Andrew Symonds

[Lemma]

Is Symonds playing in the t20 BBL?

 

[Blessed]

Only if he gets kicked out of the House.

 

[Ian Dargie]

Players have said that losing Symonds was a huge blow, not just for his cricketing ability but for his mateship and upkeeping of team moral.

Good grief. Mateship? Is John Howard selecting the side?

Or was he a forerunner to Steve Smith, who was picked in the side "for his jokes"?

The episode with Harbhajan Singh reflected poorly on Australian cricket – they put expedience ahead of principle - and undoubtedly contributed to Symonds' growing disaffection. But he was also getting sick of the routine and the rigours of playing for Australian and the requirements placed on him by the administration. He wanted to go and play T20 where he had to show up for a few weeks, smack the ball around and then go home. His approach to cricket was out-of-step in the 21st century. That's not necessarily a criticism, but rather a partial explanation of how and why he became estranged from the national side.

And I think people should re-evaluate how big a loss he was. Certainly, his axing didn't play a huge part in "the demise of Australian cricket", as the OP puts it.

For one, he was only a fringe player in the Test side, the format where that "demise" has occurred most acutely. And sure, he was a very useful ODI player, but if you look at his final 18 months, he was averaging 27 with the bat. If he was still playing ODIs, it might have meant that someone like Shaun Marsh never got a crack. Ultimately, how hard is it to replace a guy who doesn't want to be there and isn't scoring runs?

 

[Demon JP]

Can't wait till he hip and shoulders someone in the showers.

 

[Crickfan]

The decision got overturned because there was no conclusive evidence to suggest he called Symonds a big monkey, and it also wasn't deemed to be racist. However, appropriate added information was not conveyed to whoever made the final decision.

Exactly!!


Mike Procter made a hash of the original hearing when he allowed himself to be swayed by the testimonies of several Aussie players, all of whom with the possible exception of Haydos (and I say possible because Haydos’s recollection of the actual conversation between Symo and HS was sketchy at best, as noted by Justice Hansen in his judicial review), were not even within earshot of the actual exchange. Result – Procter made a judgment that betrayed basic principles of natural justice and in the absence of corroborating evidence (no evidence from camera, mic, umpires, or other players except Haydos, Tendulkar, and the 2 protagonists – Symo and HS), another issue Justice Hansen commented on in his report.

Justice Hansen’s full report makes for a very good read (http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2008/jan/30report.htm).

The highlights of the report (see below) are compelling.


A) Hansen’s comments about the Procter inquiry:

(20) Furthermore the note kept of the four hour hearing in front of Mr Procter is a mixture of précis and direct speech of parts of the proceedings, testimony and submissions that were noted down. The first page records appearances and the rest of a four hour hearing occupies less than five and a half pages. Given the informal nature of the hearing and the circumstances pertaining to it this is not surprising and is not a criticism. However, it seems to me in future that particularly for more serious offences under Level 3 and Level 4, it would be better if the referees were able to record a full transcript of the hearing in front of them. But what it meant was that the record was inadequate for the purposes of this hearing which is why I heard evidence from all parties.



B) Hansen’s comments about why the hearing was delayed:

(3) Pursuant to Clause 11(b) of the Code of Conduct the Indian team manager, Mr Chethan Chauhan, on behalf of Mr Singh, lodged a written Notice of Appeal on January 7, 2008. In accordance with Clause 11(c) the ICC’s legal counsel, Ms Urvasi Naidoo, appointed me to hear Mr Singh’s appeal. By this time two of the witnesses, the umpires Messrs Bucknor and Benson, had left Australia. Because of the logistical difficulties associated with assembling all witnesses, and because of the intervention of the third and fourth tests, both the BCCI and Cricket Australia requested that I delay the hearing date until after the fourth test. In any event I was satisfied the matter could not be disposed of within the seven days of appointment. This was not simply because of the difficulties associated with assembling the necessary witnesses.


C) Hansen’s report also refers to the Actual Statement of Agreed Facts – Read on since some of us keep pointing to this as some sort of Smoking Gun about collusion or watering down of events.

The appellant, Mr Singh and the witnesses Messrs Ponting, Symonds, Clarke, Gilchrist, Hayden and Tedulkar had signed an agreed statement of facts that was tendered to the court. I reproduce the statement of facts in the exact form in it which it was tendered.

