Shock and Awe - What a Beautiful Piece

[Rajiv]

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/meninwhite/archives/2008/01/shock_and_awe_1.php Shock and Awe Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar put the BCCI on notice after Mike Procter's decision to hand Harbhajan Singh a three-Test ban © GNNphoto The two greatest Test series India has played in recent times have been against Australia: 2001 at home and 2008, Down Under. There's a curious symmetry to these two contests: India won the first one, 2-1 and lost the second one 1-2. Harbhajan was the pivot on which both turned: as a hero in the first (he took an astonishing 32 wickets in three Tests) and as a villain in the second, after his run-in with Symonds. If the 2001 series saw the beginning of Tendulkar's transformation into an attritional player, the one just ended saw that master-craftsman persona discarded as Tendulkar went back to being the Master. And in both series India stopped a great Australian team's astonishing winning run: Waugh's team and Ponting's, were looking for a seventeenth consecutive victory and both were thwarted by unlikely defeats. In the seven years between these two 21st century contests, international cricket was dominated by two developing narratives. One was driven by the strength of the Indian economy, the purchasing power of its consuming middle class and the consequent and massive increase in the television revenues controlled by the BCCI. The Indian board became the paymaster of world cricket and cricket's calendar became India-centric. This made other countries understandably uneasy and when incidents like the Sehwag controversy in South Africa provoked the BCCI to flex its muscles, Anglo-Australian commentators saw not an evolutionary shift in cricket's centre of gravity, but a thuggish take over, while south Asian fans and journalists saw a western unwillingness to acknowledge the end of empire. The second story was a growing South Asian unease with the successful Australian attempt to claim the moral high ground in world cricket. Australians don't like it but the country's cricketers are widely seen as potty-mouthed bullies who manage to get away with murder partly because they sledge strategically and partly because the Australian definition of 'hard but fair'—filth on the field and a beer off it—seemed to have been swallowed whole by the umpires and match referees who supervise international cricket. Every time Ponting tells television cameras that after 2003 the Australian team cleaned up its act and then cites figures to show that Australian players have been brought before the match referee much less often than any other major Test side, aggrieved Indian supporters put this down to Australian hegemony. They remain convinced that umpires are willing to sanction manly truculence (obscenity, lewdness and intimidation) but not shrill petulance (jack-in-box appeals, visible disappointment) because the former affects players while the latter is directed at umpires. This sense of being hard done by is reinforced by the pattern of bad decisions suffered by touring teams in Australia, Kumar Sangakkara's appalling decision being perhaps the worst in recent times. Australian cricket is hegemonic for the best possible reasons. Australia has had the best cricket team by miles for more than ten years, its coaches have, at one time or another, have tried to drill Australian skills into other national squads, its sports science and its training methods are cutting edge and Channel 9's cricket telecast has taught the world how to cover cricket. But because its players fetishize a hardnosed take on the game, they, unlike the West Indies in their pomp, are universally unloved and in recent years the Ugly Australian stereotype has been rendered uglier by Ponting's charmless leadership. Indians don't think much of Ponting for several reasons. His first tour was dogged by rumours of bad behaviour, his second tour was an embarrassment (he scored less than a dozen runs in three Test matches), his onfield aggression struck Indians as offensive, his unlovely habit of spitting into his palms and rubbing them together left desis wondering how he got people to shake hands with him and not only did he look remarkably like George Bush, he behaved like him too. Bush invaded Iraq and then managed to get the invasion ratified by the United Nations after the fact. Anglo-American rhetoric about the legitimacy of pre-emptive war is similar to Australian cricket's argument that bullying (so long as it wins matches) can be justified as robustness. 