Gilchrist defends Hayden.

[iloveireland]

Comments like this make me hope that when Bhajji and Co. go back to India he goes to some second-rate TV station and mouths off about Hayden. I hope the PC posters from India then provided translated versions about Bhajji's interviews.

No one cares what 'The Racist' says. He opinion is worth less than the amount of RAM this window is using top keep open

 

[aussie_ben91]

Comments like this make me hope that when Bhajji and Co. go back to India he goes to some second-rate TV station and mouths off about Hayden. I hope the PC posters from India then provided translated versions about Bhajji's interviews.

But no one would care nor understand because no one other then Indians would know what his saying. What's the worse he could call him anyway? A markee? or whatever Harbhajan used to try and cover for that monkey comment. :

What Hayden said was second to none. :cool:

 

[shan111]

You some of the oz fans are just jealous of the fact that the false charge that has been brought by that silly aussie skipper and his friends to make harbhajan go mad, has been rightfully thrown away. And probably worried about the fact that they have been proved a liar.
So go on calling Harbhajan whatever on hell you want to call him.
I cant remember any player who've make the aussie fans so mad. I'm thoroughly njoying it.

 

[Leggie]

No one cares what 'The Racist' says. He opinion is worth less than the amount of RAM this window is using top keep open

Ah you see, there was no proof that he called him a monkey....

 

[sohum]

Ah you see, there was no proof that he called him a monkey....

It doesn't matter. Facts don't matter if there are Indians to bag.

 

[iloveireland]

It doesn't matter. Facts don't matter if there are Indians to bag.

Have you heard it. Harbajan didnt deny it till the hearing. Funny about that. Yeh, a court of law wont find you guilty, but if u use ur brain and aint baised, you know hes guilty.

 

[sohum]

Have you heard it. Harbajan didnt deny it till the hearing. Funny about that. Yeh, a court of law wont find you guilty, but if u use ur brain and aint baised, you know hes guilty.

Are you proposing anarchy?

"If you use your brain and ain't biased"? What kind of an argument is that. What is unbiased? Let me guess: it's a viewpoint that agrees with iloveireland.

 

[aussie_ben91]

Are you proposing anarchy?

"If you use your brain and ain't biased"? What kind of an argument is that. What is unbiased? Let me guess: it's a viewpoint that agrees with iloveireland.

No, just common sense. :

 

[iloveireland]

Are you proposing anarchy?

"If you use your brain and ain't biased"? What kind of an argument is that. What is unbiased? Let me guess: it's a viewpoint that agrees with iloveireland.

I will say it as simply as I can for you. If you are not biased and use ur brain (the thing most have inside our head that controls your body, sort of like a computer) you will know he was biased by the following facts.

*All the Australians heard it
*He didnt deny it until the appeal
*He didnt say he said May Kee or whatever it was until the appeal
*Harbajan is known for sledging

Now lets look at your evidence:

*Australia only has 'circumstancial' evidence
*Sachin said he didnt say it, (not that he couldnt lie).

That is how it is. 'The Racist' has been dishing it out for a long time but he has crossed the line and screwed up this entire series.

 

[pal]

*All the Australians heard it
*He didnt deny it until the appeal
*He didnt say he said May Kee or whatever it was until the appeal
*Harbajan is known for sledging

Now lets look at your evidence:

*Australia only has 'circumstancial' evidence
*Sachin said he didnt say it, (not that he couldnt lie).

I can't believe we're going over this again, but I think you would be well-served to take a look at Justice Hansen's report concerning the appeal decision.

The only Australians other than Symonds who supposedly heard it and were used as witnesses at the initial hearing were Hayden and Clarke. With regard to those two, Justice Hansen essentially wrote that their testimony wasn't particularly strong and that Clarke's statements contradicted with Symonds' own statements.

(47) I accept that Messrs Hayden, Clarke and Symonds are satisfied themselves that they thought they heard the words ?big monkey?. Indeed it is clear from the audio material they immediately confronted Mr Singh in this regard. I am satisfied that Mr Singh denied this to Umpire Benson. But we are in a situation where there are cultural, accent and language differences and where it is accepted that some of Mr Singh?s remarks were in his own language. 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.

