Hair v ICC, employment tribunal, London, Oct 1st to 9th

Any but a wishy-washy excuse would be a bonus.

Merlin wrote:At an Employment Tribunal in High Holborn, London.

Who knows.

ps does it matter whether it's Holborn or Croydon.

Invader Zim wrote:
Just googled the term...so it's another name for 'red todger week'?

Aye, blobbing it, on the rag, painters in, blood clots dripping out your fadge.

A visit from Aunt Flo...

Invader Zim wrote:A visit from Aunt Flo...

Haven't any more. Heard loads in my time but never remember them. I knew I shouldn't alcohol.

BTW, what does FF stand for and how did you become it's leader?

Invader Zim wrote:BTW, what does FF stand for and how did you become it's leader?

Fantasy Football. Basically what I did was choose a sh!t team, then beat all of my rivals due to the simple fact they're such hair-lipped gibbons that they know F all about the game.

Batfink Begins wrote:

Invader Zim wrote:BTW, what does FF stand for and how did you become it's leader?

Fantasy Football. Basically what I did was choose a sh!t team, then beat all of my rivals due to the simple fact they had forgotten they had even picked a team

Fixed

Say what you say JKL, simple fact is I burst into the lead from the start and kept it going, regardless of the fact I haven't changed anyone. I'm a legend. Must be all that glorious footy up the Cobblers that I watch.

Its a marathon not a sprint...

Gary 111 wrote:Its a marathon not a sprint...

Kind of like sex . . .

. . . but that's more of a decathalon . . .

Gary 111 wrote:Its a marathon not a sprint...

Yih, by which point I'll be so apathetic that I'll give you all a chance to slide in front.

tac wrote:

Please, don't you know about thong-liners?

An example of tac-sense? You're no shining example of a King's College alumnus.


Back to Hair's case, watch channel 4's news report, of the first day in court, here:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/sports/the+umpire+strikes+back/865262

Speaking for the ICC, Michael Beloff, QC, denied the allegations. “[Hair] was not a victim of race discrimination,” he said. “He was the author of his own misfortune. In cricketing terms, Mr Hair ran himself out.”

Beloff argued that a “damaging blow to the game’s reputation and finances was the product of the obduracy of one man” and suggested that Hair’s behaviour rather than his race was the issue. “Exactly the same decision would have been reached had Mr Hair been black or brown or even green,” Beloff said.

from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article2570585.ece

Apparently, Hair sees the world as "white" and "non-white".

Merlin wrote:

mynah wrote:I wondered if he had a case until I saw that Peter Chingoka had been involved. Hope for Hair's sake he doesn't have a farm...

Here's a paradox.
ICC remove Zimbabwe from the list of Test playing nations - for reasons indirectly related to racial prejudice - irrespective of the colour of the human being currently being debased in that country?

So how come Chingoka is presiding on a panel which is dealing with, in essence, an incident directly related to a Test match which concerns racial prejudice?

For the sake of justice, it is hoped that Hair and his legal advisors take the ICC apart for their arrogance and their utter hypocrisy.

In answer to a question above - yes, it was Malcolm Speed, the shifty little lawyer, who reccommended that Hair put in writing his severence requirements which ensured a quiet, under the radar departure from the spotlight - before then feigning surprise at Hair's demands whilst putting what was allegedly a private matter, into the public domain.
Yet another indication of arrogant hypocrisy.

Let's hope this case opens a huge can of worms and exposes the faceless prats who claim to run (but actually ruIn) this beautiful game.

It was actually the ICC Umpires Dude who suggested to Dazza he put something in writing ...Speed came in half way through the train of events and thought that Dazza's email was unsolicited and he put it to the media ...

Odd that Chingoka should be one of those deciding on Hair's financial morality. He had no qualms about accepting a couple of farms whose owners had been forced off at gun-point in return for his loyalty to Mugabe's policies...

filosofee wrote:

tac wrote:

Please, don't you know about thong-liners?

An example of tac-sense? You're no shining example of a King's College alumnus.

Jealousy is such an ugly emotion . . . .

tac wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:Its a marathon not a sprint...