'Hard and Fair' in the world defined by Bush, begins to read like 'Shock and Awe'. It is in this charged context that the just concluded Test series between India and Australia unfolded, and in the second Test at Sydney, the two grand narratives of 21st century cricket, India's growing economic clout and Australia's cricketing hegemony, met like unsheathed live wires. It didn't help that the tension between the two teams had been personified. Sreesanth and Harbhajan Singh took it upon themselves in the recent one-day series between the two countries to answer sledging with fevered aggression. Harbhajan went on record to say that Australian behaviour was 'vulgar' and that they were bad losers. We are now told that he had a run-in with Symonds in Baroda, so when Sreesanth didn't make the squad to Australia, he was, for the Australian team, the Ugly Indian. From the Indian point of view, the Sydney Test was a textbook illustration of the way in which an Australian series is loaded against the opposition. The Indian team got a slew of awful umpiring decisions, the Australians did their tiresome all-in-the-game-mate routine, Clarke exploited a gentleman's agreement to claim a dodgy catch, Ponting disclaimed a catch and then unsuccessfully appealed for another that he had obviously grounded (and, post-match, barked at an Indian reporter who questioned him about it), then reported Harbhajan for racially abusing Symonds. The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of Michael Clarke as an unreliable witness © Getty Images When Mike Procter upheld the Australian charge and banned Harbhajan for three matches he brought the two live wires into contact and the lights nearly went out on the game. Indian players have been on the receiving end of the match referee's kangaroo court before and know it to be dysfunctional. Procter is a notably inept match referee who presided over the shambles created by Darrell Hair and the Pakistan cricket team last year. For him to have taken the word of the likes of Michael Clarke, who as a batsman had stood his ground after being caught off a massive edge at slip and who as a fielder had confidently claimed a bump ball catch, over the testimony of Tendulkar who insisted he hadn't heard 'monkey' being said, was the final straw. The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of the slippery Clarke as an unreliable witness. I think it's likely that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey, but judgment can't be based on what I or anyone else thinks: it rests on what can be proven. There was no corroborative evidence in the Harbhajan affair and the hostilities of the Sydney Test had destroyed any trust between the two sides, leaving the Indian team in a state of thin-skinned rage at being robbed. Procter managed to compound this mess by unequivocally finding for the Australians without explaining how he had come to his conclusions. This is when India flexed its muscle, but the 'India' in question wasn't the BCCI, it was the Indian team. Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar, the two most senior players in the Indian side, one its best bowler and the other its best batsman for nearly twenty years, put the BCCI on notice. They insisted that the Board stand by Harbhajan and made it clear that the team was unwilling to go on with the tour if Procter's decision wasn't reversed. Journalists who think the BCCI used the occasion to assert itself are just plain wrong. The Indian board has no interest in cricket as such: witness the absurd schedule it framed for the Indian team. Left to itself, the Board would have hung Harbhajan up to dry (as it had sacrificed Bishan Bedi over the 'Vaseline' affair decades ago) and gone on with the tour: it was Tendulkar's ultimatum that goosed them into action. Press criticism of the BCCI's brinkmanship in chartering a plane to fly the team home from Adelaide if the appeal went against Harbhajan, could just as well be directed at the Indian team, because I'm certain that the old firm, Kumble & Tendulkar, had something to do with the arriving one-day specialists being quartered in Adelaide in solidarity with Harbhajan. I suspect the reason for this last flourish was the report that Judge Hansen was likely to consider new audio evidence that had not been made available to Procter. The tapes didn't have Harbhajan saying 'monkey' but they had Hayden telling Harbhajan that a word he had used amounted to racism. My guess is that the possibility that the Australians would spin this as clinching evidence, drove Kumble and Tendulkar to circle the wagons in Adelaide. And here's the thing: it worked. The Australians agreed to press the lesser charge. Having set up this eyeballing contest, they blinked. Is this the end of the rule of law as we know it and the onset of anarchy? No. On the evidence of the third and fourth Tests, it feels more like the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging. There was a time in Test cricket (a very long time) when Australia and England were more equal than the rest and the game survived that asymmetry. It'll survive this one.

