Finally Even They Have to Come Out and Say it
arahim
Association, said he expected "heat" if Australia toured India."If the
team stays in India, there might be some who criticise us for double
standards," he told the Sydney Morning Herald. "But people need to
understand our starting point is that we always want to tour. We go to
extreme lengths to obtain the best advice on the situation of each
country we visit. In Pakistan's case this year, people we rely on told
us not to tour. If they say not to tour again, we'll listen. Bombs
going off anywhere are a concern."
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/current/story/369795.html
Hmmm and I thought that the ICC security experts had said it was fine
to tour:) So ICCs advice is not the best advice then why even have an
ICC security checking division. Let everyone decide for their own.
From player safety first the agenda of the player's association moves
to not to be percieved as having a double standard:) Shouldn't they
have waited until their own "expert" had "analyzed" the situation and
breifed them?
jzfredricks
> However, Paul Marsh, the chief executive of the Australian Cricketers'
> Association, said he expected "heat" if Australia toured India."If the
> team stays in India, there might be some who criticise us for double
> standards," he told the Sydney Morning Herald. "But people need to
> understand our starting point is that we always want to tour. We go to
> extreme lengths to obtain the best advice on the situation of each
> country we visit. In Pakistan's case this year, people we rely on told
> us not to tour. If they say not to tour again, we'll listen. Bombs
> going off anywhere are a concern."
>
>
> Hmmm and I thought that the ICC security experts had said it was fine
> to tour:) So ICCs advice is not the best advice then why even have an
> ICC security checking division. Let everyone decide for their own.
> From player safety first the agenda of the player's association moves
> to not to be percieved as having a double standard:) Shouldn't they
> have waited until their own "expert" had "analyzed" the situation and
> breifed them?
It's pretty simple mate. Really.
ICC does one, because it needs to know *first hand*.
CA does one, because it needs to know *first hand*.
ICC did a security report that said 'ok'.
CA did a security report that said 'dont go'.
CA will do one for India.
How much more plain English does "If they say not to tour again, we'll
listen" have to be?
My gut feeling is there IS a double standard. Given the same risks CA
would rather tour India than Pakistan. That's just a hypothetical, I
don't actually think the risks ARE the same.
But there's no point in picking apart a quote that makes perfect
sense, like you've just done.
R. Spanditt
> Association, said he expected "heat" if Australia toured India."If the
> team stays in India, there might be some who criticise us for double
> standards," he told the Sydney Morning Herald. "But people need to
> understand our starting point is that we always want to tour. We go to
> extreme lengths to obtain the best advice on the situation of each
> country we visit. In Pakistan's case this year, people we rely on told
> us not to tour. If they say not to tour again, we'll listen. Bombs
> going off anywhere are a concern."
>
>
> Hmmm and I thought that the ICC security experts had said it was fine
> to tour:) So ICCs advice is not the best advice then why even have an
> ICC security checking division. Let everyone decide for their own.
> From player safety first the agenda of the player's association moves
> to not to be percieved as having a double standard:) Shouldn't they
> have waited until their own "expert" had "analyzed" the situation and
> breifed them?
That is essentially all they have said in the statement, that they are
awaiting further advice, but they don't expect it to change.
arahim
Why get defensive? Wait for the advice? Why even talk about double
standards ... oh here comes that perception thing again and even you
percieve it as such:)
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
arahim
>
>
>
>
>
> > However, Paul Marsh, the chief executive of the Australian Cricketers'
> > Association, said he expected "heat" if Australia toured India."If the
> > team stays in India, there might be some who criticise us for double
> > standards," he told the Sydney Morning Herald. "But people need to
> > understand our starting point is that we always want to tour. We go to
> > extreme lengths to obtain the best advice on the situation of each
> > country we visit. In Pakistan's case this year, people we rely on told
> > us not to tour. If they say not to tour again, we'll listen. Bombs
> > going off anywhere are a concern."
>
> >http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/indvaus2008/content/current/story/369...
>
> > Hmmm and I thought that the ICC security experts had said it was fine
> > to tour:) So ICCs advice is not the best advice then why even have an
> > ICC security checking division. Let everyone decide for their own.
> > From player safety first the agenda of the player's association moves
> > to not to be percieved as having a double standard:) Shouldn't they
> > have waited until their own "expert" had "analyzed" the situation and
> > breifed them?
>
> It's pretty simple mate. Really.
>
> ICC does one, because it needs to know *first hand*.
> CA does one, because it needs to know *first hand*.
>
This is revisionism. ICC as the governing body had the task to
determine the nature of security.
> ICC did a security report that said 'ok'.
> CA did a security report that said 'dont go'.
>
> CA will do one for India.
>
> How much more plain English does "If they say not to tour again, we'll
> listen" have to be?
>
> My gut feeling is there IS a double standard. Given the same risks CA
> would rather tour India than Pakistan. That's just a hypothetical, I
> don't actually think the risks ARE the same.
>
> But there's no point in picking apart a quote that makes perfect
> sense, like you've just done.- Hide quoted text -
jzfredricks
> Why get defensive? Wait for the advice? Why even talk about double
> standards ... oh here comes that perception thing again and even you
> percieve it as such:)
Well, I call it a 'gut feeling'.
On the other hand, you quote someone and cry "SEE, DOUBLE STANDARD",
when the quote itself contains no such thing.
Call my defensiveness a poor attempt to educate you, if you will.
jzfredricks
> > ICC does one, because it needs to know *first hand*.
> > CA does one, because it needs to know *first hand*.
>
> This is revisionism. ICC as the governing body had the task to
> determine the nature of security.
lol, it's not revisionism. Is that your Cornflakes-packet-word-of-the-
day?
BOTH bodies had the right AND duty to assess security. When lives are
at stake, it pays to be sure.
Michael Banner
"This is revisionism. ICC as the governing body had the task to
determine the nature of security."
It's not revisionism, it's fact. And what is interesting about this is
that Paul Marsh says "people we rely on told us not to tour."
Maybe CA don't rely on the ICC for their security advise or trust
them.
arahim
I thought CA was part of the ICC and thus had a say in the security
apparatus setup by the ICC.
R. Spanditt
how is cricket australia a part of the icc? you've got to be joking
mate?
arahim
Then might as well give up the vote and get out. They are the third
strongest in the ICC.
arahim
Current loose hierarchy of the ICC
Big four:
India
England
Australia
South Africa
The also rans:
New Zealand
Sri Lanka
West Indies (which is not a country)
Throw them a bone ... or not:
Bangladesh
Pakistan
Pariah for half the countires:
Zimbabwe
ICC security advisors were Nicholls Steyn, not a Pakistani company.
R. Spanditt
the question has already been answered for you mate, they do their own
security assessments ie. many things they do have nothing to do with
the icc, if they did there'd be a shit storm every two weeks with
something different
Geico Caveman
>
> Hmmm and I thought that the ICC security experts had said it was fine
> to tour:) So ICCs advice is not the best advice then why even have an
> ICC security checking division. Let everyone decide for their own.
Precisely. Its not ICC's life that is on the line. The players did not sign
up to be in an army, so they have the right to recuse themselves if they
feel the risk to their lives to be too great.
By the way, good job with the label you guys came up the nutter front group
you used for your latest ISI operation ! The world had stopped buying any
difference between the your other nutcase front group names and its momma
in Pakistan. Indian Mujahedin definitely sounds more believable (not).