Statement of Agreed Facts

During the 116th over on Day 3 of the Sydney Test, Harbhajan Singh made friendly contact with Brett Lee. At the end of the over while the umpires were changing ends and the fields was crossing over to their new positions, Andrew Symonds approached Harbhajan Singh and told him that he had no friends amongst the Australians (he admits he used the word ‘F**K’ or a derivation thereof). Singh used similar language to Symonds and neither took offence at that stage.

However the exchange caused Singh to become angry and he motioned to Symonds to come towards him. Singh then said something to Symonds. There is a dispute as to what was said. However all of the players who gave evidence to the hearing before Match Referee Procter of what was said between Harbhajan Singh and Andrew Symonds namely, Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds, Mathew Hayden and Michael Clarke, are all clearly of the view that in the circumstances, Harbhajan Singh used language that was (and intended by Singh to be), offensive to Andrew Symonds. Symonds took immediate offence at the language and behaviour of Singh.

After the exchange between Singh and Symonds, Michael Clarke spoke to umpire Mark Benson and complained about Singh’s behaviour, Clarke then told his captain Ricky Ponting what he had heard. Ponting went to Umpire Benson and told him that he had been informed by Clarke of the use by Harbhajan Singh of offensive language towards Andrew Symonds. On his way back to the slips position Ricky Ponting spoke with Harbhajan Singh, Sachin Tendulkar then approached Ponting and Singh and asked Ponting to allow him to manage the situation.

Ricky Ponting then went into the slips. During over 117 Mathew Hayden informed Ponting that he had heard Harbhajan Singh use offensive language towards Symonds at the conclusion of the preceding over. At the end of Over 117 Ponting went of the field and told the Australian Team Manager (Steve Bernard) about the incident.

Harbhajan Singh (Signature), Ricky Ponting (Signature), Andrew Symonds (Signature), Adam Gilchrist (Signature), Sachin Tendulkar (Signature), Michael Clarke (Signature) and Mathew Hayden (Signature).


(8 ) I was not prepared to only accept the agreed statement of facts. I required the witnesses to be called.


D) From the Hansen Report -- The details of the actual altercation (as agreed upon by all present including Symo and HS) and relevant excerpts from the hearing:

(12) It is apparent that the heated exchange arose because Mr Symonds took exception to the appellant patting the bowler Mr Lee on the backside. I have reviewed the television evidence of what occurred. It is clear that Mr Lee bowled an excellent yorker to Mr Singh who was fortunate to play the ball to fine leg. As he passed Mr Lee while completing a single Mr Singh patted Mr Lee on the backside. Anyone observing this incident would take it to be a clear acknowledgement of “well bowled”.

(13) However Mr Symonds took objection to this and at the end of the 116th over he approached Mr Singh telling him he had no friends among the Australians in foul and abusive language. Mr Singh became angry and responded in kind. It was accepted by Mr Symonds that some of Mr Singh’s response was in his native language.

“MR MANOHAR (BCCI Counsel): I put it to you that apart from the other Indian abuses he said to you the words “teri maki”?

MY SYMONDS: Possibly, I don’t recall, I don’t speak that language.

MR MANOHAR: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR (Justice Hansen): But you accept that as a possibility, My Symonds?

MR SYMONDS: As a possibility I accept that, yes.”


E) Hansen’s comments on the lack of other evidence. And why Kumble’s testimony or lack thereof had no impact on the Case:

10) Before the witnesses gave their evidence they all viewed the video. This was an analysis of all available camera angles and included audio from the stump microphone.

(49) The video evidence and the stump microphone do not take the matter much further. They certainly pick up some words and appear to include, although this is not conclusive, Mr Symonds saying “are you calling me a monkey”. There are also words from Mr Hayden to the effect that “it doesn’t matter mate it’s racial vilification mate it’s a shit word and you know it”. But they do not assist in any way in determining what Mr Singh himself said. Nor can his response to Mr Symonds or Mr Hayden be gauged. What is apparent when umpire Benson put the issues to him he immediately denied them.

(11) It was also accepted by counsel that neither umpire heard anything of relevance and their evidence was not required. Finally it was agreed that there should be no evidence from Mr Anil Kumble who although present in front of Procter was not a witness to the events. Rather he was there in his capacity of captain of the Indian team.


