sohum
Executive member
How was it obvious apart from the fact that you were interpreting it as an Aussie fan?When i heard the available audio on Cricinfo. I was quite shocked, i thought it would be obvious that Harbhajan called Symonds a monkey when i heard that. Yes it is not solid evidence but it definitely helps the case.
If you think the "he started it" line is such a give away, what do you think about this theory:He's been fined and that's where it should end. Obviously Australian fans will be angry and Indian fans will still try to defend their team. The line "But he started it" was probably the big give-away and deserved to get his fine. Just hope this will be finished with soon.
(a) Symonds said something to Harbhajan
(b) Harbhajan said something to Symonds
(c) Hayden insinuated that (b) was racist
(d) Harbhajan said "he started it", meaning that (b) was made in retaliation of (a)
Hence, if (b) was racist, then (a) must also be racist, if Harbhajan made it in retaliation. Unless you want to admit that there is doubt that Harbhajan may have been referring to the argument rather than the word.
100% unproven?Yeah I agree, no need for court, when he was first banned it was 100%.
Ah, so Lee was the idiot for not taking offense for it? Lee just took his cap and went back. It's obvious Symonds was trying to be a prick and get under Harbhajan's skin. The "Lee incident" was just a pretext.Hahahahaha, so Symonds should get fined because he is the victim of racial abuse? Oh thats a smart idea...
He didn't start it, Singh did when he hit Lee in the arse with his bat, Symonds was just sticking up for his mate.
Would you have been playing in a ground full of 30000 people, coming up against a team and a player who obviously have plans to intimidate you, and hence thinking about every word you said and every possible impact it had?That's a fair point Hooper.
If I had just been accused of calling someone a monkey, I wouldn't reply in the way that Bhaji did.
Last edited: