Bunch of spineless cowards
Sanjiv Karmarkar
charges against Hogg; especially since there is no hint of a
reciprocal action from the Australian camp.
Now there are two possibilities here. Either the charges were trumped
up or India is withdrawing them unilaterally to "move on".
If the charges were bogus, that's a seriously bad act and they should
be penalized heavily for creating false charges.
OTOH, if they feel that the charges were real and are withdrawing them
unilaterally simply to gain the "moral high ground", then are even
bigger brown-nosers that I thought they were. As far as I can tell,
Australia has no plans of withdrawing charges against Harbhajan. You
know why? Cuz they have spine.
Kumble leadership smacks of extreme genuflection. First, Kumble tries
to apologize while at the same time proclaiming Harbhajan's
innocence. As if that humiliation was not enough, apparently his
apology was pretty much ignored. However, that does not bother this
ass-kisser. He continues to try to smooch ICC ass even though he is
apparently not getting time of the day from them.
And now they unilaterally withdraw charges against Hogg.
Kumble and Dravid are a pair of spineless jellyfishes and Pawar - for
all his bravado - has either sold his soul for money or is a coward
himself. Any leader that does not stand up for their teammates -
especially the younger ones - does not have the right to be in a
leadership position.
My congratulations to Australia for the complete victory. They
smelled the fear in the Indian camp and took complete advantage of
it. They are truly deserving winners, both on-field and off.
I thought we had moved on from those Umrigar-Pataudi days. Apparently
not.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
vgu...@gmail.com
The charges were stupid. Is the Indian team going to run to mommy
everytime someone calls them bastards? Having a spine actually
sometimes means recognizing when you are being petulant. Regardless of
what comes of the HS ruling, this was clearly the right thing to do,
and it is about time they did it.
V
Phil.
The charges were laid by the umpires in Harbhajan's case and have
already been adjudicated on, how can they be withdrawn?
Mike Holmans
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am extremely disappointed in India's unilateral withdrawal of the
>charges against Hogg; especially since there is no hint of a
>reciprocal action from the Australian camp.
>
>Now there are two possibilities here. Either the charges were trumped
>up or India is withdrawing them unilaterally to "move on".
>
>If the charges were bogus, that's a seriously bad act and they should
>be penalized heavily for creating false charges.
>
>OTOH, if they feel that the charges were real and are withdrawing them
>unilaterally simply to gain the "moral high ground", then are even
>bigger brown-nosers that I thought they were. As far as I can tell,
>Australia has no plans of withdrawing charges against Harbhajan. You
>know why? Cuz they have spine.
No. It's because the charge was laid by the umpires and Australia have
no mechanism by which they can withdraw.
From the CI report:
"However, it has been learnt that Australia won't be able to drop the
racism charge against Harbhajan.
"In Hogg's case, the charges of abusing the Indian players were laid
by Chauhan, who later withdrew it. But in Harbhajan's case, the
charges were brought by both the on-field umpires after a complaint by
Ponting. Harbhajan was slapped with a three-Test ban by match referee
Mike Procter at the hearing, and the matter is now headed for an
appeal, to be chaired by New Zealand judge John Hansen."
But don't let the facts stop you from ranting pointlessly about
national honour. After all, that's what makes for good controversy and
stops anyone who isn't Indian having any sympathy for whatever case
you really have.
Cheers,
Mike
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> But don't let the facts stop you from ranting pointlessly about
> national honour. After all, that's what makes for good controversy and
> stops anyone who isn't Indian having any sympathy for whatever case
> you really have.
It is very unbecoming - even for you - to make up things. The words
"national honor" never appeared in my post and they were not implied;
I was not thinking of it at all. It's totally uncool to make up
things to argue against. Either argue with the contents of the post
or stay the hell out of it.
I was simply talking about responsibilities of a leader vis-à-vis his
subordinates. Cricket - thank god - does not define national honor.
As far as withdrawing charges is concerned, the world is not that
dogmatic. If Ponting met with ICC and asked them to forget about the
Harbhajan issue for the sake of goodwill, he would be listened to.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
gur...@yahoo.com
kumble is no vir savarkar, karma.
Paul Robson
> I am extremely disappointed in India's unilateral withdrawal of the
> charges against Hogg; especially since there is no hint of a
> reciprocal action from the Australian camp.
>
> Now there are two possibilities here. Either the charges were trumped
> up or India is withdrawing them unilaterally to "move on".
As I said elsewhere, if they are claiming that "bastard" is enough for
Level 3 and a suspension, and Harbhajan has said something equally
unpleasant but not racist, it's a bit difficult to say he should be found
innocent overall - even if he is innocent of making a racist comment.
The charges obviously are a tit-for-tat trump up ; doesn't it refer to T1 ?
kban
> On Jan 14, 8:32 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > But don't let the facts stop you from ranting pointlessly about
> > national honour. After all, that's what makes for good controversy and
> > stops anyone who isn't Indian having any sympathy for whatever case
> > you really have.
>
> It is very unbecoming - even for you - to make up things. The words
> "national honor" never appeared in my post and they were not implied;
> I was not thinking of it at all. It's totally uncool to make up
> things to argue against. Either argue with the contents of the post
> or stay the hell out of it.
>
Will all due respect, what else did you expect from this poster? From
several of his posts, it is very obvious that he makes up things for
"unkown reasons" to argue against Indian posters such as Bharat,
Sanjiv, Samarth etc.
Or his IQ is so low, he does not understand what the other person is
saying.
> I was simply talking about responsibilities of a leader vis-à-vis his
> subordinates. Cricket - thank god - does not define national honor.
>
> As far as withdrawing charges is concerned, the world is not that
> dogmatic. If Ponting met with ICC and asked them to forget about the
> Harbhajan issue for the sake of goodwill, he would be listened to.
>
I completely agree with you there. If the Australian team wanted it,
they can easily get this case dismissed. There is no mechanism is just
a convenient red herring. Why can't the aussie team withdraw their
original complaint to the umpies who in turn ask the MR to throw the
case out?
but nothing stops the poster from preaching one and all about national
honour and due process and rationality and objectivity. IPL's $1B
deal with Sony will only make this poster lose the last iota of
sympathy he might have had for your case.
Jason Gillespie
"Mike Holmans" <mi...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4jomo3dnoogfqu3gp...@4ax.com...
No Indian gives a rats ass about your sympathy.
Jason Gillespie
<gur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39adf8f4-beea-495d...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Gurly gurlate,
I sincerely apologize on behalf of all Indians if you or your
parents were ever humiliated by upper caste Indians.
Jason Gillespie
"Paul Robson" <pa...@robsons.org.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.01.14....@robsons.org.uk...
Its not tit for tat trump up.
What you consider acceptable may be offensive to others.
For Indians the word "bastard" is more offensive than "Monkey"
since there are no racist connotations to the word Monkey.
Indians were justified in filing a complaint against Hogg.
I guess they withdrew it as a token of gesture for Ricky Cheating
to reciprocate in Harbhajan issue.
Fish Womper
If that is why they withdrew the charge it would rank on par with
South African Duckworth L:ewis calculations.
The simple fact is, the H Singh matter was initially raised with the
ICC by the umpires, and cannot be withdrawn by Australia.
fish
Jason Gillespie
"Fish Womper" <x@x.x> wrote in message
news:478ba7a5....@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
Fishy,
You clowns keep proving my assertion you are all
programmed slaves and machines.
With due credit to Sanjiv Karmarkar and kban.
As far as withdrawing charges is concerned, the world is not that
dogmatic. If Ponting met with ICC and asked them to forget about the
Harbhajan issue for the sake of goodwill, he would be listened to.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/2d349d5afa4dc042
Macjoubert
Cowards certainly not, murky seafarers is more like it.
I read that the tour continues, the HS appeal is AFTER the series,
Hogg charge withdrawn, Ponting has 'sessions' with his team, Ponting
'accepts' things weren't kosher in Sydney.
In effect back room politics has won, with every party winning a piece
of cake, each assuming theirs is the tastiest piece.
This is why politicians should never be allowed near cricket. Read
Pawar. What the hell is he doing associating with Cricket management
anyways? India and her greedy politicians , Pakistan and its
military , both covet the cricketing dais , why?At this rate he wishes
to be ICC chairman,
God help this game then.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> Cowards certainly not, murky seafarers is more like it.
>
> I read that the tour continues, the HS appeal is AFTER the series,
> Hogg charge withdrawn, Ponting has 'sessions' with his team, Ponting
> 'accepts' things weren't kosher in Sydney.
>
> In effect back room politics has won, with every party winning a piece
> of cake, each assuming theirs is the tastiest piece.
And what, pray, did Kumble and co win? What piece of cake can they
lay claim to? What they have on their nose and on their lips may look
like cake, but it's not cake; cuz what they were licking was not a
plate of cake :-)
> This is why politicians should never be allowed near cricket. Read Pawar.
> What the hell is he doing associating with Cricket management anyways?
Agreed.
> At this rate he wishes to be ICC chairman, God help this game then.
He would be no worse than the current administration. At least he
knows how to make money. (Unfortunately he tends to keep it all to
himself).
