View Full Version : Did the Aussies fake the Latif racism claims?
sandeano
20 Feb 2003, 08:23
Interesting and dangerous claims on the Wisen site today...
http://www.wisden.com/column/column.asp?colid=44121201
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
What really happened when Adam Gilchrist and Rashid Latif traded suspicions last week in Johannesburg?
Gilchrist was insistent that Latif had sworn at him while he tried in vain to resurrect Pakistan's run-chase at the Wanderers. It was "White c***", or something similar, apparently, which neatly mirror the words that got Darren Lehmann banned when he lost his temper against Sri Lanka recently. Latif was equally insistent that he hadn't sworn at Gilchrist, so much so that he wanted to sue him for defamation until he thought it best to let the matter pass.
Latif is not a vociferous keeper – you rarely hear him in comparison with someone like Moin Khan, for example. He has also put his dignity before personal glory, from the day he retired early from international cricket because of his suspicions about the behaviour of his team-mates, to the time he was the leading witness in Pakistan's match-fixing inquiry.
Whistleblowers have it tough, especially those that have the guts to expose their friends and colleagues. Latif has also been captain of Pakistan, and has a fair understanding of his responsibilities on and off the pitch. Even so, he finds it difficult to hold a conversation in English.
None of this means that Latif could not have racially abused Gilchrist. Who knows what prejudices lurk in the dark recesses of other people's minds? But it is behaviour that would surprise those that know him, certainly with his history of standing up for the more noble traditions of cricket. It also goes against his reputation as a player who sticks to his own game and doesn't get involved with his opponents. Returning to a team full of people whose careers you damaged is a quick way to learn the art of keeping your head down.
In the end the match referee, Clive Lloyd, was not persuaded by Gilchrist's accusation. There was insufficient evidence, said Lloyd. And that would have been that, had not some interesting information emerged. Why did Latif want to sue Gilchrist? Was it because he had got away with swearing at him and wanted to try his luck in the courts? News from the Pakistan camp suggests that Latif had good reason to be upset. It also might explain why the ICC has ordered him not to talk about the incident. The Pakistanis are sticking by the following version of events.
During Latif's innings there was some light banter, which is an accepted part of international cricket. Latif was also busy talking to himself, geeing himself up for the next delivery. Hearing Latif's words, Gilchrist came running up and accused Latif of abusing him. Latif denied this straight away, but Gilchrist was sure he had heard something and was not prepared to let it go. The matter was referred to Lloyd, who was unable to hear anything on the ICC's tape. He urged the players to close the issue and leave banter for the field of play.
The Australians were not satisfied, and said they would produce their own tape. It was the Muslim festival of Eid, marking the end of Hajj (the annual pilgrimage to Mecca), and the Pakistan players felt that their day had been ruined twice over. Latif, particularly, was bristling at what he perceived to be an unwarranted slur on his reputation.
The Australians were asked to produce their evidence the following day, and after keeping the Pakistan players hanging around for a few hours, they finally delivered. They played a tape that included an interesting snippet of a voice beginning an insult with the word "white" – but the rest was muffled. The insinuation was that this was Latif racially abusing Gilchrist. Instead of being devastated Latif and Waqar Younis were indignant. It was clear to them that the voice on the tape was not Latif's, and Waqar immediately pointed out that, to make it worse, the voice was Australian. Case dismissed.
Little wonder that Latif wanted to sue, although he was sensible to drop the case for now and focus on the World Cup. Little wonder that the ICC would rather it was forgotten. Assuming that this is an accurate version of events – and at this stage there is no reason to think otherwise – the ACB and ICC have some investigating and explaining to do. Racial abuse is a serious offence – but so is conspiring to damage a player's reputation and career.
Kamran Abbasi, born in Lahore, brought up in Rotherham, is deputy editor of the British Medical Journal.
goal_umpire
20 Feb 2003, 08:33
Originally posted by sandeano
Interesting and dangerous claims on the Wisen site today...
http://www.wisden.com/column/column.asp?colid=44121201
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
What really happened when Adam Gilchrist and Rashid Latif traded suspicions last week in Johannesburg?
