Michael Holding critical of "FIRST WORLD HYPOCRISY"
Sampath
Former player extends support to Inzamam
Holding critical of 'first-world hypocrisy'
Cricinfo staff
August 28, 2006
Michael Holding, the former West Indies fast bowler, lent his support to
Inzamam-ul-Haq, saying that Darrell Hair was "insensitive" to have penalised
Pakistan for ball-tampering.
"I have absolute and all sympathy with [Pakistan captain] Inzamam-ul Haq. If
you label someone a cheat, please arrive with the evidence," Holding wrote
in India Today, a leading weekly news magazine. Holding felt that most
umpires would have said something to the fielding captain and given the
offending team a warning of some kind. "Then if the tampering continued,
they would have been totally justified in taking action.
"There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
highlighted it. When England used reverse-swing to beat the Australians in
the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. When Pakistan does it, the
opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone associates it
with skullduggery.
"When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When
bombs go off in London, no one says anything. That is first-world hypocrisy
and we have to live with it."
Holding said that seeing the cricketing law as the absolute and final truth
was pointless. Every law, he wrote, has room for flexibility. "I read a
prime example recently in the British press. It said that by law, you can be
fined for parking within the yellow lines in England. If you do that to run
into a chemist to buy emergency medicines, a sensible policeman would more
than likely tell you about the law but it's unlikely a ticket would be
forthcoming."
The executive board of the ICC is scheduled to meet on September 2 in Dubai
to discuss the ball-tampering issue further. Inzamam's disciplinary hearing
for Pakistan's actions of ball-tampering and bringing the game into
disrepute in the fourth Test against England at The Oval will take place
around the end of September.
© Cricinfo
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ivan Skivar
Sampath wrote:
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/258009.html
Holding said that seeing the cricketing law as the absolute and final
truth
> was pointless. Every law, he wrote, has room for flexibility. "I read a
> prime example recently in the British press. It said that by law, you can be
> fined for parking within the yellow lines in England. If you do that to run
> into a chemist to buy emergency medicines, a sensible policeman would more
> than likely tell you about the law but it's unlikely a ticket would be
> forthcoming.".
>
> © Cricinfo
In applying flexibility the difference between a first-time offender
and a habitual criminal should be taken into account.
Sampath
"Ivan Skivar" <isk...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1156785229.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sampath wrote:
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/258009.html
Are you saying Umpires were LENIENT in Ashes series because English bowlers
CHEATED for the FIRST TIME ?
Ivan Skivar
No.
Scarlethawk
Good one.
Sampath
>>>No.
But thats what you IMPLIED.
Ivan Skivar
Nope. Never mentioned England.
Sampath
>Nope. Never mentioned England.
You dont have to, its obvious.
Ivan Skivar
Nope. Mental telepathy is not one of your strengths.
Sampath
It doesnt have to be.
Ravi
Hair seems to belong to the latter category
Howard9
@yahoo.com says...
>
> "There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
> highlighted it. When England used reverse-swing to beat the Australians in
> the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. When Pakistan does it, the
> opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone associates it
> with skullduggery.
>
> "When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When
> bombs go off in London, no one says anything. That is first-world hypocrisy
> and we have to live with it."
A shockingly small stupid, minded, prejudiced and racist comment that
destroys my previous view of Holding forever.
>
> Holding said that seeing the cricketing law as the absolute and final truth
> was pointless. Every law, he wrote, has room for flexibility. "I read a
> prime example recently in the British press. It said that by law, you can be
> fined for parking within the yellow lines in England. If you do that to run
> into a chemist to buy emergency medicines, a sensible policeman would more
> than likely tell you about the law but it's unlikely a ticket would be
> forthcoming."
How thick is this guy ? Is he suffering from some kind of premature
dementia ?
So the next time Trescothick gets bowled he should hold up his hands and
say to the umpire:
"I was scratching my balls Guv !!! you can't give me out ! I caught
something when I screwed a little blond bombshell last week... have a
heart "
............. and the umpire should say:
"Oh my God Marcus, I didn't realise ..... NO BALL !!!"
And Trescothick can continue toward his ton ..........
--
Howard
Ravi
Howard9 wrote:
> In article <44f31145$0$8950$8826...@free.teranews.com>, Sampath425
> @yahoo.com says...
> >
> > "There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only
> > highlighted it. When England used reverse-swing to beat the Australians in
> > the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. When Pakistan does it, the
> > opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone associates it
> > with skullduggery.
> >
> > "When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When
> > bombs go off in London, no one says anything. That is first-world hypocrisy
> > and we have to live with it."
>
> A shockingly small stupid, minded, prejudiced and racist comment that
> destroys my previous view of Holding forever.
> >
Luke Curtis
wrote:
>
>"Ivan Skivar" <isk...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1156786383....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>Sampath wrote:
>> "Ivan Skivar" <isk...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:1156785229.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Sampath wrote:
>> > http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/258009.html
>>
>> Holding said that seeing the cricketing law as the absolute and final
>> truth
>> > was pointless. Every law, he wrote, has room for flexibility. "I read a
>> > prime example recently in the British press. It said that by law, you
>> > can
>> > be
>> > fined for parking within the yellow lines in England. If you do that to
>> > run
>> > into a chemist to buy emergency medicines, a sensible policeman would
>> > more
>> > than likely tell you about the law but it's unlikely a ticket would be
>> > forthcoming.".
