo court – nothing will happen and the blind will continue to be lead by those with mercenary motives who act without regard to honor, right, or justice.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:20pm | Report comment
Hi Jonno,
I’m afraid the Aussie cheating is far more institutionalised. Remember they introduced the 2 bouncers per over rule in the 1980s to avoid facing the Windies bowlers. Chappell’s under arm bowling is the stuff sportsmanship legends are made of
as is Warnes ‘mommy gave me drugs’.
No one denies that the Aussie team is extremely talented, the obvious query is why do they still feel the need to lie and cheat when they could win honestly? genetics?
Hi Jezza,
Youve obviously missed the bit where Hansen stated that there is absolutely no proof that Bhajji used the M word. However, now in my view (please note – my view), this whole aspect of sledging or ‘Mental disintegration’ the term coined by Steve Waugh alludes to unsportsman like methods to upset the rythym of the opposing players. Now it is supposed to be fine as long as it is covered with the ‘fig leaf’ of non-racial abuse. So theoretically, Aussie players could call Indians ‘Bastards’ and get away with it because as they rightly said – it’s non racial. But it is extremely upsetting to Indians, they have a long standing tradition of respecting parents. However, it is also a fact that if the Indian team has to fight fire with fire – is there any point calling the Aussies ‘bastards’ ? For them its merely stating a fact (apologies for the generalisation but I’ve been assured by JohnO that it is ‘efficient’). So why not use terms which upset the Aussies? Is there any reason why Indians have to conform to the Aussie standards of what constitutes sledging and what becomes a bit personal?
After all the Aussie players making choo choo sounds when Chris Cairns came to the crease a few years earlier is a clear case of non-racial sledging. They were alluding the fact that Chris’s sister had died in a train accident. Now in my opinion, they should have responded by handing out breast pads to Glenn McGrath – but that’s just me. I don’t have the high standards of sportsmanship that the Aussie players appear to have.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
Hi Jonno,
The last 16 consecutive wins that Aus had, 12 were on Australian soil. So your point was? Regards Hansen’s statement about Varsha Manohar’s contention – he is absolutely correct. Lalit Modi has no authority to bring the Indian team home. The decision would have to be BCCIs and ratified by the President – Sharad Pawar. Come on JohnO for an alleged lawyer you are a bit slow. The query is – Will the ICC fine Symonds for abusing, infact starting it ? and will Proctor suspend Ponting for 5 matches for claiming false catches, as he did to Rashid Latif.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:34pm | Report comment
I’m afraid the Aussie cheating is far more institutionalised. So institutionalised you cant actually name any events?
- 2 bouncers = icc rule
- under arm = within rules
As to the choo choo myth there was never any sound recording of that. I believe you can find a statement from Cairns himself saying it did not happen.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
uh the same icc where Aus had veto powers at the time? Regards choo choo – amazing how ‘proof’ suddenly becomes important
. I know under arm is within rules, but why is it that only the super hardworking and hard training Aussies have to use these rules? So was Kumble wrong when he said only one team was playing in the spirit of the game?
Mick of Newie said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
Johnno
I have no idea of Indias win loss ratio at home but I am guessing it is much worse than Australias. But this is a ridiculous debate, allegations of match fixing or the like must be addressed in the specific not the general. Generally all Test teams tour poorly mainly because they don’t prepare properly. Look at our Ashes loss in 2005, look at India’s preparation here.
You keep saying Hansen must have known HS had form. Form for what? He was told by his counsel assisitng HS had one conviction by the ICC, in fact he had 4 previous. Why should he have known.
I have followed Australian cricket over the years and I couldn’t tell you who got done and who hasn’t. Was Healy done for calling Ranatunga a fat c*** I don’t know, was Slats done for his carry on in India I am guessing yes, was Boof done yep remember that one, other I don’t know. McGrath and Warne would have been done at some stage but I couldn’t tell you how many times.
If you want to believe Test cricket is fundamentally corrupt then your choice is simple, watch the Pura Cup. My guess is that the Australian Team will want to keep playing and they will probably be successful. Andrew Symonds and Harbijhan Singh can decide how they want to play and the fans will decide if it is worth watching.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:40pm | Report comment
The point is this – does india have a home winning ratio greater than any other team (barring pakistan)? If so.. how do you think they got it? Also – who has the best winning ratio on neutral soil? I wonder….