[Chandan]

Anil Kumble and Sachin Tendulkar, the two most senior players in the Indian side, one its best bowler and the other its best batsman for nearly twenty years, put the BCCI on notice. They insisted that the Board stand by Harbhajan and made it clear that the team was unwilling to go on with the tour if Procter's decision wasn't reversed.

Do you believe this?? Can BCCI be pressurised?? I just can't believe it.

[fineleg]

Do you believe this?? Can BCCI be pressurised?? I just can't believe it.

Oh no! Not that "they are contractually obligated to play whenever BCCI tells them to play". Not that again. Look there are rules and "contracts" and then there is "influence" and power and what happens in reality. SRT and AK and RD and SG all have a lot of influence - as long as they dont do drastically stupid things, these things they will have some influence over.

[chanakya]

Do you believe this?? Can BCCI be pressurised?? I just can't believe it.

yup if Gambhir can get injured for the sake of the selectors, why can't the others be just to make the BCCI listen for a change.

[King Tendulkar]

India need to keep flexing their power. And change the pathetic status quo in world cricket.

[Lurker]

Is this the end of the rule of law as we know it and the onset of anarchy? No. On the evidence of the third and fourth Tests' date=' it feels more like the dawn of a new age of civility on the ground and a possible end to sledging. [b']There was a time in Test cricket (a very long time) when Australia and England were more equal than the rest and the game survived that asymmetry. It'll survive this one.

The last line of Mukul Kesavan's blog reminded me of a similar line that was uttered by a Kenyan intellactual yesterday on NPR. He was aghast at all the killings that is going on currently in Kenya and was trying to be as neutral as possible but he made no bones that - in the end I am a Kokoyoo(a Kenyan tribe) and I will have to get inside the safe sanctuary of my tribe. Putting aside Indian and Aussie media for a second who may have some bias in this whole HS/AS issue(and I am frankly fed up of the subject) do we realize how this incident has hurt India's image?? Think for a second the next day after Sydney. The most scathing article came from the pen of Peter Roebuck. I was skipping every Indian media scribe(since they were all essentially the same) but it was Roebuck's article that caught my attention. He went ballistic at Ponting and how he should be dropped/atleast stripped of captaincy. Indians were hailed as the players who played in the spirit of the game but were bullied by a bunch of no-good men who called them cricketers. A day later Tony Greig blasted Michael Slater on live TV when Slater tried to show how bad Indian players behaved on the field. Greig went nuts over how Slater behaved and how Aussies have no reason what so ever to complain when the $hit hit the ceiling. Both the articles sounded like music to Indian cricket fans. But have they checked what these two gents have said in past couple of days? India's goodwill has been severly dented and all the Indians who think of BCCI flexing its muscles should take note of it. Aussies cricketers may be the most hated in the world but as a cricket board it is the BCCI who enjoys that status today. xxxx

[IndianRenegade]

Peter Roebuck's criticism on this is rather insincere. He said he was surprised that the Indians have not packed up after what happened in Sydney. But now he sees India's threat of quiting from the series as a bad move! He must explain what has changed since? Australia still had no evidence against harbhajan other than the word of Aussie players [rather only AS, coz all of the other witnesses have claimed to have heard the word from only AS and not Bhajji]. The only visible change was the umpiring, even that was achieved through BCCI flexing its muscles!

[Anakin]

How exactly is it flexing muscles when you've been victimized and protest against it? Usually it's other way round. Even if HS said the m word, OZs use worse words all the time, so either stop it too or just shut up and get used to getting it back. BTW all the OZ players have been proven liars in the court, so why this sympathy for them.

[Lurker]

Peter Roebuck's criticism on this is rather insincere. He said he was surprised that the Indians have not packed up after what happened in Sydney. But now he sees India's threat of quiting from the series as a bad move! He must explain what has changed since?

