Harbhajan Singh gets off

[thewhippersnapper]

he wasn't making racist comments..

Oh ok, he called him a monkey as a compliment I suppose? please... don't make laugh.

 

[sendintheclowns]

Wasn't Harby charged not long ago by the ICC during the ODI series?Isn't 2 offences in one year a suspension?

 

[thewhippersnapper]

Isn't 2 offences in one year a suspension?

Does it matter? he plays for India....

 

[ssfc0203]

Oh ok, he called him a monkey as a compliment I suppose? please... don't make laugh.

Did the judge prove he said the exact words 'monkey'?

I'm not gunning for either side, but until we have all the facts, which is extremely unlikely, this is all just speculation and hearsay.

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

he wasn't making racist comments..

Surely you're joking?

 

[bringbackschwarter5]

Wasn't Harby charged not long ago by the ICC during the ODI series?Isn't 2 offences in one year a suspension?

Yes, but only if a white man does it

 

[DeadlyAkkuret]

Did the judge prove he said the exact words 'monkey'?

I'm not gunning for either side, but until we have all the facts, which is extremely unlikely, this is all just speculation and hearsay.

Watch the video. Any logical mind would come to the conclusion that Harbhajan did infact call Symonds a monkey. Sure, you don't hear it in that video, but then there's his excuse of "He started it".

Common sense, mate.

 

[Rick18]

Watch the video. Any logical mind would come to the conclusion that Harbhajan did infact call Symonds a monkey. Sure, you don't hear it in that video, but then there's his excuse of "He started it".

Common sense, mate.

To bust out an old one though..
The problem with common sense is that it's not that common.

 

[jacko57]

Watch the video. Any logical mind would come to the conclusion that Harbhajan did infact call Symonds a monkey. Sure, you don't hear it in that video, but then there's his excuse of "He started it".

Common sense, mate.

Yeah, on the spot his defence is 'he started it'. A few days later, he suddenly switches to 'It's a misunderstanding, I called him a name in Hindi that sounds like monkey'.

 

[Edgar]

Have people read the actual reasons for the decision? The Aussie cricketers got slammed as being unreliable, and the judge felt there was insufficient evidence against Harbajhan - he might have said "teri maa ki" as he claimed, so the charge was downgraded.

The judge didn't think much of Hayden and Clarke's evidence - seems they didn't hear any other words Harbajhan said except "monkey", and Clarke didn't even hear Symonds say anything to Harbajhan. He also accepted that Tendulkar was in earshot and could hear the conversation.

Basically, it seems he thought it was Symonds vs Harbajhan and Tendulkar (1 witness v 2), so Harbajhan was always likely to get off. The judge thought Hayden and Clarke's testimony was so unreliable that if anything it was consistent with Harbajhan's story - i.e. it suggested that at least part of the conversation was in a different language, which was why Clarke & Hayden didn't understand all of what was said.

Also pretty much said Symonds was the provocative one and was acting outside the spirit of the game, and that he hoped his attitude was "not one shared by all international cricketers."

 

[frankrizzo]

There was no doubt associated with the Lehmann case. He was caught unequivocally making a racist remark so he had nowhere to go, other than to accept his punishment. Like it or not, the Harbhajan case was not 100% conclusive, and so it was overturned during yesterday's appeal. That's not to say he didn't racially vilify Symonds, but if it could not be categorically proven that he did, the presumption of innocence must always go to the defendent.

Had the shoe been on the other foot, I would fully expect the Australian player beat the charge as well.

Im sorry what??

there was no audio or visual evidence that lehamnn said anything.

The only proof was that members of the sri lankan team heard it, the main difference is lehmann was man enough to admit what he did.

 

[Phil McCreviss]

Im sorry what??

there was no audio or visual evidence that lehamnn said anything.

The only proof was that members of the sri lankan team heard it, the main difference is lehmann was man enough to admit what he did.

Make no mistake that Darren Lehmann is no more of a man than Singh is - what Lehmann said was even more disgusting. Please dont paint him out to be the martyr of international cricket - he is a disgrace

 

[Philhawk]

Also pretty much said Symonds was the provocative one and was acting outside the spirit of the game, and that he hoped his attitude was "not one shared by all international cricketers."

Er, no he didn't.

Symonds said that he felt that "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player", to which Hansen replied with the the quote you gave.

Small difference.

 

[magoo]

Symonds unsure if the term 'monkey' was used

Insufficient evidence against Harbhajan - Hansen

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan in Adelaide

January 30, 2008



Justice John Hansen says Harbhajan Singh was cleared of racially abusing Andrew Symonds due to lack of evidence © Getty Images




Lack of sufficient evidence, a more rigorous judicial process and an inexplicable botch-up on the part of the ICC allowed Harbhajan Singh to get away with a 50% fine, it emerged after Justice John Hansen read out the reasons for his verdict a day after the hearing in Adelaide.

Andrew Symonds' inability to conclusively say whether Harbhajan Singh had used the word monkey or a Hindi abuse, and his admission that the language did not fall under the requirements of a level 3.3 offence played a crucial part.

But Hansen also said Harbhajan had "reaped the benefit" of database and human errors, with his offence in November 2001 not being made available to the assisting counsel at the time of sentencing. He said he would have imposed a different penalty if he was aware of the serious transgression, when Harbhajan was fined 75% of his match fee and given a suspended sentence of one Test.

In a 22-page document that detailed the reasons for his decision, it emerged that Sachin Tendulkar's word could have had a big role to play too. Unlike Mike Procter, who thought Tendulkar was not in a position to hear what was uttered, Hansen said "extensive video footage" establishes that Tendulkar "was within earshot and could have heard the words".

Tendulkar said he heard Harbhajan "use a term in his native tongue "teri maa ki" which appears to be pronounced with an "n". He said this is a term that sounds like "monkey" and could be misrepresented for it."

Symonds couldn't recall if he had heard Harbhajan use that particular Hindi abuse and accepted that it was a possibility. He also didn't find favour with the judge with his explanation for abusing Harbhajan after he had patted Brett Lee on the back side. Symonds said he had objected because "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player" but Hansen dismissed that explanation ("If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers").

Michael Clarke's account was critical, considering that it did not coincide favourably with the rest. "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," Hansen said.

"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."

Hansen's report included the statement of agreed facts that contained the signatures of the seven players concerned. He also pointed out to the "agreement" between Symonds and Harbhajan in Mumbai last year, adding that it was Symonds who had breached it by "provocative abuse".

Towards the end of his statement, though, Hansen admitted that the ICC had advised his assistant counsel, John Jordan, with only one of Harbhajan's previous infractions, a Level 2.8 offence back in April 2003 when he made an abusive comment to an umpire. However, it was only after his verdict that Hansen was made aware of the three other cases which he had not been informed of earlier.

The first, a Level 1 offence back in 1998, was overlooked because offences under the old Code of Conduct were not included in the ICC database. The second, a Level 1 offence in November 2005, was not made available because of a "human error". Hansen said the extent of his punishment wouldn't have changed even if he knew about the first two but added that knowledge of the third, a Level 2 offence in November 2001, "could have led to a different penalty".

Hansen denied any deal had been struck between legal counsel for the Australian and Indian players to downgrade the charge. He was also critical of all parties involved in the confrontation in Sydney, saying "their actions do not reflect well on them or the game".

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan is an assistant editor at Cricinfo




its hard to know what the judge actually said without reading his entire report. the article seems to make sense and justifies his decision.... there will of course be people who disagree.

 

[Satan]

Symonds unsure if the term 'monkey' was used

Insufficient evidence against Harbhajan - Hansen

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan in Adelaide

January 30, 2008



Justice John Hansen says Harbhajan Singh was cleared of racially abusing Andrew Symonds due to lack of evidence © Getty Images




Lack of sufficient evidence, a more rigorous judicial process and an inexplicable botch-up on the part of the ICC allowed Harbhajan Singh to get away with a 50% fine, it emerged after Justice John Hansen read out the reasons for his verdict a day after the hearing in Adelaide.

Andrew Symonds' inability to conclusively say whether Harbhajan Singh had used the word monkey or a Hindi abuse, and his admission that the language did not fall under the requirements of a level 3.3 offence played a crucial part.

But Hansen also said Harbhajan had "reaped the benefit" of database and human errors, with his offence in November 2001 not being made available to the assisting counsel at the time of sentencing. He said he would have imposed a different penalty if he was aware of the serious transgression, when Harbhajan was fined 75% of his match fee and given a suspended sentence of one Test.

In a 22-page document that detailed the reasons for his decision, it emerged that Sachin Tendulkar's word could have had a big role to play too. Unlike Mike Procter, who thought Tendulkar was not in a position to hear what was uttered, Hansen said "extensive video footage" establishes that Tendulkar "was within earshot and could have heard the words".

Tendulkar said he heard Harbhajan "use a term in his native tongue "teri maa ki" which appears to be pronounced with an "n". He said this is a term that sounds like "monkey" and could be misrepresented for it."

Symonds couldn't recall if he had heard Harbhajan use that particular Hindi abuse and accepted that it was a possibility. He also didn't find favour with the judge with his explanation for abusing Harbhajan after he had patted Brett Lee on the back side. Symonds said he had objected because "a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player" but Hansen dismissed that explanation ("If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers").

Michael Clarke's account was critical, considering that it did not coincide favourably with the rest. "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," Hansen said.

"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."