The point is this – Hansen accepted a bald faced lie – whether Modi has the power or not is irrelevant. He made the threat and his lawyer lied about it. And inconceivably Hansen accepted it without question.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:46pm | Report comment
Varsha Manohar is not Lalit Modi’s lawyer. He was hired by the BCCI to defend Harbhajan. Why should he be responsible for every sound byte coming out of various members of BCCI? His mandate is to put forward the official view of BCCI – not of individuals who happen to be part of the BCCI.
johnno said | February 1st 2008 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Why should he have known? I dont know… all the time in the world to do the research? The right to question counsel? The fact that he was a judge and should know better? What about getting it right as a good reason to know.
Anyway… I have to go to a real court. So see you later. Hopefully my client wont have to cope with any Hansen’s.
Arnie said | February 1st 2008 @ 4:01pm | Report comment
Good luck JohnO. If your client is as innocent as Symonds – hope you get Proctor as a judge
Jezza said | February 1st 2008 @ 4:39pm | Report comment
It appears that the choice is this the Australians are liars and cheats and the indians are as white {pun} as the driven snow OR the Indians are cheats and liars and the Australians are as white as the driven snow.
INDIA GO HOME
Mick of Newie said | February 1st 2008 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
JEZZA YOU WIN.
Temba said | February 1st 2008 @ 5:04pm | Report comment
Yes as you say “India go home” the petty bitching around this issue is making me slightly nauseous.
Yea Jezza take the entire Indian team put them on a boat a sail them out of here, the lot of them. Who are they to come here and saying what they want and get away with it??
Great way to think of it really… That would be the death of cricket, get real or get over it.
Everyone had a hand in this, no one is innocent, let drop this idiotic subject and get on with Cricket. Its spiraling down the drain and becoming boring.
Sort it out on the field, leave it on the field.
If not change the rule to no one say nothing to the other team.
Oscar The Grouch said | February 1st 2008 @ 5:52pm | Report comment
Arnie – Symonds wasn’t on a charge. You started out badly, slumped quite a lot in the middle, and the less said about the end, the better. Hansen came to the right decision regarding the charge of racial vilification – ‘not proven’, and penalty reduced to ‘abusive language’
As for the question of why not a similar charge for Symonds? Well, indeed – why not? The Indians had the right to report his language, they did not – yet they did complain about Hogg. If you actually read Hansen’s judgement, you will have noted ( but not acknowledged) the following: ‘ At the end of the over while the umpires were changing ends and the fields was crossing over to their new positions, Andrew Symonds approached Harbhajan Singh and told him that he had no friends amongst the
Australians (he admits he used the word ‘fuck’ or a derivation thereof). Singh used similar language to Symonds and neither took offence at that stage.’
Not an edifying incident, admittedly, for either party – but accepted by both as ‘honours even’ ( to abuse a phrase..) Now read on, from Hansen’s judgement: ‘However the exchange caused Singh to become angry and he motioned to Symonds
to come towards him. Singh then said something to Symonds. There is a dispute as to what was said. However all of the players who gave evidence to the hearing before Match Referee Procter of what was said between Harbhajan Singh and
Andrew Symonds namely, Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds, Mathew Hayden and Michael Clarke, are all clearly of the view that in the circumstances, Harbhajan Singh used language that was (and intended by Singh to be), offensive to Andrew Symonds. Symonds took immediate offence at the language and behaviour of Singh.
Please note, in case your reading skills are selective, that Harbhajan is one of the signatories to the fact that he ‘used language that was intended to be offensive to Andrew Symonds’. It was Harbhajan who decided to take the thing to the ‘next level’, Symonds had had his little tanty and headed back to the field. If Harbhajan had left it alone all this would not have happened so how about cutting Symonds some slack? Symonds cut Harbhajan some slack in India when clear racial abuse had been directed at him; he ( and the Aussie team you crucify) had NOT officially complained about the abuse which the BCCI had accepted – somewhat grudgingly – as racist; he approached Harbhajan man-to-man to sort it out, Harbhajan did not take the honourable course to approach Symonds first. If you extended the olive branch to someone and then they apparently did the same thing again, are you so pure of heart as to not get angry?
Now, when the thing came before Procter ( p.s. do TRY to get your names correct, it would improve your case) the Indian team, as far as anybody knows – and Hansen’s judgement does nothing to suggest otherwise – did not indicate that Harbhajan had used the word ‘maaki ‘ which is pronounced ‘maun key’. Why ever not? It would have certainly introduced the possibility of mishearing on the part of the Australians and the likelihood of the charge being at the very least lowered from ‘racial vilification’ – as has been the case. Anil Kumble is a highly intelligent man and an experienced captain and he would have realised the distinction between a Level 3 charge and a Level 2 charge – give him that credit, surely – so why not present all the evidence at the initial hearing? Procter made his decision on the evidence presented; he was denied certain vital facts by the Indians.