Good question. Here is my take on it. Roebuck's stance on India not leaving Australia post Sydney was based on the logic that Indians had, by and large, played a fair game and they were up against poor umpiring and a bullying opposition. Not only did most umpiring lapse seem to go against them, the unsportsmanlike conducts of Aussies(bumped catches, no hand shake with Kumble post victory) made this a completely forgetful affair. However what must have bothered him(and no I am not his spokesman here) would be how BCCI flexed its muscle with a chartered plane and all that stuff. He speaks very eloquently in - You either beleive in rule of law or you dont, You either beleive in law or you beleive in power. You can not say we are going to appeal and we expect it to be in our favour.

Australia still had no evidence against harbhajan other than the word of Aussie players [rather only AS, coz all of the other witnesses have claimed to have heard the word from only AS and not Bhajji]. The only visible change was the umpiring, even that was achieved through BCCI flexing its muscles!

In which case BCCI should have gone with faith in the Judicial process and not some arm-twisting. You only have to look at everything from Chartered plane saga to BCCI head honchos suggesting how anything less than clean chit for Harbhajan was not acceptable. If Aussie players fiddling with law was wrong, then so was BCCI. No ifs and buts about it. xxx

[arkay]

Unfortunately with ICC, the only to get a response is if you act tough. ICC has been notorious of pushing everything under carpet if any grievance is aired. Time and again, India have complained about Bucknor's umpiring. If India had not reacted tough (in aussies words - flexed their muscle), everything will even out. Overall the quality of umpiring is 96% bullshit. I still dont know whether to trust the numbers because there is no transparency. If Indians did not react to Proctor, ICC would have come back and said Match Refree's decision is final. What is so annoying is having a blind eye to the guy who instigated the problem to begin with. Why was Symonds left scot free and why was Proctor left scot free? Here was the match refree who was saying that the racist remark has been proven without doubt. He does not need anymore explanation. This is just mockery. When you have a verdict like how can you expect "fair and due" process. Yes. BCCI is unprofessional and is being managed by bunch of thugs. All they care is money. The Dennis Menance was triggered by Ganguly. He would not put up with the non-sense. He called BCCI to take action. In this issue also, it was Sachin & Kumble who forced BCCI to react. If BCCI was professional, they would have managed the media better. They would have brought more transparency into the overall issue - what did symonds say, what did bhaji say, where was tendulkar, did he hear what was said, how did proctor conduct the hearing, what do we want, what is the fair trial, why do we feel we are being victimized. What is fair trial. If Bhaji needs to be punished, the board should have laid out - what constitutes the fair trial? The board should have put pressure on looking at the whole issue including the role symonds played in the overall issue as well as how proctor had gone about the overall process.

[IndianRenegade]

Lot of emotion is at work here, rather than rational thought. Australia's shocking defeat at perth was attributed to the criticism that lead to a decreased on field aggression/bullying against the opposition players and umpires by some sections of the media. A very sad development that failed to acknowledge the Indian resurgence which had started in Sydney only to be defeated by umpiring. Though the aussies did say India was a better team at perth, suggestions that they were hampered by all the criticism was also encouraged by aussies. It unfortunately seemed to many that India was having its way, NO Bucknor, reduced aussie aggression, to top it all India winning a game at perth, where the aussies were expected to run through the Indians blind folded! The criticism of the aussies was a thing of the past now. Hectic lobbying from BCCI to acquit Bhajji from all charges of racism against him with a threat to quit the series was seen as a threat to a just process, it is quite amazing to know that the same people who had advocated the move earlier found fault with the BCCI for the threat. Such was the change in tide, it doesn't matter that the Aussies had no evidence against Bhajji, all that seemed to matter was that the Aussies will face another defeat and its players stubborn insistence on AS being racially abused would after all amount to nothing. People failed to see that it was because of the lack of evidence and not BCCI's lobbying. Those who could see that still thought India was forcing justice by making such threats, some how blind to the fact BCCI was fighting against injustice.