Gilchrist was insistent that Latif had sworn at him while he tried in vain to resurrect Pakistan's run-chase at the Wanderers. It was "White c***", or something similar, apparently, which neatly mirror the words that got Darren Lehmann banned when he lost his temper against Sri Lanka recently. Latif was equally insistent that he hadn't sworn at Gilchrist, so much so that he wanted to sue him for defamation until he thought it best to let the matter pass.
Latif is not a vociferous keeper – you rarely hear him in comparison with someone like Moin Khan, for example. He has also put his dignity before personal glory, from the day he retired early from international cricket because of his suspicions about the behaviour of his team-mates, to the time he was the leading witness in Pakistan's match-fixing inquiry.
Whistleblowers have it tough, especially those that have the guts to expose their friends and colleagues. Latif has also been captain of Pakistan, and has a fair understanding of his responsibilities on and off the pitch. Even so, he finds it difficult to hold a conversation in English.
None of this means that Latif could not have racially abused Gilchrist. Who knows what prejudices lurk in the dark recesses of other people's minds? But it is behaviour that would surprise those that know him, certainly with his history of standing up for the more noble traditions of cricket. It also goes against his reputation as a player who sticks to his own game and doesn't get involved with his opponents. Returning to a team full of people whose careers you damaged is a quick way to learn the art of keeping your head down.
In the end the match referee, Clive Lloyd, was not persuaded by Gilchrist's accusation. There was insufficient evidence, said Lloyd. And that would have been that, had not some interesting information emerged. Why did Latif want to sue Gilchrist? Was it because he had got away with swearing at him and wanted to try his luck in the courts? News from the Pakistan camp suggests that Latif had good reason to be upset. It also might explain why the ICC has ordered him not to talk about the incident. The Pakistanis are sticking by the following version of events.
During Latif's innings there was some light banter, which is an accepted part of international cricket. Latif was also busy talking to himself, geeing himself up for the next delivery. Hearing Latif's words, Gilchrist came running up and accused Latif of abusing him. Latif denied this straight away, but Gilchrist was sure he had heard something and was not prepared to let it go. The matter was referred to Lloyd, who was unable to hear anything on the ICC's tape. He urged the players to close the issue and leave banter for the field of play.
The Australians were not satisfied, and said they would produce their own tape. It was the Muslim festival of Eid, marking the end of Hajj (the annual pilgrimage to Mecca), and the Pakistan players felt that their day had been ruined twice over. Latif, particularly, was bristling at what he perceived to be an unwarranted slur on his reputation.
The Australians were asked to produce their evidence the following day, and after keeping the Pakistan players hanging around for a few hours, they finally delivered. They played a tape that included an interesting snippet of a voice beginning an insult with the word "white" – but the rest was muffled. The insinuation was that this was Latif racially abusing Gilchrist. Instead of being devastated Latif and Waqar Younis were indignant. It was clear to them that the voice on the tape was not Latif's, and Waqar immediately pointed out that, to make it worse, the voice was Australian. Case dismissed.
Little wonder that Latif wanted to sue, although he was sensible to drop the case for now and focus on the World Cup. Little wonder that the ICC would rather it was forgotten. Assuming that this is an accurate version of events – and at this stage there is no reason to think otherwise – the ACB and ICC have some investigating and explaining to do. Racial abuse is a serious offence – but so is conspiring to damage a player's reputation and career.
Kamran Abbasi, born in Lahore, brought up in Rotherham, is deputy editor of the British Medical Journal.
Nope they didn't fake the racism against Pakistan.
Kamran Abbasi doesn't know the full facts.
If you do, could u be so kind as to tell not only us, but perhaps match referee Clive Llyod as well?
tapestry
20 Feb 2003, 09:32
Thats disturbing if it is true.
Generalissimo
20 Feb 2003, 10:01
Maybe there's a word or phrase in the Pakistani language that sounds like 'white ****', and Adam Gilchrist misheard. Not likely that Latif would be muttering to himself in English, and also unlikely that Gilchrist would deliberately tell a lie.
goal_umpire
20 Feb 2003, 10:13
Originally posted by Perty4
If you do, could u be so kind as to tell not only us, but perhaps match referee Clive Llyod as well?