Of course I agree with you in principal. What ICC really needs is a
Mody or a Shah; ICC can use some fiscal expertise and discipline. Of
course, neither Modi nor Shah have any reason to leave the more
profitable and more lucrative franchise they are currently involved
with.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
arahim
I don't know what the chairmen do. Speed seems to have the most power
of anyone (person) in the ICC (not talking about boards).
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
arahim
Although there are many who argue with the example of Bush that sports
administrators should not enter politics.
> Pawar. What the hell is he doing associating with Cricket management
> anyways? India and her greedy politicians , Pakistan and its
> military , both covet the cricketing dais , why?At this rate he wishes
> to be ICC chairman,
> God help this game then.- Hide quoted text -
Macjoubert
> On Jan 14, 1:53 pm, Macjoubert <macjoub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Cowards certainly not, murky seafarers is more like it.
>
> > I read that the tour continues, the HS appeal is AFTER the series,
> > Hogg charge withdrawn, Ponting has 'sessions' with his team, Ponting
> > 'accepts' things weren't kosher in Sydney.
>
> > In effect back room politics has won, with every party winning a piece
> > of cake, each assuming theirs is the tastiest piece.
>
> And what, pray, did Kumble and co win? What piece of cake can they
> lay claim to? What they have on their nose and on their lips may look
> like cake, but it's not cake; cuz what they were licking was not a
> plate of cake :-)
>
You shouldn't be slicing and dicing my lead ins :)
> > This is why politicians should never be allowed near cricket. Read Pawar.
> > What the hell is he doing associating with Cricket management anyways?
>
> Agreed.
>
> > At this rate he wishes to be ICC chairman, God help this game then.
>
> He would be no worse than the current administration. At least he
> knows how to make money. (Unfortunately he tends to keep it all to
> himself).
>
> Of course I agree with you in principal. What ICC really needs is a
> Mody or a Shah; ICC can use some fiscal expertise and discipline. Of
> course, neither Modi nor Shah have any reason to leave the more
> profitable and more lucrative franchise they are currently involved
> with.
>
> Sanjiv Karmarkar
This episode [with Pawar] reeks of modern day Clintonian politiking,
or yesteryear bayou jigging under Huey Long. In other words both
shameless populists.
Pawar obviously had his pair held at ransom by his emotion ridden
constituency, later he realized the folly of his knee jerk reaction
when $ figures started pouring in and thus the abatement.
Of course common sense sort of prevailed, Australia needs India as
much as India needs Australia, apart from Pakistan no one else
generates so much interest in India than Australia.
I'm sure Australian fans too are tired of seeing Australia thrash poor
England every time, everywhere.
BTW : Does anyone know which accounting firm is handling the BCCI
books? Or is it Messrs Modi and Modi?
Macjoubert
<JasonGillespie123Purget...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <gurl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
He sure talks the talk but ask him to back to India and help his
fellow Dalits, nah he wont budge from that nice cozy home he has in
South Florida.
Typical self loathing coward he is.
He's hoping his white wife will rub off his Indian'ness permanently.
Mike Holmans
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 14, 8:32 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But don't let the facts stop you from ranting pointlessly about
>> national honour. After all, that's what makes for good controversy and
>> stops anyone who isn't Indian having any sympathy for whatever case
>> you really have.
>
>It is very unbecoming - even for you - to make up things. The words
>"national honor" never appeared in my post and they were not implied;
>I was not thinking of it at all. It's totally uncool to make up
>things to argue against. Either argue with the contents of the post
>or stay the hell out of it.
>
>I was simply talking about responsibilities of a leader vis-à-vis his
>subordinates. Cricket - thank god - does not define national honor.
I'm sorry if I offended.
There are those who have jumped on the national honour soapbox in
terms not so far removed from yours. In some ways at least, though,
their line is the same, although with a more bogus "rationale".
But I still object very much to your phraseology about "spine" and
"cowardice". There is NO obligation on a "leader" to stand up for his
subordinates come what may, and the attitude that the BCCI should
vigorously defend any of it players who get accused of anything is an
attitude which puts everyone else's backs up.
The figures show that Indian players get penalised under the CoC more
often than anyone else. Once you drop the penalties for wearing shirts
or carrying bats with advertising logos larger than the permitted
size, though, the frequency of CoC violations penalised basically
reflects the number of matches each team plays or has played: India's
players have played more matches than anyone else, so it stands to
reason that if they offend as often as everyone else in terms of
offences per match, they will top the aggregates. All the figures show
is that the Indian players are as bad or as good as everyone else -
which would come as no surprise to anyone not from India, but appears
to be a concept which a lot of Indians have trouble with.
It would be nice to see the occasional incident where a referee
decides that an Indian player has infringed and we don't get a barrage
of 500 posts from people accusing the referee of racism, and people
acknowledging that the player was in fact in the wrong and deserved to
be penalised. No doubt someone will be able to provide evidence that
it has in fact happened very occasionally, but you'd have to admit
that it's pretty damn rare.
Perhaps sometimes the charge isn't justified; perhaps sometimes a
penalty is too harsh - though if that's the case it's usually toned
down on the appeal.
But it beggars belief that the charges are *always* unjustified and
the penalties *always* too harsh. Fans of other teams, and their
boards, seem to be able to take disciplinary charges and penalties
largely in their stride; when they then do kick up rough about the odd
one which goes against them, it sounds like a a serious concern. But
the rhetoric of a lot of Indian fans on rsc and the sabre-rattling of
the BCCI on every conceivable occasion has precisely the opposite
effect: if every little charge is treated as a cause celebre, how the
hell do you expect anyone to take any notice of you when you really do
have a serious case? There's been an awful lot of crying wolf, and it
ought not to be a surprise that the rest of the world has become
rather blase about the latest salvo of wailing.
A team which infringes as often as other people do, and which managed
to have a captain and several other members banned for life for actual
match-fixing recently enough for blameless survivors of that team
still to be playing for India, is not one which has any right to a
moral high ground compared with the rest of the sinners in
international cricket any more than Australia, England or Pakistan do.
While rsc is dominated by inflammatory cries of racist injustice and
threats to pull out of tours, and calls for the BCCI to show spine and
backbone every time an Indian player is accused of anything at all,
it's very difficult for anyone else to take any of them seriously. It
just looks like yet more crybabying.
I suppose I can just about see that the Harbhajan incident is a little
more serious than some of the others, but years and years of
unjustified ranting simply on the basis of standing up for the Indian
players has made it ever so much harder to separate the serious from
the pathetic.
>As far as withdrawing charges is concerned, the world is not that
>dogmatic. If Ponting met with ICC and asked them to forget about the
>Harbhajan issue for the sake of goodwill, he would be listened to.
That's not how it works, or ought to work, either. There is an appeal
hearing. If the Australian witnesses go to the hearing and say that
they don't really have any great issue with whatever it was Harbhajan
might or might not have said and they only reported him in the heat of
the moment and they now wish they hadn't, then I'm sure that the judge
hearing the appeal would listen and give that due weight when coming
to his decision. The outcome may well be the same, but there is no
possibility of having a respected process if you just tear it up every
time it's a little inconvenient.
Cheers,
Mike
Jason Gillespie
"Macjoubert" <macjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f57d3e5d-4dcd-47b9...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
Is this Gurly gurlate the same idiot from Mumbai with a finance
job that used to infest one of the popular Indian websites ?
Confirm it so I can feel at least I am 5% as good as
Sherlock Holmes :-))
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> I'm sorry if I offended.
Not offended at all; this is RSC for chrissake. Just peeved at people
putting words in my mouth.
> There are those who have jumped on the national honour soapbox in
> terms not so far removed from yours. In some ways at least, though,
> their line is the same, although with a more bogus "rationale".
So why don't you argue with them on that point? I wouldn't have
expected you to have a cookie-cutter answer like some of these semi-
educated Roos on this forum. :-)
> But I still object very much to your phraseology about "spine" and
> "cowardice". There is NO obligation on a "leader" to stand up for his
> subordinates come what may, and the attitude that the BCCI should
> vigorously defend any of it players who get accused of anything is an
> attitude which puts everyone else's backs up.
Look, I'm coming from a vantage point that Harbhajan is innocent. He
says he is innocent and he is backed up by Kumble and Tendulkar. So
far, I've not heard anything from the Indian camp that alludes to
Harbhajan being a liar.
If you start from that premise, then the actions by Kumble are indeed
spineless and cowardly; I cannot think of a euphemism for this
scenario. Kumble first apologized - for what no one knows - and now
is retreating to "move on" and for the "moral high ground". And you
cannot do that unless the other party meets you half way. I see no
such concession being offered by Ponting. Any unilateral action by
Kumble is nothing but sheer display of cowardice.
--== SNIP ==--
> If the Australian witnesses go to the hearing and say that
> they don't really have any great issue with whatever it was Harbhajan
> might or might not have said and they only reported him in the heat of
> the moment and they now wish they hadn't, then I'm sure that the judge
> hearing the appeal would listen and give that due weight when coming
> to his decision.
