The core of the problem

bliksem wrote:http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329742.html

It states that the report includes the line, "I believe that one group was telling the truth."

And that alone is contentious.
One person's opinion on which party was the more convincing in "telling the truth" which ultimately led to his judgement.

Dangerous ground IMO.

Well, before the hearing even took place, Procter said that the Umpires hadn't heard anything. Then channel nine said that they had picked up nothing on the stumps mic's. So......What else does that leave apart from the words of the 2 sets of players? Tendulkar stated in no uncertain terms that Harbhajan was innocent, so I very much doubt he actually dobbed the Turbanator in during the hearing.

What other evidence could there possibly be? Does Andrew Symonds secretly have another person living on his body like that guy in 'Total Recall'? Did he give evidence? And even if he did give evidence, is he an ICC official, or an Australian player?

bliksem wrote:http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329742.html

It states that the report includes the line, "I believe that one group was telling the truth."

C'mon Bliks. We all know crocinfo is full of garbage.

If you are right and Proctor has gone on the word of one group than the other, I would suggest most on here would agree thats a load of Tosh. However until the facts are known, no one knows whats what.

I'm of the opinion that if Proctor found him guilty, he must have had the evidence. If not he's possibly tghe most stupid human being on this planet on that particular day....

lardbucket wrote:Gosh, I bet some people haven't even thought of that.

Sage huh?

Henry wrote:Well, before the hearing even took place, Procter said that the Umpires hadn't heard anything. Then channel nine said that they had picked up nothing on the stumps mic's. So......What else does that leave apart from the words of the 2 sets of players? Tendulkar stated in no uncertain terms that Harbhajan was innocent, so I very much doubt he actually dobbed the Turbanator in during the hearing.

What other evidence could there possibly be? Does Andrew Symonds secretly have another person living on his body like that guy in 'Total Recall'? Did he give evidence? And even if he did give evidence, is he an ICC official, or an Australian player?

Wait until the report comes out of the appeal is heard and no doubt all or nothing will be revealed. Until then no one knows and your just sprouting drivel for the sake of it!

Hey merlo, have you ever interviewed a few people about an incident, got one version which rang true from start to finish, and had another which seemed totally reliant on unlikely events?

Do teachers have to prove that the dog didn't eat the kids homework, day after day?

Cricinfo published Procter's official statement. How is that garbage? I heard it read out on the news ffs.

Henry wrote:Cricinfo published Procter's official statement. How is that garbage? I heard it read out on the news ffs.

A statement and the official report with all the evidence (if any) and witness statements are two very different things.

The statement is garbage with respect to actually what evidence was used. Unless he spells it out for you in full in the statement? Which if I remember correctly they don't!!

I very much doubt that the Indians would be making such a big deal out of this now if they had been caught right out at the hearing.

I suppose this magical evidence was delivered to the hearing by a big American man carrying a briefcase and wearing a black suit and sunglasses?

Ban India.

Henry wrote:I very much doubt that the Indians would be making such a big deal out of this now if they had been caught right out at the hearing.

I suppose this magical evidence was delivered to the hearing by a big American man carrying a briefcase and wearing in a black suit and sunglasses?

Perhaps, perhaps not. As I said before no one knows except Proctor and the ICC etc etc etc as to what the evidence was. And I doubt we will find out until after the appeal.

Fair enough. Lets wait and see. But if I was Mike Procter, I would be preparing to jump before I am pushed.

Henry wrote:What's worse- Calling someone a monkey, or calling them a black c*nt?

Saying it to someone's face would be worse than thinking it aloud when you thought you were alone.

Good point JGK...

It could be argued that Lehmann's actions were more cowardly, ie he didn't have the guts to say it to the Sri Lankans faces.

PMSL...classic Mudge.

holcs wrote:

bliksem wrote:http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329742.html

It states that the report includes the line, "I believe that one group was telling the truth."

C'mon Bliks. We all know crocinfo is full of garbage.

Do we? How do we know that?

Procter is stupid though - that's something I think most people on here would agree on. Whether he's acted in character in this instance is what's being debated, but he does have history on his side.

Henry wrote:It could be argued that Lehmann's actions were more cowardly, ie he didn't have the guts to say it to the Sri Lankans faces.

It could be argued that way... if you were an idiot.

Invader Zim wrote:Is probably India's immaturity as a nation. Accused of racism, found guilty of racism, collectively it's just not able to deal with it rationally.

Compare the two cases; Lehmann and Singh.

One admitted to his crime; one didn't.
One board upheld the ban applied; one threatened to cancel a tour, and got officials sacked.
One set of fans dealt with it with barely a murmur; one set of fans burnt effigies and carried on like pork chops.

That would be subject to presuming that Bhajji is guilty. He has not confessed so we will back him and just because he has NOT confessed does not mean he is indeed guilty. Unless proven otherwise there is no way he can be doubted. The comparision has no relevance. Lehmann was heard mouthing off and he did not come out on his own accord. There were witnesses other than his teammates. In the end the Referee did let him off with a reprimand. It was Speed who stepped in to suspend him and not the Referee. Remember Gilchrist accusing Latif of Racism in some JAMODI a month later but the same referee Clive Loydd still convicted him and not merely reprimind him despite lack of evidence only for ICC to overrule it. Is this an age old Aussie syndrome or what?

Anyway, didn't pretty much everyone apart from JC agree that what Lehmann said was bad and that he deserved the punishment no matter who he thought could or couldn't hear it?

Henry wrote:Anyway, didn't pretty much everyone apart from JC agree that what Lehmann said was bad and that he deserved the punishment no matter who he thought could or couldn't hear it?

Pretty much, yes.

Henry wrote:It could be argued that Lehmann...didn't have the guts

of Mark Cosgrove

FIXED

bliksem wrote:

holcs wrote:

bliksem wrote:http://content-gulf.cricinfo.com/ausvind/content/current/story/329742.html

It states that the report includes the line, "I believe that one group was telling the truth."

C'mon Bliks. We all know crocinfo is full of garbage.

Do we? How do we know that?

Procter is stupid though - that's something I think most people on here would agree on. Whether he's acted in character in this instance is what's being debated, but he does have history on his side.

Hair was a biased cheat
Proctor is an idiot
Bucknor is a biased cheat
Does it ever end?

lardbucket wrote:Hey merlo, have you ever interviewed a few people about an incident, got one version which rang true from start to finish, and had another which seemed totally reliant on unlikely events?

Do teachers have to prove that the dog didn't eat the kids homework, day after day?

Point taken.
However, there is a fine line between dogs eating homework and someone accused of uttering a racist slur!

One version of events versus another, when, determining whose 'rings truer' is all very well lardy,
- but only in a court of law when several interpretaions, including that of learned judges,
may well result from each piece of delivered evidence.

One person, expected to use his 'nouse' in believing one faction over the other and to thereafter
condemn the culprit 4 hours later ............ hmmmmm, I'll reserve cast iron opinion until Proctors full report,
detailing how he reached that conclusion, is presented

tac wrote:

Henry wrote:What's worse- Calling someone a monkey, or calling them a black c*nt?

Racist vs Racist . . . no difference.

So I'm a racist for calling my kids "monkey"? Context is everything.