F) Why Gilly’s testimony or lack thereof had no impact on the case:

As a consequence Mr Jordan called those witness who signed the agreed statement other than Mr Gilchrist who was unwell, to give evidence of their recollection of what occurred. It was accepted by all counsel that Mr Gilchrist’s evidence was to the effect that he did not hear anything and there was no prejudice to Mr Singh by his absence.


G) Hansen’s comments also lay to rest the rumors and speculation that Tendulkar changed his story – from what he “allegedly” told Procter vs what he told Hansen:

(46) Mr Procter also noted in his decision that he did not consider the umpires or Mr Tendulkar were in a position to hear the words.

I have of course had the advantage of seeing extensive video footage which in fact establishes that Mr Tendulkar was within earshot and could have heard the words. Indeed it is now clear Mr Tendulkar did hear the exchange but not the words alleged.


H) Tendulkar’s testimony as per the Hansen report:

(17) Mr Symonds accepted that Mr Tendulkar of all the participants was closest to Mr Singh. A viewing of the video shows that people were moving around but certainly Mr Tendulkar appears to have been closest to Mr Singh in the course of the heated exchange we are concerned with.

Contrary to reports that Mr Tendulkar heard nothing he told me he heard a heated exchange and wished to calm Mr Singh down. His evidence was that there was swearing between the two. It was initiated by Mr Symonds. That he did not hear the word “monkey” or “big monkey” but he did say he heard Mr Singh use a term in his native tongue “teri maki” which appears to be pronounced with a “n”. He said this is a term that sounds like “monkey” and could be misinterpreted for it.


I) Hansen Report lays out details about Micheal Clarke’s testimony:

(16) At about this time Mr Michael Clarke was slowly crossing the pitch from cover to cover. His evidence was that he heard Mr Singh call Mr Clarke a big monkey. He was cross examined by Mr Manohar, counsel for the appellant, as to what he stated in the hearing before Mr Procter. There it was recorded that he stated he heard “something like big monkey”.

However, his evidence to me was not that this was the use of something similar to “big monkey”. Rather he maintained that what he told Mr Procter was that he heard things being said that he did not hear or comprehend which he referred to as “something something something” but then he heard the words “big monkey”.



J) HS’s testimony as per the Hansen report:

(18)Mr Singh himself gave evidence and he denied using the words “monkey” or “big monkey”. He said that after he patted Mr Lee acknowledging his good bowling there followed the exchange above initiated by Mr Symonds and that he responded angrily. He accepted he used offensive words including the “teri maki” in his native tongue but he did not use the word “monkey”.

(19) When reviewing the evidence it is apparent that following incidents in India there was a little of ill feeling between Mr Singh and Mr Symonds. Mr Symonds felt he had been called a “monkey” which was a racial insult by Mr Singh. Mr Singh for his part said that he never called him such thing. Whatever was actually said it is apparent that they shook hands and there was an agreement. Mr Symonds maintained this was an agreement by Mr Singh not to use this word again. Mr Singh said it was a two way agreement whereby neither of them would speak to each other on the field in such a way. Mr Symonds was not cross examined by counsel for Mr Singh as to the extent of this agreement and whether it was two sided matter. But equally Mr Singh was not challenged as to his version that it was a two way agreement. He said:

“MR JORDAN: Just one matter, your Honour. Mr Singh, so you felt provoked by Mr Symonds using the work “F**K”?

MR SINGH: Yes.

MR JORDAN: And you felt provoked by Mr Symonds after shaking hands with you in India using that word on the foot – on the ---?

MR SINGH: Yes.

MR JORDAN: ---cricket field? And you were angry?”

…MR SINGH: Yes, I was angry.


K) Hansen’s comments about the witnesses:

(47) ……….Mr Hayden and Mr Tendulkar in particular were impressive witnesses. But their evidence as to what was said by Mr Singh is completely at odds. Mr Tendulkar said there was offensive words in Mr Singh’s native tongue and he also heard abusive language in English between the two. Mr Hayden says he heard the words “big monkey” but could not recall for the court any other words that were said by either party.

I remind myself that an honest witness remains a witness who may be mistaken. In my view there remains the possibility of a misunderstanding in this heated situation. As well it is not without significance that the Australian players maintain other than Mr Symonds that they did not hear any other words spoken only the ones that are said to be of significance to this hearing. This is a little surprising in the context where there was a reasonably prolonged heated exchange.

Indeed Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr Symonds say anything.Given Mr Symonds’ own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising. This failure to identify any other words could be because some of what they were hearing was not in English.