[IndianRenegade]

Good question. Here is my take on it. Roebuck's stance on India not leaving Australia post Sydney was based on the logic that Indians had, by and large, played a fair game and they were up against poor umpiring and a bullying opposition. Not only did most umpiring lapse seem to go against them, the unsportsmanlike conducts of Aussies(bumped catches, no hand shake with Kumble post victory) made this a completely forgetful affair. However what must have bothered him(and no I am not his spokesman here) would be how BCCI flexed its muscle with a chartered plane and all that stuff. He speaks very eloquently in - You either beleive in rule of law or you dont, You either beleive in law or you beleive in power. You can not say we are going to appeal and we expect it to be in our favour.

The Law seemed to be the very problem. Bhajji was convicted on the word of aussie players. The majority agree it was injustice. Nothing had changed since then, the much touted new evidence was also inconclusive. If Bhajji had to be convicted, again, it had to be the Aussie word against the Indian word. And had it happened that way again, would people who ask you to believe in justice, say that justice was done then? What would they do then? Again write a column asking why India has not called of the tour? Why is BCCI blamed for threatening the inevitable is a conundrum for me. I see it is the lack of belief in Justice of those who ask BCCI to trust the justice system, which had led them to castigate BCCI. Had there been a formidable evidence against Bhajii, would BCCI's threat save Bhajji? These guys seem to believe so. If anyone had to worry about BCCI calling of the tour it should have been CA and not the judiciary. Its job was to see the merit of the case leveled against Bhajji and not the consequence of its decisions. The ultimate question is had Bhajji been found guilty of the charges again, on the testimony of aussie players would these critics still find BCCI calling of the tour as a threat to justice or a fight for justice? Had the details of the case been a mystery, I would agree the BCCI had jumped the gun by threatening to withdraw from the series. But it was a open secret, all the evidence available was in the media even before the appeal was to take place. BCCI being the defendant would have also had all the evidences. So I find noting wrong in BCCI's stance.

[Lurker]

The Law seemed to be the very problem. Bhajji was convicted on the word of aussie players. The majority agree it was injustice. Nothing had changed since then' date=' the much touted new evidence was also inconclusive. If Bhajji had to be convicted, again, it had to be the Aussie word against the Indian word. And had it happened that way again, would people who ask you to believe in justice, say that justice was done then? What would they do then? Again write a column asking why India has not called of the tour? [b']Why is BCCI blamed for threatening the inevitable is a conundrum for me.

SImply because you can not have it both ways. On one account you say, and I quote - Bhajji was convicted on the word of aussie players. This clearly means in your opinion Bhajji was innocent and Aussie players framed him. Then you also mention that BCCI threatening stance was correct. I find two issues ironical. How can you complain what Aussies did if you can also not complain about what BCCI did?? You are not beleiving Aussie players word, fair enough, but then dont beleive BCCI words either. Look it this way, had Bhajji would have come out unscathed(and looks to me it would have been the case anyway) without any arm twisting by BCCI would this be as bad a situation as it is right now? I dont think so. xxx

[Anakin]

Your assumption depends on the fact is the trial was fair. But was Procter fair? He just believed one side and went with it. If he had any shred of credibility he'd have charged Ponting like Latif as well. How would Bhajji come out unscathed when the "judge" would just do whatever one side was saying?

[IndianRenegade]

SImply because you can not have it both ways. On one account you say, and I quote - Bhajji was convicted on the word of aussie players. This clearly means in your opinion Bhajji was innocent and Aussie players framed him.

Rather it means you are interpolating words that I didn't say. Everyone knows that Bhajji was convicted because procter believed Aussies and sidelined the evidence provided by tendulkar. Rather than being my opinion, in law anyone in considered not guilty until proven. As for whether Bhajji really said it or not, we may never know.

Then you also mention that BCCI threatening stance was correct.

Yes!

