What was and wasn't said in Sydney…Harbhajan's hearing

[DesiChap]

Canberra: The International Cricket Council has indicated that the hearing into the appeal against the three-Test ban on Harbhajan Singh could be delayed even though the rules say it should be held within seven days of appointment of a Commissioner. An ICC spokesman said it was "possible" Harbhajan's hearing would not be held until after the third Test, beginning on January 16 at Perth. The spokesman did not elaborate whether it could be delayed until after the Adelaide Test - a situation that would allow the heat of the Harbhajan issue to die down. "It should be held within seven days of a Commissioner being appointed but that can be extended depending on circumstances," he said. New Zealand High Court judge John Hansen was on Wednesday appointed as Commissioner for the hearing. http://www.cricketnext.com/news/harbhajans-hearing-may-get-delayed/28833-13.html

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[DesiChap]

The ICC bas.tards are trying their best to sweep this under the rug. India need s to pull out of the ODI series if this hearing is not completed before the end of the Test series.

[DesiChap]

Pulling out of the ODI;'s will hurt CA however our babus will not want to pull out of the ODI's Thats where the money is

[guju24]

as long as bhaji plays its good...who cares abt hearing...now lol

[DesiChap]

What was and wasn't said in Sydney… What was and wasn't said in Sydney…

• Mihir Bose - BBC sports editor
• 10 Jan 08, 07:35 PM

Indian sources insist Harbhajan Singh did not use the word ‘monkey’ during the episode at the Sydney Test that provoked the recent cricket crisis between Australia and India. But they have admitted to me he abused Andrew Symonds with a highly offensive remark about his mother. Which is clearly wrong. They, however, also now claim that he was speaking in Hindi and that the three Australians who heard him – Symonds, Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke - misinterpreted the words as ‘big monkey’. While his mother tongue is Punjabi, Harbhajan is also equally fluent in Hindi. And though I should not repeat the words he used, I am told there was a reference to Symonds’ mother, with Harbhajan using a Hindi phrase that could have been mis-heard as him saying “big monkey†in English. Yet crucially, at the hearing held after the match, while denying he used the word ‘monkey’, Harbhajan admitted there was general abuse between him and Symonds, but did not clarify what he did actually say, nor that it was not in English. Indian officials now plan to make those facts clear when a New Zealand judge hears their appeal on behalf of the International Cricket Council. But as one source at the first hearing told me, "had the Indians made it clear that Harbhajan had not spoken in English, then match referee Mike Proctor would have had to acquit him on the grounds it was a misunderstanding.†Why Harbhajan did not make this clear to Proctor is not obvious, but may in part be down to the curious way the hearing was held. As we know, the hearing went on for four and a half hours late into last Sunday night and saw Proctor ultimately conclude that Harbhajan had racially abused Symonds and ban him for three Tests. But there is no transcript. In fact, the only written reports of the hearing are the notes of Nigel Peters, a QC and MCC committee member, who has since returned to England where he is currently engaged in tutoring judges. His involvement with the hearing was somewhat coincidental. He happened to be in Sydney on holiday to watch the Test, and was roped in fairly late in the day by ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed. The Indians also seemingly did not take the hearing seriously. They went in without a lawyer and left their advocacy to manager Chetan Chauhan. Although Chauhan has been a politician, he is hardly trained to do the sort of legal work a hearing like this requires. At one stage during the hearing, Chauhan apparently had to be advised by the ICC's legal representative that he should not make statements but actually ask questions of the Australians if he wanted to advance his case. One source at the hearing told me: "If the Indians had a lawyer they would have made mashed potatoes of the hearing." Instead they appeared to rely heavily on the fact that Sachin Tendulkar was going into bat for Harbhajan. Tendulkar has a god-like status in India and his integrity is beyond reproach and he told the hearing he did not hear Harbhajan use the word ‘monkey’. But as far as Proctor was concerned, this was not as convincing as the Australian testimony, because Tendulkar was at the other end of the wicket when Symonds and Harbhajan exchanged words. And he only joined in after Harbhajan had gestured to him to come to his rescue. Umpire Steve Bucknor, who filed the report on the incident after receiving the complaint from Ricky Ponting, also did not hear what Harbhajan said. He heard Symonds’ initial words, prompted by Harbhajan patting Brett Lee’s back with his bat. But taking it to be jokey banter, Bucknor kept on walking to square-leg. In weighing up the evidence he did have in front of him, Proctor also however took into account that there was ‘previous’ between Harbhajan and Symonds, during last autumn’s Australian tour of India when monkey chants were directed at Symonds by the Indian crowd. And the Australians, in their submission, while admitting they are the so-called kings of sledging, argued the use of the word ‘monkey’ raised it to a new and unacceptable level. They also referred to the fact that monkey chants have in the past been used by English football crowds against black players. Chauhan tried to counter by saying the word ‘monkey’ is held by many Indians to refer to a god, and it is not considered offensive in India in the same way it would be in the West. But all that cut little ice with Proctor. And the detail of this whole affair shows just why Harbhajan and the Indians have plenty of lessons to learn. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/01/what_was_and_wasnt_said_in_syd.html