That's exactly what I'm saying.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> He sure talks the talk but ask him to back to India and help his
> fellow Dalits, nah he wont budge from that nice cozy home he has in
> South Florida. Typical self loathing coward he is.
>
> He's hoping his white wife will rub off his Indian'ness permanently.
How come you know so much about his personal life? Are you one of
those IP-address spies??? :-)
Sounds like he is doing very well for himself and that's good for him
I say. If he indeed came from a humble background and is now
financially successful, I think that's great! And you don't know what
he is doing for his community; for all you know, he might be donating
heavily to charity.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Mike Holmans
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 14, 3:12 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> But I still object very much to your phraseology about "spine" and
>> "cowardice". There is NO obligation on a "leader" to stand up for his
>> subordinates come what may, and the attitude that the BCCI should
>> vigorously defend any of it players who get accused of anything is an
>> attitude which puts everyone else's backs up.
>
>Look, I'm coming from a vantage point that Harbhajan is innocent. He
>says he is innocent and he is backed up by Kumble and Tendulkar. So
>far, I've not heard anything from the Indian camp that alludes to
>Harbhajan being a liar.
>
>If you start from that premise, then the actions by Kumble are indeed
>spineless and cowardly; I cannot think of a euphemism for this
>scenario. Kumble first apologized - for what no one knows - and now
>is retreating to "move on" and for the "moral high ground". And you
>cannot do that unless the other party meets you half way. I see no
>such concession being offered by Ponting. Any unilateral action by
>Kumble is nothing but sheer display of cowardice.
Thank you for that explanation. I'm far more sympathetic to the view
that the skipper should stick up for his boys than that the board
should. Boards should keep their noses out of it and let the agreed
disciplinary procedures take their course without making provocative
statements verging on blackmail beforehand.
However, I don't see it as cowardice when one of two parties to a
nasty dispute makes the first move towards restoring peace. But then
in my world, blessed are the peacemakers, not the warmongers. (And it
sems to work better when people make peace rather than standing on
stiff-necked principle: one of the most amazing pieces of news to
filter out of Northern Ireland is that having agreed to sit down at
the table with Sinn Fein, Ian Paisley is said to be getting on with
Martin McGuinness, former quartermaster of the Provisional IRA, like a
long-lost brother as they get on with making Northern Ireland a
pleasant place to live instead of a war zone.)
Reading between the lines of the various statements, it seems that the
traffic in so-called banter was not entirely one-way. It wasn't a case
of Australians sledging and Indians keeping a dignified silence apart
from the odd "Oh, good shot, sir!" A lot of us might well believe that
there was more and worse from the Australians overall, but that
doesn't make the Indians entirely guiltless.
Presumably both teams would be aware of the relative amounts of
nonsense each side uttered, so if the lesser offender says to the
other "Look, if things got out of hand out there, I'm sorry. Yes, we
reacted rather badly to the dodgy umpiring decisions, and we'll do
better next time." then I don't see what's spineless or cowardly about
it. Seems rather nearer to being noble to me, but obviously I'm not
you. But it's also a statement that he wants to get on with playing
cricket rather than politics, which is really what it should be all
about.
Ponting has now made some public noises about how he and Michael
Clarke should have accepted the umpire's decisions immediately instead
of hanging around. Perhaps Ponting needed the reassurance that the
Indians were admitting that they hadn't been entirely perfect before
he could get down off his high horse: why should his team be the only
one to cop the flak if both were involved, he might well have thought.
If Kumble's apology was the catalyst, then why is Kumble the coward?
Cheers,
Mike
dougie
I can see it *possibly* happening in an attempt to take a bit of
controversy and animosity out of the situation, but I hope it doesn't
happen. It would be bad for the sport and it would be a setback. To use
an example, it wouldn't matter to me whether the Sri Lankans were
offended or not by Lehmann's comments a few years ago. He deserved to be
punished, and punished worse than he was. It wouldn't even matter to me
whether the Sri Lankans heard it or not to be honest. It was heard by
people sitting in the members and that's enough to have him not just
dropped from the team but fired from his CA contract and never picked to
play for Australia again.
There's a question over whether Harbhy actually said what he is alleged
to have said. If it's proven that he actually said it (and it has been,
otehrwise why was he banned in teh first place?) then the punishment
should stand. I'm mystified as to why India is even allowed to appeal. Is
there new evidence? Are they only appealing the severity of the ban?
Surely no hearing is required for an appeal of the severity of the ban?
That is a decision that could be made in the ICC offices in Dubai or in a
phone hookup, and doesn't need to take weeks to determine.
Yes I know I'm being a little naive (deliberately) naive and I'm not
taking politics into account, but if the Australians did what Mike is
mooting I would be disappointed.
Macjoubert
No spy here, just using the information is available.
Its your country he's insulting, your people, but if its okay with
you, then what he heck.
BTW , if the vitriol that he lets loose here is anything to go by, I
doubt he wants anything to do with India let alone "help" his fellow
countrymen.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
--== SNIP ==--
> Reading between the lines of the various statements, it seems that the
> traffic in so-called banter was not entirely one-way. It wasn't a case
> of Australians sledging and Indians keeping a dignified silence apart
> from the odd "Oh, good shot, sir!" A lot of us might well believe that
> there was more and worse from the Australians overall, but that
> doesn't make the Indians entirely guiltless.
No one is denying that. The Indians have finally learned - albeit
clumsily - the art of trash-talking. So if we are now accepting the
fact that both parties are guilty, why is only one getting punished?
> Ponting has now made some public noises about how he and Michael
> Clarke should have accepted the umpire's decisions immediately instead
> of hanging around. Perhaps Ponting needed the reassurance that the
> Indians were admitting that they hadn't been entirely perfect before
> he could get down off his high horse: why should his team be the only
> one to cop the flak if both were involved, he might well have thought.
> If Kumble's apology was the catalyst, then why is Kumble the coward?
Catalyst to what? Ponting grudgingly making some noises that he
should have waited only for one second, not two? How about the other
offenses? Most important: Harbhajan's conviction still stands; what
exactly did Kumble get by his bowing and curtseying as he retreats
backwards?
Sanjiv Karmarkar
CDK
> I am extremely disappointed in India's unilateral withdrawal of the
> charges against Hogg; especially since there is no hint of a
> reciprocal action from the Australian camp.
The Australian Camp did not lay the charges the Umpires did, so the
Aussies cannot withdraw the charges.
<snip>
CDK
Mike Holmans
wrote:
>There's a question over whether Harbhy actually said what he is alleged
>to have said. If it's proven that he actually said it (and it has been,
>otehrwise why was he banned in teh first place?) then the punishment
>should stand. I'm mystified as to why India is even allowed to appeal. Is
>there new evidence? Are they only appealing the severity of the ban?
>Surely no hearing is required for an appeal of the severity of the ban?
>That is a decision that could be made in the ICC offices in Dubai or in a
>phone hookup, and doesn't need to take weeks to determine.
It is perfectly normal in other branches of the law for someone who
doesn't like the verdict of the court to appeal to a higher court. You
can appeal a jury case on the grounds that you think the judge
misdirected the jury as to the significance of the evidence presented.
In the case of an ICC disciplinary hearing, the judge is also the
jury, so you might be arguing that he effectively misdirected himself.
I see nothing improper about an appeal. I saw everything improper
about the statements issuing from the BCCI which effectively said that
if Harbhajan is not exonerated on appeal, then we will be taking our
bat and ball home.
>
>Yes I know I'm being a little naive (deliberately) naive and I'm not
>taking politics into account, but if the Australians did what Mike is
>mooting I would be disappointed.
The CoC prohibits language "that offends, insults, humiliates,
intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the
basis of that person’s race, religion, etc". As I read it, if "another
person" is not offended, humiliated, intimidated or the rest, then no
offence has been committed.
In most of our day-to-day lives, we tend to make some slight
allowances for people who say very silly things when they have lost
their rags. Especially if they show immediate contrition, we tend to
let the worst of it be forgotten.
In Lehmann's account of his transgression, he was shocked when he
heard himself make the offensive yell. And is there anyone who has
never yelled something in frustration and immediately thought, "Fuck,
did I really say that????" He immediately went round to try and
apologise, and the SL team were happy to accept his apologies because
they knew him to be good guy who had lost it for a second, not a
thorough-going redneck with a bias against darkies.
And there can be honour among thieves. The Australians may well have
been trying to get Harbhajan to lose his rag - he's known to be the
sort who can be goaded, after all - and may feel that in the cold
light of day it is indeed a bit stiff for him to get whacked with a
three match ban when they were really only trying to wind him up so
he'd play a stupid shot and get out.
If people calm down after the battle has cooled and come to regret
things they did, such as reporting someone for being provoked into
reacting to sledging designed to get him to lose his rag, then I'm not
sure why they should not say so at a hearing which takes place when
all the dust has settled.
Cheers,
Mike
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> There's a question over whether Harbhy actually said what he is alleged
> to have said. If it's proven that he actually said it (and it has been,
> otehrwise why was he banned in teh first place?) then the punishment
> should stand. I'm mystified as to why India is even allowed to appeal.