Kind of like sex . . .

. . . but that's more of a decathalon . . .

100-metre run, long jump, shot put, high jump, 400 metres, 110-metre hurdles, discus, pole vault, javelin, and 1500 metres

Ow... Many a guy would rupture the discus before getting to pole-vaulting or using the javelin.

embee wrote:
It was actually the ICC Umpires Dude who suggested to Dazza he put something in writing ...Speed came in half way through the train of events and thought that Dazza's email was unsolicited and he put it to the media ...

Perhaps so in the first instance, but my take at the time was that it was Speed, (first via phone) and thereafter, when on his way to London, who personally took the initiative to quell the brewing storm by suggesting that a confidential proposal be made by Hair to the ICC which would see him suitably compensated in exchange for him taking early 'retirement', and that Speed would oversee the procedure to settle the issue once and for all.
So, he was certainly involved as I remember musing "Aussie knifes fellow Aussie and friend in the back" at the time.

More significantly - two statements made at yesterday's Tribunal opening exchanges -

- Contending that pressure had been brought to bear on the ICC by the Asian bloc members, Griffiths said: “The Asian bloc is dominant in cricket. Sometimes it uses that dominance inappropriately. Everyone knows it, most are afraid to say so.”

... and ...

- Percy Sonn, the president of the ICC who died in May, directed Nasim Ashraf, the newly appointed chairman of the Pakistan Cricket Board, Peter Chingoka, of Zimbabwe, and Sir John Anderson, of New Zealand, to propose a resolution on the matter during a recess. Griffiths argued that Ashraf, who had been with Pakistan during the protest at the Oval and had complained about Hair standing in future Tests, was “the very last person in the world who should have been directed to take part in that discussion”.

“He was effectively prosecutor, judge and jury,” Griffiths said, adding that Chingoka and Anderson had also spoken previously in favour of taking action against Hair.

As with England (vs Sri Lanka) in yesterday's ODI ... Hair was clearly farked long before the first ball was bowled!

Hair's lawyer made one great point, if it's not racism then why is doctrove still able to umpire?

He made a joint decision with hair that pakistan had done something to the ball, if hair is guilty then they are both guilty if he just went along with hair then he's cleary not strong enough to umpire at this level.

Doctrove has been strangely "invisible" in the whole saga.....

The strangest part of this whole affair is Madegulle's finding that the damage to the ball was "as likely" to have been caused by normal usage as by tampering. However, the only two people who had been monitoring the condition of the ball on an over by over basis were Hair and Doctrove and they found the damage suspicious and replaced the ball. Yet, all seem to feel that Pakistan were cleared by Madegulle's decision. Rum . . .

Its all very suspicious.

Lost tapes, ambiguous findings, one umpire banned for two years the other one had diddly done to him.

I'd just love the ICC to get nailed for this...........

embee wrote:Doctrove has been strangely "invisible" in the whole saga.....

He is expected to attend as witness for the defence - ie for Hair, either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

Seems a strange way of describing his status seeing as Hair has brought the prosecuting action!

please don't yell wrote:Hair's lawyer made one great point, if it's not racism then why is doctrove still able to umpire?

He made a joint decision with hair that pakistan had done something to the ball, if hair is guilty then they are both guilty if he just went along with hair then he's cleary not strong enough to umpire at this level.

Exactly so. I suspect the different treatment received by Doctrove will be a fairly fundamental part of Hair's case, and unless the ICC are basing their defence on Doctrove being little more than a bystander (which raises some fairly serious points) it's hard to see how they can justify the utterly different treatment.

Let's be blunt about this, the reason why Hair was removed was because some nations point-blank refused to accept him standing in one of their matches. That's where the ICC fell down, they allowed the individual nations to dictate who could and who couldn't umpire. So now we all know; you cannot afford to upset those nations if you want a career.

Griffiths QC : “The Asian bloc is dominant in cricket. Sometimes it uses that dominance inappropriately. Everyone knows it, most are afraid to say so.”

The most damning yet wholly truthful statement made in the opening exchanges yesterday.