Clive Lloyd did nothing about it. I am surprised that the ICC didn't step in and charge Latiff with the same offence that Darren Lehmann got.
Dogwatcher
20 Feb 2003, 11:01
Didn't people hear at least a part of the alleged racial insult on the television coverage? If that's the case how could it be an Aussie plot. If this was all made up, why would the Aussies pick someone as allegeldy unscrutable as Latif to pick on? Conspiracy theorists have a ball.
What a load of rubbish.
Joe the cameraman at work again maybe?
Originally posted by suzi_olsen
Nope they didn't fake the racism against Pakistan.
Kamran Abbasi doesn't know the full facts.
Must you quote the full article for a mere two line response?
For Latif to claim the tape was doctored by the Australians is an admission that racist comments were clearly audible.
Why would he claim doctoring of the tapes if nobody could hear what was said?
I used to be a huge fan of Clive Lloyd, but he has lost credibility in my eyes.
Clackers69
20 Feb 2003, 12:57
Originally posted by suzi_olsen
Clive Lloyd did nothing about it. I am surprised that the ICC didn't step in and charge Latiff with the same offence that Darren Lehmann got. And clive Lloyd was also going to do nothing about the Lehmann case untill the ICC stepped in.
So tell us, what did your cousin, Adam Gilchrist, tell you about the incident?
Bombers 2003
20 Feb 2003, 15:32
Originally posted by Becker
For Latif to claim the tape was doctored by the Australians is an admission that racist comments were clearly audible.
Why would he claim doctoring of the tapes if nobody could hear what was said?
I used to be a huge fan of Clive Lloyd, but he has lost credibility in my eyes. Mein Fuhrer,Sieg Heil!!!!.
Vass is?.Where did u hear these comments?.Pehaps over a few Stein at Berchtesgarten,or at Rastenburg?.
That allegation is quite amazing. It seems hardly possible that it's true, given the way we perceive Australian cricketers; but on the other hand it does fit in partially with the way events transpired after the accused slur.
I mentioned at the time that the Australians didn't follow the matter up, and there was little comment by Australian cricketers or officials in the media either.
What is clear is that Gilchrist obviously believes he heard something. The way he spoke to Latif doesn't seem pre-meditated (and it would also beg the question, if pre-meditated, Why? and Why Latif?). Having not seen the incident live - it must have been pretty late at night, and I gave the game up as a foregone conclusion following Inzamam's wicket - I can't say anything about the legitimacy of Gilchrist's claim. Did anyone here witness it live and pick up on it immediately?
And nobody can vouch for what happened to the tape between the point and the time it was presented as evidence. Not on this forum anyway. (except perhaps for Suzi ;) )
It's a breath-taking claim by Latif, and clearly warrants further investigation. If that doesn't happen, then what?
GOALden Hawk
20 Feb 2003, 15:38
Originally posted by sandeano
Gilchrist was insistent that Latif had sworn at him while he tried in vain to resurrect Pakistan's run-chase at the Wanderers. It was "White ****", or something similar, apparently, which neatly mirror the words that got Darren Lehmann banned when he lost his temper against Sri Lanka recently. Latif was equally insistent that he hadn't sworn at Gilchrist, so much so that he wanted to sue him for defamation until he thought it best to let the matter pass.
Latif is not a vociferous keeper – you rarely hear him in comparison with someone like Moin Khan, for example. He has also put his dignity before personal glory, from the day he retired early from international cricket because of his suspicions about the behaviour of his team-mates, to the time he was the leading witness in Pakistan's match-fixing inquiry.
So what, because he dobs people in he is exempt from the same thing happening to him?
Whistleblowers have it tough, especially those that have the guts to expose their friends and colleagues. Latif has also been captain of Pakistan, and has a fair understanding of his responsibilities on and off the pitch. Even so, he finds it difficult to hold a conversation in English.
Why does he have to hold a conversation to swear in English? I can swear in several languages, and I don't even know what it means.