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[dial_100]

But.. we should definitely learn from this. ....Bhajji/SS should be extremely careful of this. Even after having 5 gentlemen like players, we get 5 of our players fined for Over appealing where as what Aussies did, they get patted for aggressive play..... What a mokery of standards....:omg:

[gs]

But.. we should definitely learn from this. ....Bhajji/SS should be extremely careful of this. Even after having 5 gentlemen like players, we get 5 of our players fined for Over appealing where as what Aussies did, they get patted for aggressive play..... What a mokery of standards....:omg:

Yeah monkey standards!

[Rajiv]

Let's do it then Lets few of us record 'teri maa ki' in Hindi and lets ask the aussies on this board if they hear it as 'monkey' It could be a str8 forward misunderstading --------- Things can go wrong like this, read my case http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showpost.php?p=287506&postcount=5

[DesiChap]

How stupid was that for our guys to go without a lawyer.

[Guest dada_rocks]

they were unaware that procter and speed were baying for blood

[DesiChap]

ICC's, Speed's, and Proctor's a$$ better be baked by a top lawyer in the appeals

[Andrew]

Let's do it then Lets few of us record 'teri maa ki' in Hindi and lets ask the aussies on this board if they hear it as 'monkey' It could be a str8 forward misunderstading

Would definitely hear 'maa ki' as monkey; I can only think of one other word with a similar sound, 'marquay' (large tent erected for events, not sure of spelling). It sounds like both the ICC but the Indian's need to become more professional about these hearings; the ICC need to establish clear 'evidence law' and perhaps the Indian's should think about hiring a lawyer. No Lawyer!?!?!? What are the Indian opinions on Chetan Chauhan? Every remark I have heard led me to think "what a goose". (Do you call people a 'goose' in India?). Being represented by Chetan Chauhan at a hearing? My perception of him is that he would use very emotive arguments and not very rational, evidence based ones. No Lawyer!?!?!? In BBC coverage I did hear one Indian official that I was highly impressed with, he was the president of the BCCI or some other organization, and he was calling for calm, for the two cultures to respect how much they have in common etc. He sounded like a statesman? Anyone know who he might be? No Lawyer!?!?!?

[DesiChap]

Andrew probably IS Bindra

[Andrew]

PLEASE tell me thats not Indian for Monkey!