Hansen's report included the statement of agreed facts that contained the signatures of the seven players concerned. He also pointed out to the "agreement" between Symonds and Harbhajan in Mumbai last year, adding that it was Symonds who had breached it by "provocative abuse".

Towards the end of his statement, though, Hansen admitted that the ICC had advised his assistant counsel, John Jordan, with only one of Harbhajan's previous infractions, a Level 2.8 offence back in April 2003 when he made an abusive comment to an umpire. However, it was only after his verdict that Hansen was made aware of the three other cases which he had not been informed of earlier.
The first, a Level 1 offence back in 1998, was overlooked because offences under the old Code of Conduct were not included in the ICC database. The second, a Level 1 offence in November 2005, was not made available because of a "human error". Hansen said the extent of his punishment wouldn't have changed even if he knew about the first two but added that knowledge of the third, a Level 2 offence in November 2001, "could have led to a different penalty".

Hansen denied any deal had been struck between legal counsel for the Australian and Indian players to downgrade the charge. He was also critical of all parties involved in the confrontation in Sydney, saying "their actions do not reflect well on them or the game".

Siddhartha Vaidyanathan is an assistant editor at Cricinfo




its hard to know what the judge actually said without reading his entire report. the article seems to make sense and justifies his decision.... there will of course be people who disagree.

In the words of Charlie hoo "amazing" Its on the ICC website , took a whole 2 minutes to find it

http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/about-icc/breaches-and-penalties-2001.html

Virender Sehwag,
Harbhajan Singh,
Deep Dasgupta,
Shiv Sunder Das South Africa v India, 2nd Test
16 - 20 November 2001 at Port Elizabeth Breach of Codes 3 & 4, showing dissent at the Umpire's decision and attempting to intimidate the Umpire. Each found guilty, fined 75% of match fee and suspended suspension of one Test match effective immediately until 31st January 2002. M Denness


http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/about-icc/breaches-and-penalties-2005.html

Harbhajan Singh India v South Africa,
1st ODI 16 Nov 2005 at Hyderabad
Level 1 breach of code 1.6 - Pointing or gesturing towards the pavilion in an aggressive manner by a
bowler or other member of the fielding side upon the dismissal of a batsman. – Fined 25% of match fee Jeff Crowe

 

[DIG]

Make no mistake that Darren Lehmann is no more of a man than Singh is - what Lehmann said was even more disgusting. Please dont paint him out to be the martyr of international cricket - he is a disgrace

What Lehmann said was disgusting. But this one and only slip-up he EVER did, for which he showed public and unconditional remorse for, and you brand him a disgrace for life.

I'm sorry but that is bullshit.

Don't compare him to that dog Singh with all his repeated onfield offences.

 

[Yaaablett]

What Lehmann said was disgusting. But this one and only slip-up he EVER did, for which he showed public and unconditional remorse for, and you brand him a disgrace for life.

I'm sorry but that is bullshit.

Don't compare him to that dog Singh with all his repeated onfield offences.

Please DIG don't put dogs in the same catagory as Singh. He is far below them- perhaps rank him with leeches or pubic lice. As for Phil McCreviss comparing Lehmann to that piece of garbage what a disgrace. No doubt Lehmann's actions that night were a disgrace. Unlike Singh, Lehmann copped on the chin admitted his mistake and never transgressed again. Thats what men do.

I'm really disappointed in Tendulkar here too. Thought more highly of him than I now do. As for the ICC, they might as well officially let Indian cricket take over.

 

[Kirby]

Well, the end result was exactly as predicted.

The Judge was always going to find that the players "may have misheard" when the Indians came up with the Hindi insult defence. Without any solid independant truth a Judge would always be in the position to cloudy the waters to the extent that the charge could not be sustained.

The finding about what Tendulker may or may not have heard based upon viewing the video seems a large leap in faith to me.

It is not surprising that the Aussie players cannot remember what other words were said as this is a common problem with "eyewitnesses" in any case. You remember the things that attract your attention the most which is why people involved in holdups often describe the gun perfectly but have no idea about a physical description of the person or exactly what was said.

In the longrun, the Judge was always going to have ample opportunity to find a way for the charge not to be sustained.

I just think that it is a shame that the way the Judge handed down the reasons for his finding seems to place alot of the blame on Symonds for instigating the conflict. Well that might be true I could not blame Symonds if he never bothers to report another incident of racial abuse again. Why would you?

 

[skipper kelly]

I read the finding. Somethings that stood out for me. IMO

He probably erred on the burden of proof but I doubt even with a balance of probablities he would have found Singh guilty of level 3.3. A lawful argument could be made for either burden of proof. He chose a scale closer to criminal law than the approrpiate civil law.

Was unjustifiably scathing on Symonds. He didnt seem to use the same burden of proof when making judgement on Symonds as he required with Singh.