L) Hansen’s comments about any predetermined conclusion as speculated in the media:

(62) There has been considerable publicity relating to the allegations against Mr Singh and this appeal. Many reports have suggested that if the appeal is unsuccessful the balance of the tour would be called off or would at least be in jeopardy. Mr Manohar has assured me that that is not the position of the BCCI and it is no more than media speculation and exaggeration. I accept Mr Manohar’s assurance.

(63) Many people reading such media reports could well have thought that they were designed to pressure the Code of Conduct Commissioner into a predetermined result. In the event the result has been favourable to Mr Singh. But that is as a result of my consideration of the evidence and the law applicable to this case. This is a civil case and while in normal circumstances an adjudicator would not go beyond facts agreed between the parties in this case I required all the witnesses as to the exchange to give evidence and be cross examined.



M) And the part that seems to have played the major part in his decision making (there are other well reasoned arguments which is why the judgment in its entirety is a compelling read):

(48) As I say the standard to be applied by me is a high one I have to be sure that the words were said. That they were probably said is insufficient.

I have not been persuaded to the necessary level required that the words were said. I am not sure they were. I am left with an honest uncertainty as to whether or not they were said given the possibility of misunderstanding through different languages, accents and cultures, and the fact that none of the Australian players appeared to hear any other words said by Mr Singh. It is quite apparent on any view of the evidence that more than the alleged words were said in the course of the exchange.




In any judicial case, there can be no determinate decision absence either concrete evidence (there was none) or clear determination (conflicting witness evidence here ruled that out). Add to that the fact that Justice Hansen found some of the Aussie player's testimonies inconsistent enough to comment on the same, albeit diplomatically, its No wonder that HS was found not guilty of racial abuse. He should have gotten a stiffer sentence for the lesser charge too but for ICC goofing up by failing to inform Hansen about a prior disciplinary issue.

A lot of the controversy stemmed from the shit decisioning by Procter in the first place and BCCI posturing and threats of calling off the tour (although BCCI counsel tells Hansen that this was a rumor and exaggerated, I suspect this was a well placed media leak intended to up the ante). While I understand the BCCI defending its player, neither the BCCI nor the CA covered themselves in glory, and this probably contributed to all the doubts about a "manufactured" verdict.

Neither did HS or Symo cover themselves in glory -- and neither are saints. Calling someone "teri maan ki" (means "your mom's privates") is a shit thing to do just as provoking and abusing by Symo was a shit act.

At the end of the day, whether HS actually said monkey or not, we shall never know. Water under the bridge, IMO, given that Symo and HS have kissed and made up -- Strange world!!

 

[slashin]

I really do wish that the minds of the prejudiced read your post. It does provide clarity rather than the media speculation that everyone seems to be bathed in.

The only other thing is, I am not entirely sure that Harbhajan only said 'teri maki' cause it is normally used in conjunction with a word spelled 'ch*t' with a u in the middle. It refers to the last bit of the tunnel that every newborn needs to travel through before arriving in this world. Its usage is not racial in nature, since the reference is generic, but nevertheless is offensive. As offensive as the word used by Roy.

 

[Blessed]

Mate, this is a bullship. Basically Tendulkar's opinion was taken over everyone elses. It was a total kangaroo court.

Singh admitted to calling Symonds a monkey.

If the same thing happened in America to an African American, the guy would be suspended, rightly for a huge amount of time.

Jimmy the Greek, on CBS, called an African American footballer a monkey in a playful type of way and he was thrown off television forever.

It is just totally insulting and that is the way Andrew Symonds took it at the time. Remember racism is in the eye of the person being persecuted.

Cricket Australia didn't peruse the issue and allowed the creditability of cricket to fall away into the myre.

From that point on, no one in world cricket has challenged the BCCI.

Infact Cricket Australia has become a quasi arm of the BCCI.

Andrew Symonds, the first player of West Indian decent to play for Australia, disillusioned with the game, and his lack of support by CA, fell out of love with the game.

Cricket in Australia and the Australian cricket team has never been the same again.

 

[slashin]

Mate, this is a bullship. Basically Tendulkar's opinion was taken over everyone elses. It was a total kangaroo court.

Singh admitted to calling Symonds a monkey.

If the same thing happened in America to an African American, the guy would be suspended, rightly for a huge amount of time.