As for your contention that Australians are the worst of the worst – have a look at the youTube of Harbhajan’s little effort with Pietersen. Now, most of us would like to tell Pietersen the same thing, but standing your ground with your stumps shattered, shouting at him ‘fuck you’? is about as bad as anything going. Australians are the only ones who attempt cheating? – Dhoni vs. Pietersen, also on YouTube – and it was an Australian umpire who gave Pietersen out, btw, so you can, frankly, blow your charges of Australian one-sidedness out your arse, sport, we give and we damn well get in return. Ponting did what the ICC required of him; he and Symonds et al, have accepted that they could have been mistaken in what they heard once the similarity of ‘maaki’ and ‘monkey’ has been made clear, and basically did NOT contest the substance of Harbhajan’s appeal.
We’d all like things out there to become less uncivilised than it now is, but to single out Australia as the only villian is bigotry.
Jezza said | February 2nd 2008 @ 8:59am | Report comment
Time to move on all I’v enjoyed the debate one question left.
Can Harbhajan Singh?
Over to you bye.
matta said | February 2nd 2008 @ 9:23am | Report comment
haha
well I thought he took it pretty well last night…
I think we all ready to move on..lessons we have been taught.
1) Harbi is an idiot
2) ICC are gutless turn coats
3) Phil Coorey is ‘The Roar’s’ best Ostrich
Phil Coorey said | February 2nd 2008 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
matta, what does that mean?
matta said | February 3rd 2008 @ 1:46pm | Report comment
mate, just having a poke at your “nothing that bad happened” approach to the whole things.
johnno said | February 4th 2008 @ 8:13am | Report comment
From the Hindustan times….
In the aftermath of the overturning of the ban, a board administrator was quoted as having said something like, “We shall not stand for our boys being called racists.” Our boys? Racists? Gosh. Cue incredulity, shock, horror. (Denial.)
When Andrew Symonds was taunted with monkey chants by the crowd in Vadodara, and then in Mumbai last year, I remember some of my colleagues – educated, affluent, urban Indians, all of them – saying, “Oh, so what’s the fuss? The Australians say much worse.” (Ignorance, unknowingness, denial.) “Monkey,” they said, is hardly that offensive. To be fair, the term does not quite imply in India what it does in the UK or the US or Australia, though it’s not good enough to say that any more.
They were missing the point.
And here is another example – from my own childhood.
I grew up in a middle-class, educated Bengali household in Kolkata. The routine term to describe the complexion of someone like myself — not fair, like some of the members of my extended family — was “moila” (literally translated as “dirty”). The funny thing, I now find, was that no one thought much of having said it. It was uttered unselfconsciously — if always with a bit of regret.
They were missing the point too; but we can’t afford to do that any longer. We need to first accept that as a nation, India is among the most racist in the world. African students on the streets of Mumbai will testify to that, as will black cricketers. Then, we need to be aware of the fact that a racist insult is the absolute worst thing that you can throw at someone; and finally, we need to unshackle ourselves from this mindset.
All this is made tricky given India’s complex, disconcerting, and often inexplicable relationship with colour. The festishisation of white skin in a brown-skinned country comes bound up with an irreconcilable sense of contradiction and a notion of, often unconscious, self-loathing. Creams and lotions that claim to lighten one’s skin have for years comprised an industry worth many millions in India. Look at the matrimonial ads. Listen to some of the conversations in educated, affluent, urban households. And keep your ears pricked, particularly for the throwaway asides.
There is a lesson for Harbhajan and his mates, and for all of us, in the fact that the charge, once divorced from its racial connotation, was watered down. The lesson is that abusive language is less of an offence internationally than a racist taunt; that a Hindi phrase that isn’t, well, terribly respectful towards someone else’s mother is seen to be less criminal than calling that someone a monkey.
The sooner we learn that lesson, the better it is for Harbhajan — and the rest of the country. It will help us grow up.
Temba said | February 4th 2008 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Hi Johnno,
I attended the seriously boring 20-20 game at the MCG on Friday and this will shock you but the Australians do the same thing but not only to the players to the supporters in the crowd as well. From all around me in the general admission I heard taunts of “get back in your Taxi” and “curry munchers”. People in massive crowds chanting “YOU ARE A WANKER” and I suddenly realized how hypocritical all this is.
I would of thought Australians would take the higher ground and show them they are better but I was wrong.
After the game a fight broke out between a young Indian supporter and a young Australian supporter… Now I have worked with Indian people for years and have never known anyone to start a brawl, its not common in their culture to start punch-ups.
Australia walked over India from Ball one, why add insult to injury?
Ill add this, that before, during and after the game racial remarks and negative taunts where made by many, not just a small handful.