I find two issues ironical. How can you complain what Aussies did if you can also not complain about what BCCI did?? You are not beleiving Aussie players word, fair enough, but then dont beleive BCCI words either.

Now where did I say, I believe what BCCI had said? I rather said BCCI was correct in taking a threatening stance - a stance against injustice. It should have rather been Bhajji words, since BCCI should/may have been as ignorant as you or me on what Bhajji really said. It is not about believing someone here. What matters is the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies entirely on the aussies since they have made the claim. It is a open secret the aussies couldn't meet the burden of proof at any stage of the proceedings. This being the case, any judgment in favor of them is injustice. I see BCCI's stand as a protest against injustice. Of course, had Bhajji been found guilty he would not have played 3 test matches and India would have quit the series. India doing so is a mark of protest.

Look it this way, had Bhajji would have come out unscathed(and looks to me it would have been the case anyway) without any arm twisting by BCCI would this be as bad a situation as it is right now? I dont think so. xxx

No, I agree. But if Bhajji was again convicted on the words of Aussies, people would have advocated India to abandon the tour, so why is it wrong to say what you would do if injustice is done before hand? And No, I don't see it as arm twisting but rather as a mark of protest.

[Lurker]

Rather it means you are interpolating words that I didn't say. Everyone knows that Bhajji was convicted because procter believed Aussies and sidelined the evidence provided by tendulkar. Rather than being my opinion' date= in law anyone in considered not guilty until proven. As for whether Bhajji really said it or not, we may never know.

So? Would that be the first case in human history where a lower court's decision was overturned by a Higher court? Assuming for a second that Procter was indeed biased and Harbhajan Singh was given the wrong decision, India should have appealed, which they did and quite correctly too. Why not leave it to the Judicial Process then instead of arm twisting. By the way I do hope that you realize that the Judge who let go Harbhajan free has also gone on record to say had ICC not goofed up with his past records HS would have received a much severe punishment. Two things here: 1) Harbhajan Singh was lucky to have escaped here. 2) Just like you insinuate Procter was biased, should I also cook up a conspiracy theory that the all conquering BCCI ensured HS's past record was not brought to bare?

Now where did I say, I believe what BCCI had said? I rather said BCCI was correct in taking a threatening stance - a stance against injustice. It should have rather been Bhajji words, since BCCI should/may have been as ignorant as you or me on what Bhajji really said.

There is no stance against injustic here. Dont confuse the two. BCCI wanted to ensure HS went scott-free. And thats what they did. Whether Harbhajan Singh said it or not I dont know, neither do you. So the least that is expected is to take law takes its own course. I am amused that you admit you dont know what HS said still think BCCI was fighting against injustice? Is there a chance, howsoever remote, that HS did say the words and has gone free? Would you still say BCCI fought against injustice then? xxx

[yoda]

I am amused that you admit you dont know what HS said still think BCCI was fighting against injustice? Is there a chance, howsoever remote, that HS did say the words and has gone free? Would you still say BCCI fought against injustice then?

Lurker, the key IMO here is that Harbhajan was not the instigator. Symonds supposedly had some pretty rude words for him just for patting the back of Lee as a compliment. Anything Harby said should be construed as tit-for-tat, even if racist, and let go. The Aussies had no right going about complaining when they are ones who started this whole fiasco.

[Lurker]

Lurker' date=' the key IMO here is that Harbhajan was not the instigator. Symonds supposedly had some pretty rude words for him just for patting the back of Lee as a compliment. Anything Harby said should be construed as tit-for-tat, even if racist, and let go. The Aussies had no right going about complaining when they are ones who started this whole fiasco.[/quote'] Fair enough. I have no issues with that line of argument. My issue is what has happened behind the scenes Yoda. In my earlier post within this thread I had mentioned of the reactions of Peter Roebuck and Tony Greig. Both these gents have been very critical of BCCI and the way it has tried to ensure HS went scott-free. I would recommend you to check their articles since I would probably be repeating similar sentiments anyway.