Jimmy the Greek, on CBS, called an African American footballer a monkey in a playful type of way and he was thrown off television forever.

It is just totally insulting and that is the way Andrew Symonds took it at the time. Remember racism is in the eye of the person being persecuted.

Cricket Australia didn't peruse the issue and allowed the creditability of cricket to fall away into the myre.

From that point on, no one in world cricket has challenged the BCCI.

Infact Cricket Australia has become a quasi arm of the BCCI.

Andrew Symonds, the first player of West Indian decent to play for Australia, disillusioned with the game, and his lack of support by CA, fell out of love with the game.

Cricket in Australia and the Australian cricket team has never been the same again.

Even if that is correct, and if you were Symo, would you agree to share dressing room with Harbhajan? Like ever?

 

[Blessed]

Even if that is correct, and if you were Symo, would you agree to share dressing room with Harbhajan? Like ever?

Absolutely, Symonds has forgiven him now. No different from Long and Monkhurst. But at the time, there is no doubt that Singh should have been sanctioned.

 

[Crickfan]

I really do wish that the minds of the prejudiced read your post. It does provide clarity rather than the media speculation that everyone seems to be bathed in.

The only other thing is, I am not entirely sure that Harbhajan only said 'teri maki' cause it is normally used in conjunction with a word spelled 'ch*t' with a u in the middle. It refers to the last bit of the tunnel that every newborn needs to travel through before arriving in this world. Its usage is not racial in nature, since the reference is generic, but nevertheless is offensive. As offensive as the word used by Roy.

True, but somewhat analogous to "mo fo" for "m***** f*****", often the "teri maaki" will stand on its own without addition of the final qualifier, so not surprising to hear the abbreviated usage as is often the cse in colloquial usage.

 

[IanG]

Mate, this is a bullship. Basically Tendulkar's opinion was taken over everyone elses. It was a total kangaroo court.

Yep I lost a lot of respect for Tendulkar over that.

 

[Crickfan]

Mate, this is a bullship. Basically Tendulkar's opinion was taken over everyone elses. It was a total kangaroo court.

If you read the report, there is enough to show this wasnt the case.

Both TV cameras and Roy's own admission establish Tendulkar was the closest and privy to the discussion / fight.

Other than that, probably Tendulkar's opinion was paid more credence because it was more credible. Justice Hansen expresses enough doubt about the credibility of other witnesses based on their conflicting responses.

And thats how the justice system works --based on witnesses and their credibility and whether they were in position to provide that testimony.

Singh admitted to calling Symonds a monkey.

When ? Where ?

 

[Mkcaptain]

Not sure how relevant this is but it makes me angry at how the issue was addressed in India

[YOUTUBE]OOcgg5ovtvc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Baby_Jenks]

Two wrongs don't make a right but both should have been sanctioned.
Symonds was correct in saying that Singh has no friends on the cricket field. Fair enough. White line fever, playing for your country, etc. That is understandable. No need or reason to swear though.
As for laying hands on another player, if Lee didn't mind then that should have been the end of it.
Singhs reaction was to either refer to Symonds mothers reproductive system in a derogatory way, or to call him a monkey. Keep in mind that Singh at the time had previously been involved with, and fined 5 separate times.
Assuming the first :
3.1 of the code has been breached and due to repeat offences that had included up to 75% of his match fee. The only way to escalate that would be to suspend him for a test match. Fines clearly hadn't worked in the past. If the two incidences (at the end of each over) are counted separately, or the initial words and then the actions were counted as separate incidences then up to a second game should have been considered. Seeing as he was re-acting to provocation this could have been given and then watered down upon appeal.

If however he was found guilty of breaking 3.3 then the book should have been thrown at him. Anywhere from 4-12 test matches should have been given. Given his record of previous incidences, this should have been on the higher end of that scale.

A separate fine should have been applied to both players for the whole furore surrounding the whole thing for bringing the game into disrepute.
For Symonds, it was his first offence so a suspended fine would have been appropriate.
For Singh, if it was his first offence a suspended fine would have been appropriate, however it was not.
Hayden and Tendulka should have been cautioned and been officially been put on record, to count against them if in future, as being negatively involved in an incident that brought the game of cricket into disrepute. As for their impersonations of Sergant "I see nothing" Klink, there must be form of perjury even in internal matters of cricket.