Exactly. The very fact that an appeal was allowed attests to a faulty
decision.
Look, I'd like the ICC to be completely open. Tell us exactly why you
are convicting Harbhajan, and we'll take it from there.
The alternative would be for the ICC to be completely secretive. I'd
hate that, but at least I can chalk that against the idiosyncrasies of
an archaic system.
However, what ICC is doing is providng us with partial information.
We don't know everything, but we know a few things. We know that the
umps did not hear anything. We know that the stump-mikes did not pick
up anything. We know that Gilly and Ponting did not hear anything.
We know that 2 Australians (one of the Clarke) have said that
Harbhajan made a racist remark and 2 Indians - Harbhajan and SRT -
have denied it. I presume this is all under oath.
Based on this information, I see no reason why Proctor should believe
one group over the other. The very fact that the appeal was accepted
supports my contention that Proctor arrived at his decision on non-
conclusive evidence and hearsay.
> Are they only appealing the severity of the ban?
No, they are not appealing the severity of the ban, they are appealing
the whole shebang. But now these suckers may gleefully change that as
well.
"Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to get used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused"
-- Eurythmics (1982?)
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> Look, I'm coming from a vantage point that Harbhajan is innocent. He
> says he is innocent and he is backed up by Kumble and Tendulkar. So
> far, I've not heard anything from the Indian camp that alludes to
> Harbhajan being a liar.
> If you start from that premise, then the actions by Kumble are indeed
> spineless and cowardly; I cannot think of a euphemism for this
What does one have to do with the other except as a tit for tat. IMHO the
original report of Hogg was cowardly.
[snip]
--
"And artists, or their heirs, who fall into the trap of attacking the
collagists and satirists and digital samplers of their work are attacking
the next generation of creators for the crime of being influenced, for
the crime of responding with the same mixture of intoxication,
resentment, lust, and glee that characterizes all artistic successors. By
doing so they make the world smaller, betraying what seems to me the
primary motivation for participating in the world of culture in the first
place: to make the world larger." - Jonathan Lethem
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> However, what ICC is doing is providng us with partial information.
> We don't know everything, but we know a few things. We know that the
> umps did not hear anything. We know that the stump-mikes did not pick
> up anything. We know that Gilly and Ponting did not hear anything.
> We know that 2 Australians (one of the Clarke) have said that
> Harbhajan made a racist remark and 2 Indians - Harbhajan and SRT -
> have denied it. I presume this is all under oath.
3 Australians, and some reports are saying that Tendulkar didn't hear the
whole thing.
> Based on this information, I see no reason why Proctor should believe
> one group over the other. The very fact that the appeal was accepted
> supports my contention that Proctor arrived at his decision on non-
> conclusive evidence and hearsay.
An appeal would have been automatic if they wanted it. For any quasi
judicial process to be able to survive the possibility of a court
injunction they must have an appeals process if the accused feels
aggrieved.
[snip]
--
"The war we fight is not against powers and principalities, it is against
chaos and despair. Greater than the death of flesh is the death of hope,
the death of dreams. Against this peril we can never surrender." - G'Kar,
Babylon 5
CDK
They can't. The case has already been decided so the charges cannot be
withdrawn. Not even the umpires can withdraw the charges. All that can
happen now is for the appeal to be heard.
> There is no mechanism is just
> a convenient red herring. Why can't the aussie team withdraw their
> original complaint to the umpies who in turn ask the MR to throw the
> case out?
They could only withdraw the complaint if they were to say that Harby
did not say what they have claimed he did.
Which would open them up to charges of bringing the game into disrepute.
> but nothing stops the poster from preaching one and all about national
> honour and due process and rationality and objectivity. IPL's $1B
> deal with Sony will only make this poster lose the last iota of
> sympathy he might have had for your case.
Does anyone have any sympathy for the BCCI?
CDK
Jayen
<snip>
>
> Kumble and Dravid are a pair of spineless jellyfishes
Sigh! These are the two who have emerged as the two mentally toughest
players from the last two tours of Australia. However, aren't you the
person who claimed that Dravid's seeking Slater out after the Mumbai
2001 dust-up was a sign of weakness? Your idea of toughness seems to
be 180 degrees off from that of most of the rest of the world.
<snip>
>
> I thought we had moved on from those Umrigar-Pataudi days.
These are two whom I admire most for toughness. The first was
genuinely scared of fast bowling, but persevered and overcame his
fears till he acquitted himself honourably in the later part of his
career against some of the best fast-bowlers in the world. The second
was the first Indian captain to convince his colleagues that they
belonged on the same park as the rest of the world and led them to
more victories than all captains before him put together. As I said,
180 degrees.
Toughness is being able to play under immense pressure on the last day
and remain undefeated at the end. You know, the kind of thing Border
used to do. Can you think of any recent examples?
Regards,
Jayen
kethe...@gmail.com
> On Jan 14, 8:32 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > But don't let the facts stop you from ranting pointlessly about
> > national honour. After all, that's what makes for good controversy and
> > stops anyone who isn't Indian having any sympathy for whatever case
> > you really have.
>
> It is very unbecoming - even for you - to make up things. The words
> "national honor" never appeared in my post and they were not implied;
> I was not thinking of it at all. It's totally uncool to make up
> things to argue against. Either argue with the contents of the post
> or stay the hell out of it.
>
> subordinates. Cricket - thank god - does not define national honor.
>
> As far as withdrawing charges is concerned, the world is not that
> dogmatic. If Ponting met with ICC and asked them to forget about the
> Harbhajan issue for the sake of goodwill, he would be listened to.
>
you think very high of mike holmans?
ok ok
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> Sigh! These are the two who have emerged as the two mentally toughest
> players from the last two tours of Australia. However, aren't you the
> person who claimed that Dravid's seeking Slater out after the Mumbai
> 2001 dust-up was a sign of weakness?
Of course it was! What world are you living in, pal? That'd be
considered a sign of weakness in any sport and in any walk of life.
When the person who is abused seeks to placate the abuser, that's
classic weakness. It's called BPS or Stockholm syndrome. Look into
it.
This does explain why you like Pataudi. You probably dislike the
approach taken by Gavaskar and Ganguly. To each his own I guess. I
am disappointed. Unfortunately, can't say I'm surprised.
> The second
> was the first Indian captain to convince his colleagues that they
> belonged on the same park as the rest of the world and led them to
> more victories than all captains before him put together.
This topic has been discussed ad infinitum on this forum and I have no
intention of discussing it all over again. I'll leave you with the
following article by Gideon Haigh.
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/256028.html
You want to know what leadership is all about and what it means to
have a spine? Read the 2nd para from bottom. You are right, our
opinions are 180 degrees apart; apparently you think leadership is
kissing ass of your abusers! :-)
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Husband of All FBI n NSA agents
"Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c990bb21-2fb3-476c...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 3:11 pm, Macjoubert <macjoub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He sure talks the talk but ask him to back to India and help his
> fellow Dalits, nah he wont budge from that nice cozy home he has in
> South Florida. Typical self loathing coward he is.
>
> He's hoping his white wife will rub off his Indian'ness permanently.
>>How come you know so much about his personal life? Are you one of
>>those IP-address spies??? :-)
MacJoubert userid is used by FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS. Different
psychopaths at different times. None of you can figure that out. It
needs special talents and skills.
On 12/20/07 there was some problem with the drainage in my
bath room tub and the flush. This PSYCHOPATHIC FBI n
NSA BASTARD Macjoubert read my private thoughts with
SYNTHETIC TELEPATHY chips secretly installed in my body
and POSTED this comment the next day on rsc.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/7ec0b74b4fed9e50
Why do you think MacJoubert suddenly mentioned "turds down the
drain, water and slow dissolving death" on 12/21/07 which is
COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the topic being discussed ?
This FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATH knows about Gurlate because he
can TRACK any person on internet with the UNLIMITED POWER
given to these PSYCHOPATHS by 310 mil DUMB AMERICANS
(PUSSERICANS) who think they are living in a FREE SOCIETY.
Rodney Ulyate aka Diggler aka R Shakey aka Curious George
is another FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATH that is TORTURING
NON-MUSLIM AMERICANS.
These TORTURES have NOTHING TO DO WITH Islam or 911.
There UNSPEAKABLE CRIMES and TORTURES are
being COMMITTED by these FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS
on HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of INNOCENT WHITE,
BLACK, BROWN and YELLOW (ASIAN) AMERICANS
every day.
>>Sounds like he is doing very well for himself and that's good for him
>>I say. If he indeed came from a humble background and is now
>>financially successful, I think that's great!
Gurlate is a dalit from South India, lived in Mumbai for most of
his life and he hates Malayalees, Tamilians, Ghatis and Bhayyas.
He is NOT a Marathi.
>And you don't know what
>>he is doing for his community; for all you know, he might be donating
>>heavily to charity.
>.Sanjiv Karmarkar
MacJoubert knows what exactly Gurlate is doing because MacJoubert
USERID is used by FBI n NSA PSYCHOPATHS.
Husband of All FBI n NSA agents
Since when CAPITALISM is a CRIME for the WEST ?