[Bumper]

Flexing the muscles in this instance, yielded the right results. Whether its right or wrong, is questionable, but there is no other way to force the results (getting Bucknor axed & Bhajji freed). Being diplomatic or straight forward wont work with the ICC or the Aussie players. If you dont bully them, they'll bully you. With the ICC and the Aussie players, you have a choice between being a victim or the aggressor. Having tried & failed going the "former" route a million times before, Indian players chose to be the aggressors. This is the only way forward. BCCI cannot be the richest board in the world & not flaunt it. The English & the Aussies ruled the game, when they brought in the bulk of finances to run the game. Now the tables have turned. India brings in the money & hence must have more power. Thats how most capitalistic economies/businesses operate. Power will follow money, ICC will have to follow the BCCI. As long as we dont infringe other's rights, in protecting our interests, we must continue to do what we do.

[IndianRenegade]

So? Would that be the first case in human history where a lower court's decision was overturned by a Higher court? Assuming for a second that Procter was indeed biased and Harbhajan Singh was given the wrong decision, India should have appealed, which they did and quite correctly too. Why not leave it to the Judicial Process then instead of arm twisting.

So where was the arm twisting? How did the BCCI arm twist Judge Hansen into giving a verdict in favor of Bhajji? How would BCCI quiting from the series affect Judge hansean? And which Court says that one should not act in protest against a judgement? Hansean's job was to see whether Bhajji racially abused symonds or not, and not examine the consequence of ruling either way.

By the way I do hope that you realize that the Judge who let go Harbhajan free has also gone on record to say had ICC not goofed up with his past records HS would have received a much severe punishment. Two things here: 1) Harbhajan Singh was lucky to have escaped here.

And how would that prove Harbhajan racially abused Symonds? I sincerely believe u aren't suggesting that. Bhajji was charged under Level 2.8 of the code, which was for offensive language. Harbhajjan did agree he used an offensive language. A level 2.8 offense means, at the minimum you get fined from your match fees or at the maximum you get banned for one or two ODI's. Hansean let him off with a fine because he wasn't aware of his previous record. It doesn't mean Harbhajan would have been convicted of racism, had Hansean had access to his previous records.

2) Just like you insinuate Procter was biased, should I also cook up a conspiracy theory that the all conquering BCCI ensured HS's past record was not brought to bare?

I am afraid both are not the same. To prove procter was biased one needs to prove that he gave more importance to what the aussies said rather than what the Indians said for no good reason. That is what happened. Any one can see that from his judgment. But If I am to point out specific reasons for his bias, like aussie foul play, then I will have to prove that the aussies had managed to coerce Proter to rule in their favor. This I can't and I don't intend too. In the same way for your suggestion that BCCI somehow managed to see Hansean past Bhajji's record you have to prove how BCCI did so!

There is no stance against injustic here. Dont confuse the two. BCCI wanted to ensure HS went scott-free. And thats what they did. Whether Harbhajan Singh said it or not I dont know, neither do you. So the least that is expected is to take law takes its own course.

Had there been evidence that Harbhjan had indeed said so, I would agree that there was no stance against injustice. But there was none. Hence, it is a stance against injustice. Again how did BCCI's threat to quit pose any threat to hansean's judgment?

I am amused that you admit you dont know what HS said still think BCCI was fighting against injustice? Is there a chance, howsoever remote, that HS did say the words and has gone free? Would you still say BCCI fought against injustice then? xxx

Judicary doesn't work on chance. To prove any charge against a person, the burden of proof must be met, if anyone is convicted without the burden of proof being met, it is injustice by definition. It is rather a lack of understanding of how judiciary works that has led to all the fuss starting from procter. As I already said, if there was a enough proof against Bhajji and if BCCI had protested against the judgment, it can't be a protest against injustice. This I said elsewhere in other posts and even in this post too. With the details of the case being a open secret it is a protest against injustice.