Oscar The Grouch said | February 4th 2008 @ 11:00am | Report comment
Temba – the continuation of this sort of nasty racist crap by both sides – and we can all but guarantee it will happen towards at least Symonds in India later this year – is in part just plain stupidity, obviously, but in part is also almost guaranteed by Hansen’s judgement. When I say that, let me add that it was as obvious as the nose on my face that the only realistic outcome was ‘not proven’.
What Hansen’s judgement did was to go overboard to be seen to not have been in any way ‘pressured’ by the BCCI position and in doing that, he laboured hard to demonstrate that Harbhajan had reacted to ‘provocation’ by Symonds so as to justify his findings. That was of course easy to do because Symonds had effectively opened the exchange – but Hansen conveniently ignored the fact that the apparently racial comment was in the final exchange initiated by Ahrbhajan. Symonds has been held out to dry in all of this, quite unfairly, and it is obvious from close reading of Hansen’s findings that CA wanted the whole matter done and dusted and they did not properly support Symonds or the team.
So what happened is that Hansen made a great deal of the ‘reasonable man would not find ‘monkey’ to be racially offensive – despite the fact that the ICC ( and the BCCI, incidentally) had accepted that it IS when used towards someone of Symond’s ethnicity. That then opens up practically any racially offensive comment to that defence – after all, would not the ‘reasonable man’ find that ‘curry muncher’ is a reference to gastronomic habits’, ‘Get back to your taxi’ is simply telling someone to use a form of transport etc?
Had Hansen, CA and the BCCI all come out strongly and said:’ racism is not acceptable, a racist comment is simply not acceptable in sport from anybody’ it might have helped to at least slow down this sort of crap going on, but basically in order to ‘hose down’ the situation, Hansen has fostered the idea that racist comments are really just a bit of bad behaviour. Instead of helping put the lid on the whole damn thing, he opened it up again. Yes, those who used the anti-Indian comments were dickheads but unfortunately this whole business has opened up the ‘grey area’ very badly.
As an aside, those who have followed Harbhajan’s career have noted that he is well versed in sledging in English and his use of a Punjabi term that sounds phoenetically identical to ‘monkey’ is, to say the least, not usual. Yes, technically Hansen was correct – he cannnot be proven to have used the actual word ‘monkey’ – but by working so hard to paint Symonds as the aggressor and Harbhajan as the righteously upset party Hansen has effectively diluted the whole thrust against racist comments by a huge amount. It’s going to continue, with idiots pushing the limits by twisting away from the essential fact that it is the intent behind the use of any words – the ICC Code of Conduct definition is actually spot-on right here – that they can feel they can argue ‘the reasonable man would not find racist.’
When the heat dies down, Hansen’s findings will be seen as technically correct but that by his efforts to ‘legitimise’ his findings he has served the game – and the cause of diminishing racist commentary in sport – he has done incredibly badly and coincidentally trashed Symonds and the Australian team efforts to combat racism. A sad, bad result.
Cazza said | February 4th 2008 @ 2:18pm | Report comment
Temba what do you mean you’ve never known indians to start a brawl do you know how the fight started and also not that i know this started a brawl but you probably saw what the indian supporters were saying to symonds. And I do believe that aussies would have said that to the indians but thats the crowd if we were going to start about how racist the crowds can be then look at Australia’s ODI tour of India had pretty much the entire crowd being racist towards Symonds and aussies in the crowd would have been abused as well.
Also what Hansen did was really stupid and he looked like a moron (quote)Hansen’s findings will be seen as technically correct but that by his efforts to ‘legitimise’ his findings he has served the game – and the cause of diminishing racist commentary in sport – he has done incredibly badly and coincidentally trashed Symonds and the Australian team efforts to combat racism. A sad, bad result. (quote)
i have always been taught that if you have been bullied or in this case with harbajan when symonds provoked him not to say something back to them but to either ignore it or tell your parents (in this case the umpires) its such a simple thing and Hansen should of ignored India’s threats to go home and focus on the issue which was the racism charge.
If symonds did provoke harbajan then he should have been mature about it instead of lashing out like a little 4 year old
Cazza said | February 4th 2008 @ 2:21pm | Report comment
INDIA GO HOME
johnno said | February 7th 2008 @ 12:28pm | Report comment
Temba – it is true what you say about Indians not starting a fist fight. I have never seen it myself in the many times I have been to India. But would you agree they can be very aggressive? I mean after all they have been in a state of quasi-war for many years.
And I am not saying Australians are not racist. What I am saying is that there is a huge double standard. Basically, they can get away with anything. Dont like the umpire… change him. Dont like a decision.. get it overturned. These are things Australia does not do.