Australians understand ONLY ONE LANGAUGE:
Excerpt:
Thirdly, and still on the commercial theme, Indian firms and sponsors
should withdraw contracts and product endorsements by the Australians. That
is a language, perhaps the only language, they understand. Their brand value
stands much diminished in the Indian market.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.cricket/msg/a02115fd2edf8290
> Of course common sense sort of prevailed, Australia needs India as
> much as India needs Australia, apart from Pakistan no one else
> generates so much interest in India than Australia.
> I'm sure Australian fans too are tired of seeing Australia thrash poor
> England every time, everywhere.
India CAN SURVIVE WITHOUT playing Australia but
Australia CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT India.
Colin
>I am extremely disappointed in India's unilateral withdrawal of the
> charges against Hogg; especially since there is no hint of a
> reciprocal action from the Australian camp.
>
> up or India is withdrawing them unilaterally to "move on".
>
> If the charges were bogus, that's a seriously bad act and they should
> be penalized heavily for creating false charges.
I doubt they were bogus. India would be withdrawing it a few reasons
a) it was a childish tit-for-tat citing in the first place. Continuing on
with it doesn't look good for India as well as Hogg.
b) it was a rather weak charge to begin with
c) given the above, dropping it allows India to move on, or at least give
the pretence of it
dougie
> An appeal would have been automatic if they wanted it. For any quasi
> judicial process to be able to survive the possibility of a court
> injunction they must have an appeals process if the accused feels
> aggrieved.
It doesn't have to be that way though. What about doubling the suspension
if the appeal fails? Might stop frivolous appeals. We don't know if it's
frivolous though because we're not privy to what happened in the hearing.
But it doesn't sound to me like they've got any new evidence.
Anyway it's interesting the ICC allows Proctor to do the original hearing,
then brings in a (retired?) judge to handle the appeal.
Jayen
> On Jan 14, 11:17 pm, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Sigh! These are the two who have emerged as the two mentally toughest
> > players from the last two tours of Australia. However, aren't you the
> > person who claimed that Dravid's seeking Slater out after the Mumbai
> > 2001 dust-up was a sign of weakness?
>
> Of course it was! What world are you living in, pal? That'd be
> considered a sign of weakness in any sport and in any walk of life.
> When the person who is abused seeks to placate the abuser, that's
> classic weakness. It's called BPS or Stockholm syndrome. Look into
> it.
No, it isn't. And Dravid didn't seek to placate the abuser - that's
absolutely ridiculous. Try to look back as to who emerged from the
incident with more respect. And please try to learn what the Stockholm
syndrome is all about before mouthing off.
Let's try to take this a little further. If McGrath had sought out
Sarwan after the 2003 incident or if Sarwan had sought out McGrath,
would you have called either an example of the Stockholm syndrome?
Hint: both did. And I view McGrath as the primary offender here,
consider PM Howard a dick-head for having defended him without knowing
the facts and admire Sarwan for taking steps to play it down later
(and, as an aside, playing a small part in a world record chase).
>
> This does explain why you like Pataudi. You probably dislike the
> approach taken by Gavaskar and Ganguly.
Do you style yourself Allegro the Magnificent during your mind-reading
stints? Let's leave out the "You probably approve of those who eat
live human babies" pieces, shall we? And this in a thread where you
objected to Mike Holmans doing the same thing.
> To each his own I guess. I
> am disappointed. Unfortunately, can't say I'm surprised.
>
> > The second
> > was the first Indian captain to convince his colleagues that they
> > belonged on the same park as the rest of the world and led them to
> > more victories than all captains before him put together.
>
> This topic has been discussed ad infinitum on this forum and I have no
> intention of discussing it all over again. I'll leave you with the
> following article by Gideon Haigh.
>
> http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/india/content/story/256028.html
>
> You want to know what leadership is all about and what it means to
> have a spine? Read the 2nd para from bottom.
Is this the part where he went to sleep? Or the part where he asked
for a better hotel? I don't have a problem with the first and am happy
that the second happened, but don't view either as being the epitome
of great leadership.
> You are right, our
> opinions are 180 degrees apart; apparently you think leadership is
> kissing ass of your abusers! :-)
>
"It's good that Anil and I sat down like two grown men yesterday and
had a good chat" - Ricky Ponting today. After his team-mate was
racially abused by the opponents (or so he says), shouldn't we deem
him a "spineless coward" for talking to the opponent team's captain?
Regards,
Jayen
dougie
> On Jan 14, 8:40 pm, dougie <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote:
>
>> There's a question over whether Harbhy actually said what he is
>> alleged to have said. If it's proven that he actually said it (and it
>> has been, otehrwise why was he banned in teh first place?) then the
>> punishment should stand. I'm mystified as to why India is even
>> allowed to appeal.
>
> Exactly. The very fact that an appeal was allowed attests to a faulty
> decision.
Not necessarily. That doesn't appear to be what happened. It looked to
me like the decision to allow the appeal was done with the explicit
intention of placating India, who were threatening to take their bat &
ball and go home. I haven't heard any reason for allowing the appeal,
that doesn't mean they didn't give one, just that I don't remember
hearing an actual reason.
> Look, I'd like the ICC to be completely open. Tell us exactly why you
> are convicting Harbhajan, and we'll take it from there.
They've done that. He racially abused Symonds accoring to the decision
handed won by Proctor. The transcript should be available though. The
fact that it isn't available and we don't know what happened doesn't
look good. It's obviously being kept secret for political reasons. It
keeps the fans in the dark, even worse it allows the media to speculate
and whip the fans' prejudices up. It allows the officials of the various
countries to blatantly lie about what occurred. So in that respect it's
not as open as it should be. So we don't really know what happened in
the first place (except for proctor's decision) and we don't really know
why the appeal was allowed.
> The alternative would be for the ICC to be completely secretive. I'd
> hate that, but at least I can chalk that against the idiosyncrasies of
> an archaic system.
>
> However, what ICC is doing is providng us with partial information.
> We don't know everything, but we know a few things. We know that the
> umps did not hear anything. We know that the stump-mikes did not pick
> up anything. We know that Gilly and Ponting did not hear anything.
> We know that 2 Australians (one of the Clarke) have said that
> Harbhajan made a racist remark and 2 Indians - Harbhajan and SRT -
> have denied it. I presume this is all under oath.
>
> Based on this information, I see no reason why Proctor should believe
> one group over the other. The very fact that the appeal was accepted
> supports my contention that Proctor arrived at his decision on non-
> conclusive evidence and hearsay.
We don't really know what happened. We only know what the Indian &
Australian media are telling us. And we can't rely on that at all.
Stex
New evidence, "we misheard". It can be done they just dont want to.
Stex
Dave (SA)
> I am extremely disappointed in India's unilateral withdrawal of the
> charges against Hogg; especially since there is no hint of a
> reciprocal action from the Australian camp.
>
> Now there are two possibilities here. Either the charges were trumped
> up or India is withdrawing them unilaterally to "move on".
>
> If the charges were bogus, that's a seriously bad act and they should
> be penalized heavily for creating false charges.
>
> unilaterally simply to gain the "moral high ground", then are even
> bigger brown-nosers that I thought they were. As far as I can tell,
> Australia has no plans of withdrawing charges against Harbhajan. You
> know why? Cuz they have spine.
>
> Kumble leadership smacks of extreme genuflection. First, Kumble tries
> to apologize while at the same time proclaiming Harbhajan's
> innocence. As if that humiliation was not enough, apparently his
> apology was pretty much ignored. However, that does not bother this
> ass-kisser. He continues to try to smooch ICC ass even though he is
> apparently not getting time of the day from them.
>
> And now they unilaterally withdraw charges against Hogg.
>
> Kumble and Dravid are a pair of spineless jellyfishes and Pawar - for
> all his bravado - has either sold his soul for money or is a coward
> himself. Any leader that does not stand up for their teammates -
> especially the younger ones - does not have the right to be in a
> leadership position.
>
> My congratulations to Australia for the complete victory. They
> smelled the fear in the Indian camp and took complete advantage of
> it. They are truly deserving winners, both on-field and off.
>
> not.
>
> Sanjiv Karmarkar
There is a simpler explanation
* The Indians upset about the HS allegation overreacted and retaliated
by charging Hogg. These things happen when emotions are running high
* A few days later they realised it was an overreaction and withdrew
the charges
If thats what happened then hats of to India for doing the right
thing.
The HS case is a separate matter and needs to be handled accordingly.
This is not an Aussie victory. Its just the right result.
eusebius
snip
>
> Look, I'm coming from a vantage point that Harbhajan is innocent. He
> says he is innocent and he is backed up by Kumble and Tendulkar. So
> far, I've not heard anything from the Indian camp that alludes to
> Harbhajan being a liar.
>
> If you start from that premise,
That isn't a premise. That is an assumption. In fact, a presumption.
then the actions by Kumble are indeed
> spineless and cowardly; I cannot think of a euphemism for this
> scenario. Kumble first apologized - for what no one knows - and now
> is retreating to "move on" and for the "moral high ground". And you
> cannot do that unless the other party meets you half way. I see no
> such concession being offered by Ponting. Any unilateral action by
> Kumble is nothing but sheer display of cowardice.