Disappointing that he used the provocation defence as an excuse for Singhs actions.

Rightfully accepted Tendulkar and Hayden as good witnesses but basically said one was mistaken and one wasnt.

Put grave doubts on Clarkes evidence.

Refered to the agreement in India last year between the 2 players. Tried to make out that the agreement was a 2 way street and in fact Symonds had broken this agreement. Failed to draw the logical line between the monkey taunts in India and what may have been said in Sydney. He was wrong to even use this agreement in his judgment if he didnt take the agreement and its facts in its entirety.

Based on his burden of proof he made the correct decision but there are many anomalies in how he reached it.

 

[saj_21]

Make no mistake that Darren Lehmann is no more of a man than Singh is - what Lehmann said was even more disgusting. Please dont paint him out to be the martyr of international cricket - he is a disgrace

Please DIG don't put dogs in the same catagory as Singh. He is far below them- perhaps rank him with leeches or pubic lice. As for Phil McCreviss comparing Lehmann to that piece of garbage what a disgrace. No doubt Lehmann's actions that night were a disgrace. Unlike Singh, Lehmann copped on the chin admitted his mistake and never transgressed again. Thats what men do.

I'm really disappointed in Tendulkar here too. Thought more highly of him than I now do. As for the ICC, they might as well officially let Indian cricket take over.

What Lehmann said was pretty poor but harbajharn was not much better two wrongs dont make a right. Sighn deserved a suspension of some sort.

 

[saj_21]

Cricket Australia addmitted back at the end of the summer 05/06 series against South Africa that its crowds had a racism problem. So they stamped it out last summer and the summer just gone. They only problem being calling indian sections of the crowd curry munchers and a sign siayin who is minding the Kiwki Mart which once spotted was promptly removed.

India on the other hand refuse to admit they have a racism problem and dispite excess photos and tv footage of the crowd being caught red handed they refuse to do anything about it.

 

[Hawthorn United]

Cricket Australia addmitted back at the end of the summer 05/06 series against South Africa that its crowds had a racism problem. So they stamped it out last summer and the summer just gone. They only problem being calling indian sections of the crowd curry munchers and a sign siayin who is minding the Kiwki Mart which once spotted was promptly removed.

India on the other hand refuse to admit they have a racism problem and dispite excess photos and tv footage of the crowd being caught red handed they refuse to do anything about it.

I really think they don't see anything wrong with calling people of African descent "Monkey" or "Ape". I've already come across two Indians proudly calling Symonds both those terms. One saying the monkey chants is the new mexican wave. Also the t-shirts they've made over there depicting Symonds as an ape.

They wont do anything about something they don't think is wrong. Discriminating against the Indians is considered racist to them, but the Africans is fine. Selective racism.

 

[saj_21]

I really think they don't see anything wrong with calling people of African descent "Monkey" or "Ape". I've already come across two Indians proudly calling Symonds both those terms. One saying the monkey chants is the new mexican wave. Also the t-shirts they've made over there depicting Symonds as an ape.

They wont do anything about something they don't think is wrong. Discriminating against the Indians is considered racist to them, but the Africans is fine. Selective racism.

Spot on, just becuase they don't think its rong doesnt mean its right. Cricket Australia has taken many steps to stamp this out from the Australian crowds, Indian HAVE to do the same.

 

[arzach]

<snip>
I just think that it is a shame that the way the Judge handed down the reasons for his finding seems to place alot of the blame on Symonds for instigating the conflict.

It's like using the "she was asking for it" excuse to justify sexual assult.

Well that might be true I could not blame Symonds if he never bothers to report another incident of racial abuse again. Why would you?

You'd think Australia will have learnt this lesson by now, wouldn't you?

THE WORLD CUP was plunged further into tumult last night by a race row. Rashid Latif, the Pakistan wicketkeeper, threatened legal action against the Australian Cricket Board after he was cleared of making a racist comment towards his counterpart, Adam Gilchrist.


The tournament has been dogged by controversy since well before it began last weekend but the latest development is potentially the most serious for the sport. Earlier in the day, the dispute looked as though it had been diluted when Rashid was exonerated of any offence under the International Cricket Council's code of conduct.


Both sides seemed to have resolved their differences after Rashid had denied making an obscene and racist comment to Gilchrist towards the end of a game which Australia won by 85 runs.


But, as he was about to leave Johannesburg with the rest of his team yesterday, Latif said: "I'm just waiting for the go-ahead from the team management and then I will proceed taking legal action against the Australian Cricket Board.

 

[campbell]

Spot on, just becuase they don't think its rong doesnt mean its right. Cricket Australia has taken many steps to stamp this out from the Australian crowds, Indian HAVE to do the same.

India dont have to do anything. If as a society and nation they think its okay,as they appear to, then they are never going to change or conform to the rules of the game.