Harbhajan cleared of racism charges

[Will_NA]

No there wouldn't. Monkey is such a casual term in India that you do not understand. Dilip Vengsarkar (chairman of selectors) is known as monkey man, for example. This is not the point though, India, nor the BCCI do not have a record of reporting incidents to the ICC.

What would happen if Symonds insulted Harbajan's mother?

Good that Harbhajan has been relieved of the racism charges. The audio evidence doesnt have him say the word "monkey". It seems he admitted calling Symonds "maa ki..."

What did he actually say because all I've heard is part of the phrase.

 

[Sureshot]

Actually nothing has been said that Harbhajan didn't say those words. The charges were lowered to abusive language as Cricket Australia suggested to their players.

I've seen nothing to say that Harbhajan didn't say monkey to Symonds.

I've not heard the audio footage though. Is this available? Some posts seem to suggest it is...

 

[SaiSrini]

One thing to note - I assume Harbhajahn would know that Symonds wouldn't know "maa ki"

So why say it?

When some one irritates you, you just abuse them in whatever language you can (even though they dont know that language). You dont think of wther the other guy knows it or not

Actually nothing has been said that Harbhajan didn't say those words. The charges were lowered to abusive language as Cricket Australia suggested to their players.

I've seen nothing to say that Harbhajan didn't say monkey to Symonds.

This article tells that Harbhajan admitted saying to Symonds "maa ki" (they have censored it with m----).
http://cricket.indiatimes.com/What_did_Harbhajan_tell_Symonds/articleshow/2741216.cms

 

[Sureshot]

Opinion will always be divided. There's only one loser, and again like in all cases in this sport, it's cricket itself. I still don't think the boards handled it well though. I think a precedent has been set now and I think more boards will threaten to pull out of tours with cases like this. Of course the home board will bow to the pressure due to the many millions in the game. There is a busy month in the cricket calendar and hopefully it'll blow over as quickly as possible.

As said there is only one loser:

Cricket

 

[prarara]

Actually nothing has been said that Harbhajan didn't say those words. The charges were lowered to abusive language as Cricket Australia suggested to their players.

I've seen nothing to say that Harbhajan didn't say monkey to Symonds.

I've not heard the audio footage though. Is this available? Some posts seem to suggest it is...

Nothing says he 'didn't' but nothing says he did either.

Opinion will always be divided. There's only one loser, and again like in all cases in this sport, it's cricket itself. I still don't think the boards handled it well though. I think a precedent has been set now and I think more boards will threaten to pull out of tours with cases like this. Of course the home board will bow to the pressure due to the many millions in the game. There is a busy month in the cricket calendar and hopefully it'll blow over as quickly as possible.

As said there is only one loser:

Cricket

histrionics about cricket being eaten alive by the BCCI machine... if the ban was put in place, the word of players against one another would be taken into account always as admissible evidence (especially with two conflicting parties.) This sets an even worse precedent in future rulings.

 

[Sureshot]

It's not 'histrionics about Cricket being eaten alive by the BCCI machine', it's an opinion of mine about this situation. Money is power, needs to be accepted in modern Cricket.

 

[prarara]

Of course it is. That's pretty applicable in most cases, and you will of course have many people feeling wronged by this decision. The fact of the matter comes down to this though-in ruling a case which is a level 3 offense, you should require Audio Visual Proof of the said incident happening. (especially in this case audio proof for the offending uttered remark.)

Cricket would have 'suffered' anyway you look at it-it's all a subjective thing really. Some may even say that the increase of 'big money' in cricket is beneficial in promoting it to the new generations and gaining wider exposure for the sport. Everything else, opinion and whatnot, is superficial; the bottom line, the 'objective truth', is that you need hard evidence to prosecute someone, not the differing views of two groups of players. There was simply too much reasonable doubt left in a system where we are supposed to presume innocent until guilty. Bhajji not getting banned is the fair outcome. Perhaps not 'correct', but fair.

 

[sohum]

What would happen if Symonds insulted Harbajan's mother?

Who knows? If you really think India would have reacted like that, take a look at the England incident. India could well have threatened to leave the tour because of the jellybean nonsense and could have had England players pulled up for throwing foreign objects on the pitch.

Of course it is. That's pretty applicable in most cases, and you will of course have many people feeling wronged by this decision. The fact of the matter comes down to this though-in ruling a case which is a level 3 offense, you should require Audio Visual Proof of the said incident happening. (especially in this case audio proof for the offending uttered remark.)

Cricket would have 'suffered' anyway you look at it-it's all a subjective thing really. Some may even say that the increase of 'big money' in cricket is beneficial in promoting it to the new generations and gaining wider exposure for the sport. Everything else, opinion and whatnot, is superficial; the bottom line, the 'objective truth', is that you need hard evidence to prosecute someone, not the differing views of two groups of players. There was simply too much reasonable doubt left in a system where we are supposed to presume innocent until guilty. Bhajji not getting banned is the fair outcome. Perhaps not 'correct', but fair.

Well said, prarara.

 

[Will_NA]

Who knows? If you really think India would have reacted like that, take a look at the England incident. India could well have threatened to leave the tour because of the jellybean nonsense and could have had England players pulled up for throwing foreign objects on the pitch.

That would have been ludicrous to say the least but that's not what I asked.

 

[sohum]

That would have been ludicrous to say the least but that's not what I asked.

Your question cannot be answered. I thought I said that right at the beginning of my post when I said, "Who knows?"

 

[smssia0112]

Good that Harbhajan has been relieved of the racism charges. The audio evidence doesnt have him say the word "monkey". It seems he admitted calling Symonds "maa ki..." (a derogatory Hindi abusive word) and Hansen got the meaning of that word from Tendulkar and then let Harbhajan off with the fine instead of the ban for racist remarks.

Which is a pathetic excuse considering the fact that the audio evidence practically proves that he said it. He just said 'He started it' not 'No I didn't.'

Once again, anyone who believes the maa ki excuse is either very patriotic or very gullible. You'd want to think of something like that before the appeal, it's obvious that his lawyers thought of it.

There is no doubt in my mind that he said it, maybe there isn't enough evidence to convict him, but the fact that the BCCI re-threatened to abandon the tour if he wasn't found not guilty is absolutely disgraceful.

 

[sohum]

I think many members should watch this video, which I do believe to be legal (not copyrighted material, etc.).

 

[pal]

I think many members should watch this video, which I do believe to be legal (not copyrighted material, etc.).

If that's the so-called 'audio evidence' that the member who posted before you was talking about, that's just plain shit.

 

[sohum]

Which is a pathetic excuse considering the fact that the audio evidence practically proves that he said it. He just said 'He started it' not 'No I didn't.

Technically, that does not prove it. That strongly suggests it, yes. It's rather strange, too, that Harbhajan's voice didn't register anywhere except for when he said "he started it." Also, it could be argued that Harbhajan was referring to the quarrel and not the abuse. In short, there are far too many holes in the argument that the audio practically proved Symonds' accusation.

 

[smssia0112]

Technically, that does not prove it. That strongly suggests it, yes. It's rather strange, too, that Harbhajan's voice didn't register anywhere except for when he said "he started it." Also, it could be argued that Harbhajan was referring to the quarrel and not the abuse. In short, there are far too many holes in the argument that the audio practically proved Symonds' accusation.

I know it's not enough to hold up in court, but I still have no doubt that he said it based on that and his revolving door of excuses.