Perhaps the position of the Indian team on this issue is untenable?
Perhaps, as implied by other (Indian) posters, Harbhajan may have
uttered something 'sounding like' monkey, or that SRT doesn't believe
that monkey is a racist epithet?
Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about?
Grinner
"Sanjiv Karmarkar" <s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd0651b6-9119-48fb...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm sure the players and not the politicians in the Indian team want to get
on with the game, as much as the Australians who haven't been drawn into the
fracas as well. Hopefully all the nonsense will be left off the field
tomorrow with good umpiring and creditable sportsmanship all round, and
hopefully with some very competitive cricket to enjoy.
eusebius
snip
> There's a question over whether Harbhy actually said what he is alleged
> to have said. If it's proven that he actually said it (and it has been,
> otehrwise why was he banned in teh first place?) then the punishment
> should stand. I'm mystified as to why India is even allowed to appeal. Is
> there new evidence? Are they only appealing the severity of the ban?
Any judicial or quasi-judicial process should be provisioned with an
appeal process. Trouble is, does ICC have the capacity to provide an
adequate appeal process.
dougie
No argument from me that if there are grounds for appeal then an appeal
should be allowed. I'm still wondering what the grounds are though, usually
you'd need a reason to appeal. AFAIK the only reason was given was "if you
don't we'll call off the tour", there doesn't appear to have been any other
reason.
dougie
> On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 01:40:49 GMT, dougie <n...@anywhere.atall.org>
> wrote:
>
>>There's a question over whether Harbhy actually said what he is
>>alleged to have said. If it's proven that he actually said it (and it
>>has been, otehrwise why was he banned in teh first place?) then the
>>punishment should stand. I'm mystified as to why India is even allowed
>>to appeal. Is there new evidence? Are they only appealing the severity
>>of the ban? Surely no hearing is required for an appeal of the
>>severity of the ban? That is a decision that could be made in the ICC
>>offices in Dubai or in a phone hookup, and doesn't need to take weeks
>>to determine.
>
> It is perfectly normal in other branches of the law for someone who
> doesn't like the verdict of the court to appeal to a higher court. You
> can appeal a jury case on the grounds that you think the judge
> misdirected the jury as to the significance of the evidence presented.
> In the case of an ICC disciplinary hearing, the judge is also the
> jury, so you might be arguing that he effectively misdirected himself.
>
> I see nothing improper about an appeal. I saw everything improper
> about the statements issuing from the BCCI which effectively said that
> if Harbhajan is not exonerated on appeal, then we will be taking our
> bat and ball home.
Hence my reason for asking the question. "If you don't immediately allow
an appeal we'll get really upset and go home" might not be a good enough
reason anywhere else. Allowing the person convicted in a court of law to
file an appeal doesn't automatically mean that appeal will be heard. It
probably shouldn't in this case either.
>>Yes I know I'm being a little naive (deliberately) naive and I'm not
>>taking politics into account, but if the Australians did what Mike is
>>mooting I would be disappointed.
>
> The CoC prohibits language "that offends, insults, humiliates,
> intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the
> basis of that person’s race, religion, etc". As I read it, if "another
> person" is not offended, humiliated, intimidated or the rest, then no
> offence has been committed.
Lehmann's words were heard in the members', there are usually a lot of
kids present. I used to sit in the members' between about 77 & 82 and I
certainly never heard anything like that. And that was in the days of
Chappelli & Dougie.
> In most of our day-to-day lives, we tend to make some slight
> allowances for people who say very silly things when they have lost
> their rags. Especially if they show immediate contrition, we tend to
> let the worst of it be forgotten.
>
> In Lehmann's account of his transgression, he was shocked when he
> heard himself make the offensive yell. And is there anyone who has
> never yelled something in frustration and immediately thought, "Fuck,
> did I really say that????" He immediately went round to try and
> apologise, and the SL team were happy to accept his apologies because
> they knew him to be good guy who had lost it for a second, not a
> thorough-going redneck with a bias against darkies.
OK the Lehmann thing has been done to death. I don't disagree with what
you say here, I just thought at the time that his punishment was
extremely lenient. That is possibly for the reasons you say (out of
character and the Sri Lankans agreed). My concern was that at Lehmann's
age no "heat of the moment" defence was good enough. There are good views
on both sides. They were only words and it's not like he beat someone
over the head with a cricket bat.
> And there can be honour among thieves. The Australians may well have
> been trying to get Harbhajan to lose his rag - he's known to be the
> sort who can be goaded, after all - and may feel that in the cold
> light of day it is indeed a bit stiff for him to get whacked with a
> three match ban when they were really only trying to wind him up so
> he'd play a stupid shot and get out.
>
> If people calm down after the battle has cooled and come to regret
> things they did, such as reporting someone for being provoked into
> reacting to sledging designed to get him to lose his rag, then I'm not
> sure why they should not say so at a hearing which takes place when
> all the dust has settled.
Well that raises the question of whether provocation is enough to get the
charges dropped altogether, whether it's only enough to get the charge
downgraded, or maybe even if it's enough to record a conviction but no
punishment. I'll leave that up to the retired judge in Harbhy's case.
> Cheers,
>
> Mike
Kim
<fel...@princeton.edu> wrote:
>The charges were laid by the umpires in Harbhajan's case and have
>already been adjudicated on, how can they be withdrawn?
None of the Indian players made the charge about Hogg. That was the
Indian team manager. Why he got upset an dnot the Indian players, more
to distract from the racism charge than anything else.
eusebius
There is a question of process, of 'your word against mine';
apparently. We, the general public aren't privy to most of the
details, so it is hard to say. Even if the appeal grounds are flimsy,
I have no problem with the appeal being heard. If the appeal is seen
to be vexatious, maybe they could increase the sentence. Although in
the current climate that might be unlikely. Hence, anything that ICC
can do to appear appeasing will be the order of the day (yet I doubt
that they can go as far as to cancel the verdict- but you never know. )
Mike Holmans
wrote:
>On Jan 14, 6:08 pm, Sanjiv Karmarkar <s_karmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Kumble and Dravid are a pair of spineless jellyfishes
>
>Sigh! These are the two who have emerged as the two mentally toughest
>players from the last two tours of Australia. However, aren't you the
>person who claimed that Dravid's seeking Slater out after the Mumbai
>2001 dust-up was a sign of weakness? Your idea of toughness seems to
>be 180 degrees off from that of most of the rest of the world.
I think that's going a bit far. There are lots of people who embody
what appears to be Sanjiv's idea of toughness. GW Bush, for instance,
a universally respected world leader with a reputation for enlightened
statesmanship, whose Sanjiv-style toughness has made the USA the most
respected nation on the planet.
Cheers,
Mike
Jack
"Husband of All FBI n NSA agents" <HusbandOfAll...@America.Com>
wrote in message news:fmhhc4$q1p$1...@aioe.org...
Hmmm, it's funny how english has been adopted as the world's language.
Why do you think that is?
eusebius
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:17:44 -0800 (PST), Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com>
Very droll, Mike.
I think it is generally the fashion these days to prefer to project
the external toughness rather than possess the internal; ie it seems
preferable to appear to be tough than actually be tough, and this
isn't just confined to the Sanjivs and Ws of this world. (or little
ws).
As you say, it is impossible to 'take a stand' on every minute issue.
Well, it appears that some find it possible, but it really is
pointless. And tiring. And boring. Even though there are claims to the
contrary, much of the arguments here seem to appeal to 'national
honour', whatever that is exactly. Actually, many views on both sides
of the issue are pure jingoism; nothing to do with rationality.
So says a half-educated Roo.
Mad Hamish
>On Jan 14, 8:40 pm, dougie <n...@anywhere.atall.org> wrote:
>
>> There's a question over whether Harbhy actually said what he is alleged
>> to have said. If it's proven that he actually said it (and it has been,
>> otehrwise why was he banned in teh first place?) then the punishment
>> should stand. I'm mystified as to why India is even allowed to appeal.
>
>Exactly. The very fact that an appeal was allowed attests to a faulty
>decision.
>
No it doesn't.
It attests that India have lodged an appeal nothing more and nothing
less..
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
newsunsp...@iinet.unspamme.net.au
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> No, it isn't. And Dravid didn't seek to placate the abuser - that's
> absolutely ridiculous. Try to look back as to who emerged from the
> incident with more respect. And please try to learn what the Stockholm
> syndrome is all about before mouthing off.
OK, then perhaps you can enlighten me. You have all watched the
video. There should be no doubt in your mind that Slater was being
quite offensive to Dravid. If you are telling me that Dravid was the
abuser here, then this conversation is over.
Now, fast forward to EOD. Dravid, the abuser, walks into Australian
camp to make up. Slater did not go into Indian camp to apologize, nor
did they meet half-way. That's classic BPS!
And if you think this action by Dravid garnered him respect, then you
are living in a la-la land and really do not understand how today's
competitive athlete thinks. Why do you think Gavaskar criticized
Dravid for his actions? Oh I forgot, you don't like Gavaskar approach
either.