Both Tendulkar and Harbhajan have maintained consistently that Harbhajan used the term 'tera maa ki'.

(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.

During the hearing, Symonds stated that he was unsure whether Harbhajan used the word 'monkey' and that there was a possibility that he could have used the words 'tera maa ki'. This excerpt from Manohar's cross-examination of Harbhajan is cited in the report:

?MR MANOHAR: 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: But you accept that as a possibility, My Symonds?
MR SYMONDS: As a possibility I accept that, yes.?

It's somewhat amusing to see people like you be so sure that Harbhajan used the word, when even Symonds has admitted that he doesn't recall what words were used.

We can discuss this in more detail, once you've read the report: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23133393-5001505,00.html

 

[The Majestic]

All I can say is that Harbhajan said something that he knew was going to get him into trouble, as he was quickly trying to apologise, or resolve whatever was going on. Symonds seemed to wave him away, now what he said I cannot nor will I try and guess I am just going to say that he possibly said something that he knew he should not have said.

I am not a body language expert or a lip reader but it appeared (to me) that Harbhajan was trying either say sorry or tried to explain what he had said which I suppose he may have said in Indian and not English and Symonds may have taken that as being the term "monkey"

Where then Harbhajan decided that he would try and explain what he said and Symonds didn't want to hear it, and it was then left upto the match referee to decide on a course of action.

 

[sohum]

I will say it as simply as I can for you. If you are not biased and use ur brain (the thing most have inside our head that controls your body, sort of like a computer) you will know he was biased by the following facts.

Let's take a look at your facts.

*All the Australians heard it

Eh? I believe there were three, maybe 4, Australians at the trial, two of whom said they weren't within earshot (Ponting and Clarke). Obviously everyone else didn't hear it.

*He didnt deny it until the appeal

Of course he denied it. If he hadn't denied it there would be no need to go to trial since he would have just plead guilty.

*He didnt say he said May Kee or whatever it was until the appeal

That is probably the only "fact" that you have presented. Although if you read the Cricinfo article about the initial hearing you would probably be shown some arguments as to why that is plausible, which you would of course ignore since they don't agree with yours.

*Harbajan is known for sledging

What does that have to do with anything? No one said Harbhajan didn't abuse Symonds. By that token Symonds should be pulled up and punished every time he talks to the opposition and they complain. Poor argument.

Now lets look at your evidence:

*Australia only has 'circumstancial' evidence
*Sachin said he didnt say it, (not that he couldnt lie).

Nope, our argument is that the opposition had no evidence. Putting a word in quotes doesn't make it less true. For example, me saying you're 'reopening wounds' doesn't mean that you're not.

That is how it is. 'The Racist' has been dishing it out for a long time but he has crossed the line and screwed up this entire series.

Talk about an oversimplification. He's done it maybe twice.

EDIT: And finally, I'm done with this argument. Just because a month or so has passed doesn't mean you can simply ignore all the legitimate arguments that were posted here to spout that crap around again.

 

[The Majestic]

Could it have been that Symonds thought since he was called "monkey" in India that he was called it again but this time by Harbhajan? Not knowing the language it could have been easy for him to have misunderstood whatever sledge was thrown at him.

If he knew it to have been a normal non-racial sledge at him I don't think he'd be one to have taken this as far as he did. Though I cannot attest his character I will admit that right now but I just think if he knew it wasn't anything bad it would have been left there and then.

 

[SciD]

All I can say is after that neither Roy nor Punter have made any runs.

 

[aussie_ben91]

So why did Harbhajan have a scared little girl's expression on his face in the whole duration of the incident? Out of all the incidents I've seen on youtube that Harbhajan's been apart of I've never seen him look so frightened because usually his so arrogant and confident during a confrontation.

This 'tera maa ki' excuse sounds like something a lawyer would come up with.