[Guest HariSampath]

^...its a lot worse...you may want to settle for monkey itself

[DesiChap]

Hari maybe not worse in Australian culture :haha:

[chanakya]

remeber bastards, motherfker( maybe) are acceptable terms in Australia

[abhinav]

BBC declares what actually happened on the field and during the hearing! http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/mihirbose/2008/01/what_was_and_wasnt_said_in_syd.html What was and wasn't said in Sydney… Mihir Bose - BBC sports editor 10 Jan 08, 07:35 PM Indian sources insist Harbhajan Singh did not use the word ‘monkey’ during the episode at the Sydney Test that provoked the recent cricket crisis between Australia and India. But they have admitted to me he abused Andrew Symonds with a highly offensive remark about his mother. Which is clearly wrong. They, however, also now claim that he was speaking in Hindi and that the three Australians who heard him – Symonds, Matthew Hayden and Michael Clarke - misinterpreted the words as ‘big monkey’. While his mother tongue is Punjabi, Harbhajan is also equally fluent in Hindi. And though I should not repeat the words he used, I am told there was a reference to Symonds’ mother, with Harbhajan using a Hindi phrase that could have been mis-heard as him saying “big monkey†in English. Yet crucially, at the hearing held after the match, while denying he used the word ‘monkey’, Harbhajan admitted there was general abuse between him and Symonds, but did not clarify what he did actually say, nor that it was not in English. Indian officials now plan to make those facts clear when a New Zealand judge hears their appeal on behalf of the International Cricket Council. But as one source at the first hearing told me, "had the Indians made it clear that Harbhajan had not spoken in English, then match referee Mike Proctor would have had to acquit him on the grounds it was a misunderstanding.†Why Harbhajan did not make this clear to Proctor is not obvious, but may in part be down to the curious way the hearing was held. As we know, the hearing went on for four and a half hours late into last Sunday night and saw Proctor ultimately conclude that Harbhajan had racially abused Symonds and ban him for three Tests. But there is no transcript. In fact, the only written reports of the hearing are the notes of Nigel Peters, a QC and MCC committee member, who has since returned to England where he is currently engaged in tutoring judges. His involvement with the hearing was somewhat coincidental. He happened to be in Sydney on holiday to watch the Test, and was roped in fairly late in the day by ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed. The Indians also seemingly did not take the hearing seriously. They went in without a lawyer and left their advocacy to manager Chetan Chauhan. Although Chauhan has been a politician, he is hardly trained to do the sort of legal work a hearing like this requires. At one stage during the hearing, Chauhan apparently had to be advised by the ICC's legal representative that he should not make statements but actually ask questions of the Australians if he wanted to advance his case. One source at the hearing told me: "If the Indians had a lawyer they would have made mashed potatoes of the hearing." Instead they appeared to rely heavily on the fact that Sachin Tendulkar was going into bat for Harbhajan. Tendulkar has a god-like status in India and his integrity is beyond reproach and he told the hearing he did not hear Harbhajan use the word ‘monkey’. But as far as Proctor was concerned, this was not as convincing as the Australian testimony, because Tendulkar was at the other end of the wicket when Symonds and Harbhajan exchanged words. And he only joined in after Harbhajan had gestured to him to come to his rescue. Umpire Steve Bucknor, who filed the report on the incident after receiving the complaint from Ricky Ponting, also did not hear what Harbhajan said. He heard Symonds’ initial words, prompted by Harbhajan patting Brett Lee’s back with his bat. But taking it to be jokey banter, Bucknor kept on walking to square-leg. In weighing up the evidence he did have in front of him, Proctor also however took into account that there was ‘previous’ between Harbhajan and Symonds, during last autumn’s Australian tour of India when monkey chants were directed at Symonds by the Indian crowd. And the Australians, in their submission, while admitting they are the so-called kings of sledging, argued the use of the word ‘monkey’ raised it to a new and unacceptable level. They also referred to the fact that monkey chants have in the past been used by English football crowds against black players. Chauhan tried to counter by saying the word ‘monkey’ is held by many Indians to refer to a god, and it is not considered offensive in India in the same way it would be in the West. But all that cut little ice with Proctor. And the detail of this whole affair shows just why Harbhajan and the Indians have plenty of lessons to learn.