> Let's try to take this a little further. If McGrath had sought out
> Sarwan after the 2003 incident or if Sarwan had sought out McGrath,
> would you have called either an example of the Stockholm syndrome?
> Hint: both did.
No because they both apologized to each other. That's called dealing
on equal footing. You want respect? Make your adversary meet you at
least half the way.
> Is this the part where he went to sleep? Or the part where he asked
> for a better hotel? I don't have a problem with the first and am happy
> that the second happened, but don't view either as being the epitome
> of great leadership.
Then you have a lot more to learn. Strategy is an important part of
leadership, but only a *part* of the leadership.
> "It's good that Anil and I sat down like two grown men yesterday and
> had a good chat" - Ricky Ponting today. After his team-mate was
> racially abused by the opponents (or so he says), shouldn't we deem
> him a "spineless coward" for talking to the opponent team's captain?
It amazes me what you consider equivalent gestures. First Anil
apologizes and at the same time says that Harbhajan is not guilty.
Perhaps you can enlighten me on what he was apologizing for
unilaterally? Then India withdraws their case w/o even some kind of
lip-service from Ponting about Harbhajan. You consider these two
entirely unilateral and major gestures equivalent to the Ponting's
grudging statements you reproduce above? That truly boggles my mind.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about?
That's not posible, but thanks for your question.
SK
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:17:44 -0800 (PST), Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com>
I'll ignore your pitiable attempt at sarcasm for a second, but the
fact is there are certain battles you do not fight and there are
certain battles you absolutely have to fight. Being a perpetual
pacifist is even worse that being a habitual war-monger.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
eusebius
> On Jan 15, 2:39 am, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it isn't. And Dravid didn't seek to placate the abuser - that's
> > absolutely ridiculous. Try to look back as to who emerged from the
> > incident with more respect. And please try to learn what the Stockholm
> > syndrome is all about before mouthing off.
>
> OK, then perhaps you can enlighten me. You have all watched the
> video. There should be no doubt in your mind that Slater was being
> quite offensive to Dravid. If you are telling me that Dravid was the
> abuser here, then this conversation is over.
>
Which is preferable?
To me, (and perhaps this isn't the Australian way, or even the way
anywhere) but apologizing when you are in the wrong is a sign of
strength, and not doing so a sure sign of core weakness as a human
being. If Dravid went further, to calm a dispute that he had no
skerrick of responsibility for, then he is not an appeaser, but a
peacemaker. Such are very rare.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> As you say, it is impossible to 'take a stand' on every minute issue.
> Well, it appears that some find it possible, but it really is
> pointless. And tiring. And boring. Even though there are claims to the
> contrary, much of the arguments here seem to appeal to 'national
> honour', whatever that is exactly. Actually, many views on both sides
> of the issue are pure jingoism; nothing to do with rationality.
What, you are a clairvoyant now? If you want to insist - despite my
repeated objections - that I think it's a question of national honor
and then argue against me based on that presumption (!), that's your
prerogative. I guess me telling you - one more time - that I do not
consider this important enough to affect national honor one way or the
other will be meaningless then.
> So says a half-educated Roo.
When I was talking about "some of these semi-educated Roos", I
certainly was not talking about you; I still have your response to my
post about philosophy and literature saved on my hard-drive. Yet,
it's admirable that you stand-up for *all* of your countrymen.
Political ambitions? :-)
Sanjiv Karmarkar
eusebius
Thanks for deigning to share your knowledge with us, oh omniscient One.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
> Slater carried on like a fool. Dravid acted like a decent person.
> Which is preferable?
> To me, (and perhaps this isn't the Australian way, or even the way
> anywhere) but apologizing when you are in the wrong is a sign of
> strength, and not doing so a sure sign of core weakness as a human
> being. If Dravid went further, to calm a dispute that he had no
> skerrick of responsibility for, then he is not an appeaser, but a
> peacemaker. Such are very rare.
I respect your opinion, but find no away to agree with it.
Sanjiv Karmarkar
eusebius
> On Jan 15, 8:22 am, eusebius <eusebiu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As you say, it is impossible to 'take a stand' on every minute issue.
> > Well, it appears that some find it possible, but it really is
> > pointless. And tiring. And boring. Even though there are claims to the
> > contrary, much of the arguments here seem to appeal to 'national
> > honour', whatever that is exactly. Actually, many views on both sides
> > of the issue are pure jingoism; nothing to do with rationality.
>
> What, you are a clairvoyant now? If you want to insist - despite my
> repeated objections - that I think it's a question of national honor
> and then argue against me based on that presumption (!), that's your
> prerogative. I guess me telling you - one more time - that I do not
> consider this important enough to affect national honor one way or the
> other will be meaningless then.
Okay. I do relate a smidgin to where you are coming from; but there is
a lot of noise on this issue and it is rather difficult to seperate
the wood from the trees. If I have seriously mischaracterized your
view on this, I apologize (am I an appeaser? I don't think so. I get
things wrong. I feel that your views are worth respecting; even if
occasionally I disagree with them. I might even disagree quite
vehemently. But if you are engaging seriously on this topic, I need
not attack you or anything like that. So sorry about that also.)
Your views are couched in somewhat similar terms, IMHO, to others who
are couching their arguments in national honour terms, including the
media.
I'm sure that there are plenty of details with which there can be
obtained a reasonable amount of consensus, even here, if we
communicate rather than vent.
I would like to see more details about the evidence used to convict
HS.
I personally disagree that an apology constitutes a cave-in. It can
do- of course there is a difference between apologizing and
maintaining dignity and rolling over.
>
> > So says a half-educated Roo.
>
> When I was talking about "some of these semi-educated Roos", I
> certainly was not talking about you;
Thank you.
> I still have your response to my
> post about philosophy and literature saved on my hard-drive. Yet,
> it's admirable that you stand-up for *all* of your countrymen.
> Political ambitions? :-)
>
> Sanjiv Karmarkar
You see, you have inferred this also just as I inferred your intent.
But then this is easy to do :-)
eusebius
As you are perfectly entitled to do.
Jayen
> On Jan 15, 2:39 am, Jayen <rsc_pos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > No, it isn't. And Dravid didn't seek to placate the abuser - that's
> > absolutely ridiculous. Try to look back as to who emerged from the
> > incident with more respect. And please try to learn what the Stockholm
> > syndrome is all about before mouthing off.
>
> OK, then perhaps you can enlighten me. You have all watched the
> video. There should be no doubt in your mind that Slater was being
> quite offensive to Dravid. If you are telling me that Dravid was the
> abuser here, then this conversation is over.
>
Don't be ridiculous - Slater was definitely the one acting the arse.
> Now, fast forward to EOD. Dravid, the abuser, walks into Australian
> camp to make up. Slater did not go into Indian camp to apologize, nor
> did they meet half-way. That's classic BPS!
>
Eh? "Slater apologises to Dravid"
http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/mar/02slater.htm and a number of
other such links, should you care for them.
> And if you think this action by Dravid garnered him respect, then you
> are living in a la-la land and really do not understand how today's
> competitive athlete thinks.
Slater was a little contrite in public after that, but people didn't
forget it and the incident was recalled when he abused some
journalists in Sydney a couple of years after that. These two
incidents do cause people to remember him as a bit of a dick-head.
Dravid certainly didn't lose any respect and, at least in some eyes,
gained some.
> Why do you think Gavaskar criticized
> Dravid for his actions?
Cite, please. I'd like to see what he has to say before I comment.
> Oh I forgot, you don't like Gavaskar approach
> either.
>
If you say so, Allegro the magnificent sir, if you say so.
> > Let's try to take this a little further. If McGrath had sought out
>
> > Sarwan after the 2003 incident or if Sarwan had sought out McGrath,
> > would you have called either an example of the Stockholm syndrome?
> > Hint: both did.
>
> No because they both apologized to each other. That's called dealing
> on equal footing. You want respect? Make your adversary meet you at
> least half the way.
Slater apologised, too. Please see above.
I am fine with accepting the apology and moving on, as I would assume
are a number of others. Do you really think that Slater would have
retained any respect if he had not tendered this apology? If he hadn't
apologised, would you have considered him to be "extremely tough"?
>
> > Is this the part where he went to sleep? Or the part where he asked
> > for a better hotel? I don't have a problem with the first and am happy
> > that the second happened, but don't view either as being the epitome
> > of great leadership.
>
> Then you have a lot more to learn. Strategy is an important part of
> leadership, but only a *part* of the leadership.
>
OK, so what is more important? Especially in the link you gave.
> > "It's good that Anil and I sat down like two grown men yesterday and
> > had a good chat" - Ricky Ponting today. After his team-mate was
> > racially abused by the opponents (or so he says), shouldn't we deem
> > him a "spineless coward" for talking to the opponent team's captain?
>
> It amazes me what you consider equivalent gestures. First Anil
> apologizes and at the same time says that Harbhajan is not guilty.
> Perhaps you can enlighten me on what he was apologizing for
> unilaterally?
