Why the letter from Punts and Tendy?

At a guess, I'd say that players felt the apeal would be dismissed and the Indians would, therefore, go home. The players don't really want that, so Tendy and Punts came to an agreement.

Can't explain this any other way.

Still doesn't explain why Kumble was bypassed.

Tendy was the one in the middle at the time and knew best what happened. Is this in fact some kind of admission from tendy? If the Indians felt they would get Harby off, they wouldn't have done this. They must be acknowledging his guilt to some degree.

Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

Same reason the Aussies agreed to the first scenario, so that the cricket doesn't stop. Or maybe they think the Aussies have come to their senses and are giving them a chance to redeem themselves.

This solution has been reached so that things dont degrade more.

If Bhajji indeed say those things and was proven , it would have been a big slap in the face for Indian team. On the otehr hand if it was not proved that Bhajji said those things, then it would have made Aussie team look vindictive.

Either case is not good and hence this middle ground I think.

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

It's a compromise. Aus get to make money and India get the racism charges dropped.

Obviously he is as guilty as hell.

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

But that doesn't expalin why the vindictive Indians would agree. My assumption seems to fit circumstances far better.

tac, it was always clear that this affair was going to end up with a very large turd sitting in the middle of the punchbowl.

Does it really matter what's happened? All it shows is that the administration of this sport at an international level is in a worse state than Trev after a night when a US Navy ship is docked at Garden island.

In other words, it has loads of money, but bugger all by way of morals.

Zat wrote:tac, it was always clear that this affair was going to end up with a very large turd sitting in the middle of the punchbowl.

Does it really matter what's happened? All it shows is that the administration of this sport at an international level is in a worse state than Trev after a night when a US Navy ship is docked at Garden island.

In other words, it has loads of money, but bugger all by way of morals.

PMSL

Funny 'cos it's true, my friend.

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

If Harby didn't say what MtFTB and the kiddie claim he said why is he agreeing to ANY charge ...If they are lying he should pursue it fully

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

But that doesn't expalin why the vindictive Indians would agree. My assumption seems to fit circumstances far better.

Again you assumed abt Indians being vindictive...great going.

Instead I think Indians are being graceful here. They don't want Aussies to be embarassed. And they agreed to this.

If Indians were Vindictive they wou;dn't have dropped charges against Hogg.

And it was Aussies who went ahead with these false claims abt racism, which eventually were reduced to what they are.

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

But that doesn't expalin why the vindictive Indians would agree. My assumption seems to fit circumstances far better.

Again you assumed abt Indians being vindictive...great going.

Instead I think Indians are being graceful here. They don't want Aussies to be embarassed. And they agreed to this.

If Indians were Vindictive they wou;dn't have dropped charges against Hogg.

And it was Aussies who went ahead with these false claims abt racism, which eventually were reduced to what they are.

And just as I thought I had plumbed the depths of your stupidity....

@ zat.

On the topic, all round circle jerk. You can go round and round and round.

embee wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

If Harby didn't say what MtFTB and the kiddie claim he said why is he agreeing to ANY charge ...If they are lying he should pursue it fully

Bhajji claimed he did not say anything racist.

And what happened today supports what he has been saying all along.

And pursue what fully?

Bhajji did say someting nasty to Symonds, which was not racist. So, what he accepted to was what he has been saying all along.

taipan wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

But that doesn't expalin why the vindictive Indians would agree. My assumption seems to fit circumstances far better.

Again you assumed abt Indians being vindictive...great going.

Instead I think Indians are being graceful here. They don't want Aussies to be embarassed. And they agreed to this.

If Indians were Vindictive they wou;dn't have dropped charges against Hogg.

And it was Aussies who went ahead with these false claims abt racism, which eventually were reduced to what they are.

And just as I thought I had plumbed the depths of your stupidity....

No different from what tac was saying, taips. He's making the same set of assumptions as prasad, except they are pointed in the opposite direction.

embee wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

If Harby didn't say what MtFTB and the kiddie claim he said why is he agreeing to ANY charge ...If they are lying he should pursue it fully

Whether or not he said monkey or maa ki, it's clear he said something, probably abusive, so makes sense to try and nail him with a lesser charge.

taipan wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

But that doesn't expalin why the vindictive Indians would agree. My assumption seems to fit circumstances far better.

Again you assumed abt Indians being vindictive...great going.

Instead I think Indians are being graceful here. They don't want Aussies to be embarassed. And they agreed to this.

If Indians were Vindictive they wou;dn't have dropped charges against Hogg.

And it was Aussies who went ahead with these false claims abt racism, which eventually were reduced to what they are.

And just as I thought I had plumbed the depths of your stupidity....

Come on taipan, no need to start calling names.

You guys start it and then cry foul when we stoop to u'r level.

Don't want to agrue, just ignore my posts man.

furriner wrote:

taipan wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

prasad14 wrote:

tac wrote:

doremi wrote:Would come to show a really piss weak/absent spine from the Australians though.

Or,

maybe the Aussies are afraid that their attempt at framing Bhajji with the charge would become apparent during the hearing, so just downgraded that to save face.

But why would the Indians agree to that, if nothing happened?

It cuts both ways.

If nothing happend why did Aussies agree to this?

To stop the Indians going home . . . didn't you read my post?

Is that your assumption?

Then my assumption is that Aussies feared they would get caught lying abt Bhajji, hence the deal to save face.

But that doesn't expalin why the vindictive Indians would agree. My assumption seems to fit circumstances far better.

Again you assumed abt Indians being vindictive...great going.

Instead I think Indians are being graceful here. They don't want Aussies to be embarassed. And they agreed to this.

If Indians were Vindictive they wou;dn't have dropped charges against Hogg.

And it was Aussies who went ahead with these false claims abt racism, which eventually were reduced to what they are.

And just as I thought I had plumbed the depths of your stupidity....

No different from what tac was saying, taips. He's making the same set of assumptions as prasad, except they are pointed in the opposite direction.

Meh..tac is his friend and hence these 'assumptions' from him are acceptable but not from us 'subis'.

Who are "you guys"? Us whiteys?