>> >
>> > Š Cricinfo
>>
>> >In applying flexibility the difference between a first-time offender
>> >and a habitual criminal should be taken into account.
>>
>>
>> Are you saying Umpires were LENIENT in Ashes series because English
>> bowlers
>> CHEATED for the FIRST TIME ?
>
>>>>No.
>
>But thats what you IMPLIED.
Perhaps he implied or rather stated the fact that the England did not
cheat?
Fact: Pakistan cheated and got caught red handed for the second time
in less than a year, deal with it.
--
ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
(Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
Sampath
"Luke Curtis" <lu...@whofan.plusNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:eqs8f2lvf0a4e9et5...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:08:26 -0700, "Sampath" <Sampa...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ivan Skivar" <isk...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>news:1156786383....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>Sampath wrote:
>>> "Ivan Skivar" <isk...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1156785229.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Sampath wrote:
>>> > http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/engvpak/content/current/story/258009.html
>>>
>>> Holding said that seeing the cricketing law as the absolute and final
>>> truth
>>> > was pointless. Every law, he wrote, has room for flexibility. "I read
>>> > a
>>> > prime example recently in the British press. It said that by law, you
>>> > can
>>> > be
>>> > fined for parking within the yellow lines in England. If you do that
>>> > to
>>> > run
>>> > into a chemist to buy emergency medicines, a sensible policeman would
>>> > more
>>> > than likely tell you about the law but it's unlikely a ticket would be
>>> > forthcoming.".
>>> >
>>>
>>> >In applying flexibility the difference between a first-time offender
>>> >and a habitual criminal should be taken into account.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying Umpires were LENIENT in Ashes series because English
>>> bowlers
>>> CHEATED for the FIRST TIME ?
>>
>>>>>No.
>>
>>But thats what you IMPLIED.
>
>
> Perhaps he implied or rather stated the fact that the England did not
> cheat?
>
> Fact: Pakistan cheated and got caught red handed for the second time
> in less than a year, deal with it.
> --
> ButIstillneedtoknowwhat'sinthere! Thekeytoanysecurity
> systemishowit'sdesigned! Thatdependsonwhyitwasdesigned!
> Ihavetoknowwhatwhoeverdesigneditwastryingtoprotect!
> (Blakes 7, City on the Edge of the World - Vila in typical panic mode)
I am surprised so many westerners have such poor english comprehension and
analytical ability despite english being their first language.
Perhaps you should enroll in some english comprehension course and pass it
before posting your next comment.
England, SA, Aus, NZ are CHEATS that DID NOT get caught and pubic Hair is a
bigot. DEAL WITH IT.
Luke Curtis
wrote:
So why do you think Hair *and* Doctrove (who was intimately involved
in the decision) suddenly decided there and then to change the ball?
The direction of the match was not going to change at all, England at
most probably scored maybe 30-40 more runs than they would have done
with the old. The new ball was due in only 15 overs to anyway with the
last 2 recognized batsman at the crease, Hair and Doctrove had
*absolutely nothing* to gain and everything to lose from unfairly
giving the penalty to help England if that is indeed you claim, If the
Pakistan team had not acted like spoilt brats acting more childish
than my 5 year old son then they probably would have won the game
anyway, therefore the Umpires would not have materially effected the
outcome of the game.
Why did Hair not do anything to influence the series that England lost
over the winter in Pakistan? Giving a few dubious LBW against Pakistan
in the second test and helping England to win would have a much much
greater effect against Pakistan and far less comeback than changing a
ball in almost won test in and already won test series.
Use the Sherlock Holmes proverb "How often have I said to you that
when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth?"
Did they effect the series? no.
Did they effect the test? no.
Did they have anything to gain? no.
Did they find a ball that they were convinced had been tampered with?
yes.
I didn't hear this much commotion when Pakistan cheated over the
winter when Afridi, *in the middle of a bomb scare* trashed the pitch,
I didn't hear the death threats against Afridi when he brought
humiliation in Pakistan by cheating a few months ago, and most of all
I didn't hear holier than thou attitude from England fans from being
cheated against by the Pakistan cheats.
Sampath
<Rest of the garbage snipped>
You are like a guy asking who is jesus after reading the whole bible i.e in
simple english so you can understand easily, you are BACK TO SQUARE ONE.
Luke Curtis
wrote:
>>>>>> > © Cricinfo
You completely fail to supply any competent answer to any of the
points I raised because you have no answer, there is no racist
masterplan to do Pakistan down, Pakistan cheated and got caught. And
not for the first time. Get over it.
Oh and "Jesus" is a fictional character in a fictional book that was
taken seriously by some idiot, the sooner people realise that the
better.
Sampath
You regurgitated the same shit that has been discussed and beaten to death
for more than a week. You didnt raise any NEW points.
> Oh and "Jesus" is a fictional character in a fictional book that was
> taken seriously by some idiot, the sooner people realise that the
> better.
>
You really need to ENROLL in an english comprehension, logic and analytical
ability courses and pass them before posting your next comment.