I don't need to. You just need to read what he said. Have you ever
exchanged harsh words with a colleague in a work environment and then
have one party say "If I have said this the wrong way, I apologise,
but we need to sort this issue out for the company's work to proceed
smoothly and that's what we need to work towards"? An apology or
yielding to another car in traffic doesn't necessarily prove that you
have a smaller penis. Michael Clarke has apologised to Kumble for not
leaving the crease after being caught at slip. Seen on its own, the
incident is no big deal - he is hardly the first batsman to stick
around in the crease for an obvious dismissal. He has done so to help
smooth the whole think over. Would you consider him a "spineless
coward" for his apology?
> Then India withdraws their case w/o even some kind of
> lip-service from Ponting about Harbhajan. You consider these two
> entirely unilateral and major gestures equivalent to the Ponting's
> grudging statements you reproduce above? That truly boggles my mind.
>
Can we wait a little and see what happens? Not every detail is
necessarily on the front page of the newspaper the next day.
Regards,
Jayen
James Farrar
wrote:
>Allowing the person convicted in a court of law to
>file an appeal doesn't automatically mean that appeal will be heard. It
>probably shouldn't in this case either.
Well, that depends on ICC's rules, which I don't know well enough to
comment on; however, I have experienced quasi-judicial procedures in
which an appeal, if filed, must be heard. I see no evidence either way
to say which way ICC proceeds.
Mike Holmans
wrote:
>Mike Holmans wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>> In most of our day-to-day lives, we tend to make some slight
>> allowances for people who say very silly things when they have lost
>> their rags. Especially if they show immediate contrition, we tend to
>> let the worst of it be forgotten.
>>
>> In Lehmann's account of his transgression, he was shocked when he
>> heard himself make the offensive yell. And is there anyone who has
>> never yelled something in frustration and immediately thought, "Fuck,
>> did I really say that????" He immediately went round to try and
>> apologise, and the SL team were happy to accept his apologies because
>> they knew him to be good guy who had lost it for a second, not a
>> thorough-going redneck with a bias against darkies.
>
>OK the Lehmann thing has been done to death. I don't disagree with what
>you say here, I just thought at the time that his punishment was
>extremely lenient. That is possibly for the reasons you say (out of
>character and the Sri Lankans agreed). My concern was that at Lehmann's
>age no "heat of the moment" defence was good enough. There are good views
>on both sides. They were only words and it's not like he beat someone
>over the head with a cricket bat.
The point I was really trying to make was that only a few
mouth-breathing loons who've never met Lehmann think he's a racist
because he lost his rag: even at the time, most of the Lankan team
apparently went out of their way to reassure him that they didn't
think that because they'd known him for years and knew that he wasn't.
They also gave evidence at the disciplinary hearing to the same effect
and asked the referee to show leniency. The referee took into account
both that evidence and the player's previous record and imposed a
penalty at the bottom end of the tariff.
>> And there can be honour among thieves. The Australians may well have
>> been trying to get Harbhajan to lose his rag - he's known to be the
>> sort who can be goaded, after all - and may feel that in the cold
>> light of day it is indeed a bit stiff for him to get whacked with a
>> three match ban when they were really only trying to wind him up so
>> he'd play a stupid shot and get out.
>>
>> If people calm down after the battle has cooled and come to regret
>> things they did, such as reporting someone for being provoked into
>> reacting to sledging designed to get him to lose his rag, then I'm not
>> sure why they should not say so at a hearing which takes place when
>> all the dust has settled.
>
>Well that raises the question of whether provocation is enough to get the
>charges dropped altogether, whether it's only enough to get the charge
>downgraded, or maybe even if it's enough to record a conviction but no
>punishment. I'll leave that up to the retired judge in Harbhy's case.
Provocation has been considered enough for women who cold-bloodedly
murdered their viciously abusive husbands to either get off completely
or to receive merely a suspended sentence in recent years in the
English courts, so it seems at least conceivable that it should be
good enough to let off a cricketer who, after much goading and in the
heat of a row, calls another cricketer a monkey even when he knows it
to be racially-charged. If that's what happened at Sydney (and as far
as I can see it's the worst that has been alleged), then I reckon a
three-match ban sounds a bit stiff, but then I haven't heard or seen
the witnesses giving evidence so I have no real basis for an opinion.
I too am happy to leave it up to the judge to work out what is
appropriate when he has worked out what the facts were. I don't really
see how everyone can be telling the truth from what I've read, but I
don't see any particular reason why I should believe Harbhajan's
account any more than I should believe Symonds's account (and the same
goes for anyone else's account), since every single one of them has a
vested interest in the outcome.
Cheers,
Mike
Mike Holmans
<s_kar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jan 14, 8:41 pm, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ponting has now made some public noises about how he and Michael
>> Clarke should have accepted the umpire's decisions immediately instead
>> of hanging around. Perhaps Ponting needed the reassurance that the
>> Indians were admitting that they hadn't been entirely perfect before
>> he could get down off his high horse: why should his team be the only
>> one to cop the flak if both were involved, he might well have thought.
>> If Kumble's apology was the catalyst, then why is Kumble the coward?
>
>Catalyst to what? Ponting grudgingly making some noises that he
>should have waited only for one second, not two? How about the other
>offenses? Most important: Harbhajan's conviction still stands; what
>exactly did Kumble get by his bowing and curtseying as he retreats
>backwards?
Hogg's statement about the charges being dropped was as near to saying
"Gee, thanks Anil, I really owe you one" as I've seen. Kumble gained
kudos by appearing magnanimous and can now tell any opposing captain
to shut some fielder who is being objectionable up or he will feel it
necessary to inform the umpires - and you know where that will lead,
don't you, Ricky/Michael/Graham/Shoaib (especially Ricky) - and be
totally credible because most cricketers from most countries know that
Kumble's velvet exterior conceals one of the toughest and most
competitive players they have faced.
Some gamblers don't cash in all their chips at once, preferring to
keep some of them for a later visit to the tables. Kumble has a nice
little pot to use in the next game now.
Cheers,
Mike
Phil.
That's simple, the manager is the representative of the team who has
the standing to lay a charge, no one else. If a player (or players)
want a charge to be laid by their team they have to get the team
manager to do so.
"1.1 An alleged breach of the Rules of Conduct can be reported by:
(a) the umpires, including the third or any further umpires appointed
for a Test Match, ODI Match or a Tour Match;
(b) the team manager, either on his own behalf or on behalf of any of
his Players participating in a Test Match, ODI Match or a Tour Match;"
Phil.
Ian Galbraith
> Ian Galbraith wrote in rec.sport.cricket:
>
>> An appeal would have been automatic if they wanted it. For any quasi
>> judicial process to be able to survive the possibility of a court
>> injunction they must have an appeals process if the accused feels
>> aggrieved.
>
> It doesn't have to be that way though. What about doubling the suspension
> if the appeal fails? Might stop frivolous appeals. We don't know if it's
> frivolous though because we're not privy to what happened in the hearing.
> But it doesn't sound to me like they've got any new evidence.
As it is essentially Australian vs Indian players word then I think there
are clear grounds for appeal.
[snip]
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which
ones to keep." - Scott Adams
Ian Galbraith
Your way involves mindless machismo driven by pride that is the very
thing that leads to wars.
--
"We not run out of time. There is infinite time. You are finite, Zathras
is finite. This...... is wrong tool." - Zathras, Babylon5
CDK
> On Jan 15, 12:53 pm, CDK <mickymo...@disneyland.com> wrote:
>> kban wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 8:50 am, Sanjiv Karmarkar <s_karmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jan 14, 8:32 am, Mike Holmans <m...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> But don't let the facts stop you from ranting pointlessly about
>>>>> national honour. After all, that's what makes for good controversy and
>>>>> stops anyone who isn't Indian having any sympathy for whatever case
>>>>> you really have.
>>>> It is very unbecoming - even for you - to make up things. The words
>>>> "national honor" never appeared in my post and they were not implied;
>>>> I was not thinking of it at all. It's totally uncool to make up
>>>> things to argue against. Either argue with the contents of the post
>>>> or stay the hell out of it.
>>> Will all due respect, what else did you expect from this poster? From
>>> several of his posts, it is very obvious that he makes up things for
>>> "unkown reasons" to argue against Indian posters such as Bharat,
>>> Sanjiv, Samarth etc.
>>> Or his IQ is so low, he does not understand what the other person is
>>> saying.
>>>> I was simply talking about responsibilities of a leader vis-à-vis his
>>>> subordinates. Cricket - thank god - does not define national honor.
>>>> As far as withdrawing charges is concerned, the world is not that
>>>> dogmatic. If Ponting met with ICC and asked them to forget about the
>>>> Harbhajan issue for the sake of goodwill, he would be listened to.
>>> I completely agree with you there. If the Australian team wanted it,
>>> they can easily get this case dismissed.
>> They can't. The case has already been decided so the charges cannot be
>> withdrawn. Not even the umpires can withdraw the charges. All that can
>> happen now is for the appeal to be heard.
>>
>
> New evidence,
New evidence???
> "we misheard". It can be done they just dont want to.
Why should they? If this was any other team and an Australian player
was in the gun, you would not be suggesting what you are presently
suggesting.
CDK