In a fair and balanced world free of external pressures, I think these are the decisions that should have been reached. How much the media, the CA or the BCCI influenced these decisions we'll never know. To say they had no influence is a bit beyond the pale though.

 

[Blessed]

And thats how the justice system works --based on witnesses and their credibility and whether they were in position to provide that testimony.

When ? Where ?

Singh admitted initially to calling Symonds a monkey.

Then after the BCCI got involved he changed his story.

Justice system, please?!?!!? It was a kangaroo court that was prejudice.

The decision was made before the hearing.

 

[Crickfan]

Singh admitted initially to calling Symonds a monkey.

Then after the BCCI got involved he changed his story.

Never heard or read of this. Harbhajan has always been consistent in his denials.

Even umpire Benson says (read the Hansen report --I have excerpted the relevant section above) that Harbhajan denies calling him that upon asked --on the field itself. The same is visible through the footage when Benson and Harbhajan are talking --Singh's first response is "no" -- not too difficult to lip read this from the camera footage, look it up on You Tube

A link to substantiate your claim would help. otherwise its just another allegation --unsubstantiated.

Justice system, please?!?!!? It was a kangaroo court that was prejudice.

The decision was made before the hearing

So you say.

Unless you were in Hansen's mind or were a fly on the wall when so called conspiracy was hatched by BCCI, CA, ICC and Hansen, rational conclusions must be drawn on the text of the report provided by a respected constitutional judge (Hansen) from a neutral country (New Zealand).

 

[laminex]

symonds to be kicked out by the producers after he has a few too many beers and goes into the diary room and calls Brendon McCullum a piece of shit

lol

 

[Blessed]

Tbh, the Hansen report is a crock. That's the whole point.

CA bowed to BCCI because of the money paid by ESPNStar (and possible insurance payout) and the threat of India leaving the tour.

 

[johnsmith05]

I don't profess to know everything in this saga but would love to hear it.

How big a role did. the Sydney test and th eaftermath have on his demise & the demise of Aussie cricket?

I have always felt the way he was treated by the ACB was poor and unsupportive. To have him still in the Odi team in 2011 would have made a big difference.

What do you think...?

This topic for what it was really upsets me.
In a nutshell, as we know he was racially taunted. India threatened that if Harbijhan was convicted they would abandon the summer.

ESPN also got in and threatened to sew CA as they will lose billions in television rights with India.

All this combined CA really sold out and fu.... Symonds over.

As a result he hates CA and also the way they publicly tried to belittle him which was connected to Clarke, who Symonds WAS once best friends with now Symonds hates him. He is on the record for saying this if you do some research.


Also shows how Clarke really behind the scenes is not a good leader as Tait, Katich and Symonds have all had issues with him. No other captain as i am aware have had public issues with players in terms of outside the game stuff. To me a captain should have the faith of all the players, clearly Clarke didnt, and now the current side has been bought in to have to like him so as a result he now has there respect, but only by circumstances of manipulation.

End of the day CA sold out big time, if this was the other way around and to a Indian player i garuntee you that India would not care and would go full scale attack on it and not back down!

This also shows , obviously this is not match fixing but shows how corrupt the cricketing bodies are.

 

[evdo1706]

Tbh, the Hansen report is a crock. That's the whole point.

How do you know? Were you inside the court room?

 

[Crickfan]

This topic for what it was really upsets me.
In a nutshell, as we know he was racially taunted.

erm, actually we dont know that. Thats the whole point!!

No evidence from umpires or from camera and mic.

The two words "monkey" and "teri maa ki", the latter pronounced with a nasal "n" are close enough to be mixed when spoken in an accent and heard by a member of a different culture / linguistic origin.

Symo being called monkey by the Indian crowds provides the ideal backdrop for the controversy but the fact of the matter is no one other than Harbhajan actually knows whether he said monkey or teri maa ki.

You cannot convict without evidence, and with the witness testimony being what it was, the decision was not to convict.

Simple really, its funny we keep going back to an incident 4 yrs old because we have hardened our thoughts to the point of being non amenable to rational reasoning.

 

[Blessed]

erm, actually we dont know that. Thats the whole point!!

Mate, this is your opinion. The AFL has handled the matter so much better by taking the side of the person racially verified.

The Long and Monkhurst altercation stands as a land mark in highlighting racial issues in the AFL.

Since that day; the AFL stands as the model for how such issues should be handled.

Cricket Australia is still in the dark ages with how it operates and this is just another example of that.