In the end the match referee, Clive Lloyd, was not persuaded by Gilchrist's accusation. There was insufficient evidence, said Lloyd. And that would have been that, had not some interesting information emerged. Why did Latif want to sue Gilchrist? Was it because he had got away with swearing at him and wanted to try his luck in the courts? News from the Pakistan camp suggests that Latif had good reason to be upset. It also might explain why the ICC has ordered him not to talk about the incident. The Pakistanis are sticking by the following version of events.
What Pakistanis? I haven't heard this version of events before. If Latif was so indignent why did he back down the following day and then say he was good mates? And when did Gilchrist swear at Latif. In the incident I saw, Latif swore at Gilchrist, who went and reported it to the umpire.
During Latif's innings there was some light banter, which is an accepted part of international cricket. Latif was also busy talking to himself, geeing himself up for the next delivery.
Bit of light banter? But I thought Latif couldn't hold a conversation in English? Unless Gilly has taken a crash-course in Urdu something has changed in the last few paragraphs.
Hearing Latif's words, Gilchrist came running up and accused Latif of abusing him. Latif denied this straight away, but Gilchrist was sure he had heard something and was not prepared to let it go. The matter was referred to Lloyd, who was unable to hear anything on the ICC's tape. He urged the players to close the issue and leave banter for the field of play.
I find it hard to believe Lloyd would say something like that after suspending someone for the same insult delivered off the field and indirectly less than 2 months earlier.
The Australians were not satisfied, and said they would produce their own tape. It was the Muslim festival of Eid, marking the end of Hajj (the annual pilgrimage to Mecca), and the Pakistan players felt that their day had been ruined twice over. Latif, particularly, was bristling at what he perceived to be an unwarranted slur on his reputation.
Diddums. Is this fool suggesting because it was a Pakistani holiday they were exempt from been questioned?
The Australians were asked to produce their evidence the following day, and after keeping the Pakistan players hanging around for a few hours, they finally delivered. They played a tape that included an interesting snippet of a voice beginning an insult with the word "white" – but the rest was muffled. The insinuation was that this was Latif racially abusing Gilchrist. Instead of being devastated Latif and Waqar Younis were indignant. It was clear to them that the voice on the tape was not Latif's, and Waqar immediately pointed out that, to make it worse, the voice was Australian. Case dismissed.
Laughable. The only Aussie near the pitch microphone was Gilchrist himself.
Little wonder that Latif wanted to sue, although he was sensible to drop the case for now and focus on the World Cup.
Also sensible given he had about as much chance of winning as Bangladesh do the World Cup.
Little wonder that the ICC would rather it was forgotten. Assuming that this is an accurate version of events – and at this stage there is no reason to think otherwise – the ACB and ICC have some investigating and explaining to do. Racial abuse is a serious offence – but so is conspiring to damage a player's reputation and career.
No reason to assume otherwise??? There are more holes in this story than a porno plot, yet it is apparently an "accurate version of events"
Kamran Abbasi, born in Lahore, brought up in Rotherham, is deputy editor of the British Medical Journal. [/QUOTE]
That story is a disgrace - if anyone should be taking legal action its Gilly for defamation against this *****.
What is the story based on? How is someone who writes for the British Medical Journal suddenly an expert on cricket?
Jars458
20 Feb 2003, 16:04
Sounds like a crock
Why would the Aussies do that? What is their motivation?
Its all very bizzare
GoEagles
20 Feb 2003, 16:23
I don't believe for a second that Gilchrist would make the story up. Why would a British Medical Journal comment on an issue like this? Unless he knows a bit about lip reading his comments seem a bit out of the blue.
Hardly a surprise, Wisdens turned into one big joke.
Steady on boys! We're all very very quick to condemn here aren't we?
Saying "I don't believe for a second that Gilchrist would make the story up," is very much like saying Rashid Latif has a very good record on whistle-blowing, etc. It's all very well for us to bring Gilchrist's character into the issue, and yet mention of Latif's is ridculed.
I suspect that if, for example, Lehmann found himself in Latif's situation, a fair proportion of people on here would immediately jump to his defence, and urge him to sue the Pakistanis. "How dare they accuse us of racism, there's no proof, sub-continental bias", stuff like that.
