Harbhajan lets loose

Hayden was pulled up after his outburst. It is only fair that Bhaji gets the same treatment. Even if the story is not true it is a reasonable step given that Bhaji may be tempted to let out some steam after what he has been through. The personal abuse he copped from the Sydney Crowd was not pleasant at all. He has come out of this quite well as a feisty fighter who can stand his ground and deliver. However I am sure that there are lessons for the fiery Sardar to learn from this whole saga.

That's a fair call, JC.

doremi wrote:Funny how those comments were picked up by the Aussie press only, you'd think the rest of the world wouldn't ignore juicy soundbites like the one Harbhajan provided.

Wrong again, they are in the SA press as well.

LOL trying to imagine how this thing would've played out with Sidhu in Bhajji's shoes. If Harbhajan's fiery (all Sardars are, surely well above the Indian average), Sidhu is many more times so.

Chandan wrote:Harbhajan has already denied saying anything of that sort!

To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies.

"Well he would, wouldn't he?"

taipan wrote:

Chandan wrote:Harbhajan has already denied saying anything of that sort!

To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies.

"Well he would, wouldn't he?"

No Taipan. He wouldn't. Because the journalist who interviews a player, records the whole thing. If it had been recorded and after Bhajji's denial, the interviewer comes up with the audio, it'll be no where to hide for Bhajji.

Now the interviewer hasn't come up with the audio means, Bhajji didn't say it at all.

I remember, once Vaughan's interview has some controversial things on Guardian and Vaughan denied it straightaway saying that he was misquoted. The very next hour, Guardian posted the audio link below the interview and Vaughan was utterly embarrassed.

Chandan wrote:

taipan wrote:

Chandan wrote:Harbhajan has already denied saying anything of that sort!

To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies.

"Well he would, wouldn't he?"

No Taipan. He wouldn't. Because the journalist who interviews a player, records the whole thing. If it had been recorded and after Bhajji's denial, the interviewer comes up with the audio, it'll be no where to hide for Bhajji.

Now the interviewer hasn't come up with the audio means, Bhajji didn't say it at all.

I remember, once Vaughan's interview has some controversial things on Guardian and Vaughan denied it straightaway saying that he was misquoted. The very next hour, Guardian posted the audio link below the interview and Vaughan was utterly embarrassed.

So all the media who are printing this are guilty of libel?

Don't know what libel means here.

In Australia, 'libel' is the bit of paper they stick onto the front of a beer bottle so you know what kind it is.

Oh thannks.

BTW, can you tell me why Craddick is accusing CA to have caved in front of BCCI? I didn't see any such things happening and Sutherlands had been backing his players right from the beginning.

Chandan wrote:Don't know what libel means here.

Maybe LLL could help you. It might be just hearsay.

Chandan wrote:Oh thannks.

BTW, can you tell me why Craddick is accusing CA to have caved in front of BCCI? I didn't see any such things happening and Sutherlands had been backing his players right from the beginning.

CA convinced the players to drop the racist charges against Harby so that India wouldn't pull out of the tour.

But the racist charges were not dropped. In fact Symonds kept on insisting that Harbhajan called him a "monkey" and Hayden and Clarke kept backing him, as Hansen's report shows.

Chandan wrote:But the racist charges were not dropped. In fact Symonds kept on insisting that Harbhajan called him a "monkey" and Hayden and Clarke kept backing him, as Hansen's report shows.

The allegation stood but the charge was downgraded.

CA didn't downgrade the charge, nor did Australian players. They kept on charging him for racial abuse.

Chandan wrote:But the racist charges were not dropped. In fact Symonds kept on insisting that Harbhajan called him a "monkey" and Hayden and Clarke kept backing him, as Hansen's report shows.

No, Chandan, the charges brought by the Aussies in the appeal were downgraded and it was CA who convinced the players involved to do this.

Chandan wrote:CA didn't downgrade the charge, nor did Australian players. They kept on charging him for racial abuse.

No, they didn't.

No, I think it was downgraded from Category 3 to Cat 2.

JGK wrote:No, I think it was downgraded from Category 3 to Cat 2.

4 to 3 wasn't it?

taipan wrote:

JGK wrote:No, I think it was downgraded from Category 3 to Cat 2.

4 to 3 wasn't it?

Yeah maybe.

JGK wrote:No, I think it was downgraded from Category 3 to Cat 2.

I'll bring you Hansen's report and Proctor's report and charges are the same in both.

Chandan wrote:

JGK wrote:No, I think it was downgraded from Category 3 to Cat 2.

I'll bring you Hansen's report and Proctor's report and charges are the same in both.

Chandan the offence was downgraded. Full stop.

Proctor's report

Mike Procter, the match referee, ruled at the end of a four-hour hearing that Harbhajan had breached Level 3 of the ICC's Code of Conduct. The Indian team management said it would appeal against the ban.

Hansen's report

Andrew Symonds' inability to conclusively say whether Harbhajan Singh had used the word monkey or a Hindi abuse, and his admission that the language did not fall under the requirements of a level 3.3 offence played a crucial part.

So you see that the charges are the same level. It is just that Australian players were not able to convince the judge if Harbhajan indeed said the alleged word and there were no evidence to prove it either.

Chandan

Symonds was told (by the CA lawyer) to withdraw the allegations of racism ...so when he was asked if he thought the allegation was racist he couldn't say 'yes' ...and Hansen had to downgrade the charge

Marty, leave it. I honestly can't be arsed to go through all this again.