The most interesting statement to come out of all this is: "The Australian's produced their own tape." What? If Clive Lloyd viewed the tape and saw no evidence of vilification, where on earth did the Australians find another tape with audible speech on it? The implication is that the first tape simply didn't have anything, and a second tape was produced subsequently. How can that be?
That's the question I want answered. Along with the one about how the Australian's aren't keen to take the matter further.
I'm not keen on taking anyone's side in this issue, so I don't want anyone to think I'm jumping to Latif's defence. But some people are very quick to condemn without showing any interest in thinking the matter through.
Originally posted by RogerC
[B]Steady on boys! We're all very very quick to condemn here aren't we?
And the article quoted wasn't?
The most interesting statement to come out of all this is: "The Australian's produced their own tape." What? If Clive Lloyd viewed the tape and saw no evidence of vilification, where on earth did the Australians find another tape with audible speech on it? The implication is that the first tape simply didn't have anything, and a second tape was produced subsequently. How can that be?
What's interesting is this article is the only place I've seen that claim aired.
That's the question I want answered. Along with the one about how the Australian's aren't keen to take the matter further.
Perhaps, unlike other nations, they are content to accept the match referees verdict.
crudbucket
20 Feb 2003, 19:41
And the Aussies would be so DUMB as to produce a tape with an AUSTRALIAN accent on it ??
Not even George W could be that thick !!!
dr nick
20 Feb 2003, 20:44
Originally posted by Dave
Hardly a surprise, Wisdens turned into one big joke.
interesting argument to totally rubbish the article. i spose what you post on public forums is a more reliable source?
dr nick
20 Feb 2003, 20:46
Originally posted by Dave
What's interesting is this article is the only place I've seen that claim aired.
hmmm... so now everybody has to quote 2, 3 or even 4 sources to raise an issue?
perhaps you would like to point us to an article that suggests otherwise.
Originally posted by Bombers 2003
Mein Fuhrer,Sieg Heil!!!!.
Vass is?.Where did u hear these comments?.Pehaps over a few Stein at Berchtesgarten,or at Rastenburg?.
I'll say this again so even you might understand. By the way, I'm typing slowly because I know you can't read very fast.
I never said I heard the comments, what I said was I see no reason for Latif to make allegations of tape doctoring unless something WAS audible. If nothing could be heard, why would he bother?
Therefore, I make the assumption that you could indeed hear the comments, otherwise he wouldn't have made the allegations.
Is that clear enough for you or would you like your Grade 2 teacher to explain it to you?
Thanks for your response to me, Dave. Pithy, as usual. I have no particular gripe with what you say, but I'd like to mention a couple of things.
The article only attempts to put Latif's side of the story. On re-reading it, it does indulge in a little bit of editorialising at the end, although it stops short of actually pointing the finger at the Australians.
But it goes to great effort to elucidate what happened at the hearing. I'd find it mighty hard to believe he'd get away with his description of what happened (i.e. a tape was listened to, nothing was heard, the Australians produced a tape the following day, the case was dismissed) if it wasn't accurate.
Doesn't that still beg the question of where this second tape came from?
And if you say the Australians are "content to accept the match referee's verdict," that seems at odds with the article too. They were so unhappy with the referee's verdict that they went to the trouble of producing a second tape.
My queries are not condemnations of anybody; just questions I'd like to hear answered. But if you're already satisfied that Latif and the Pakistanis are lying, I guess I'm not going to hear them from you.
Seems like Wisden might have chucked in this article to get tongues wagging..... it's worked.
What hasn't been mentioned yet is that Latif / Pakistan Cricket Board were saying straight after the incident that they were going to sue Gilchrist for defamation. They then dropped that quicksmart one day later.....which leads me (cynical old bastard that I am) to think maybe someone had a listen to the tape, and realised that while Clive mightn't do anything about it, the standards applicable in a court might come down a little more on Gilchrist's side.....
Jars458
24 Feb 2003, 08:50
Latiff was interviewed by KG and Cornsey and made the smae claims that the tape was doctored and the voice on the tape wasn't his
KG said he didn't believe him adn Latiff said I answer the questions you have asked.
If this is not true Gilly needs to act, probably by going to court over it.