Monkey v Bastard - A matter of interpretation?

[mickdo]

new reports all over, procters public speech itlsef dont' suggest anything more.

Are you serious? There have been a few reports saying at least 3 australians testified they heard the remark. Now you will probably say "but that's still just their word against Singh", but it is not just 1 persons word against anothers any more.

and i don't understand how come u r so confident that he indeed has some evidence.

What reason exactly do you have to doubt his word, other than hating Australians and sticking up for Singh?

don't you think it would only be sensible to release it. i'm sure the indians can't complaint if there is any evidence at all. by hiding the evidence, they are just adding fuel to fire.

They aren't hiding it at all. There is an appeal in process for starters, so to release that sort of information would be improper to say the least.

 

[El Diablo]

don't you think it would only be sensible to release it.

i recall reading that it would be relesed to India. it doesn't have to be relesed to all and sundry

JJ thinks he should get a personal copy though

 

[JJ]

Are you serious? There have been a few reports saying at least 3 australians testified they heard the remark. Now you will probably say "but that's still just their word against Singh", but it is not just 1 persons word against anothers any more.

.

and two Indians (dare I suggest 100% of the Indians on the field) and two umpires (100% of the umpires) and no microphones (100% of the microphones) didn't

Hence, the evidence (if there is more) should be released

 

[kilroy]

Are you serious? There have been a few reports saying at least 3 australians testified they heard the remark. Now you will probably say "but that's still just their word against Singh", but it is not just 1 persons word against anothers any more.

if it's not 1 persons against others, what is it ?

What reason exactly do you have to doubt his word, other than hating Australians and sticking up for Singh?

find me a post where i said that i HATE the aussies or that i back bhajji irrespective of his actions. infact just a fews posts above i've said that he shud be punished if he's found guilty.
and i doubt his word coz he's come to a conclusion on hearsay. if he has any solid proof, he should have given a copy of it to the indian team management by now. but how can give out something which he prolly doesn't have.

They aren't hiding it at all. There is an appeal in process for starters, so to release that sort of information would be improper to say the least.

for them not to release it or even come out in the open & say we have sufficient evidence (mind you, procters "im satisfied beyond doubt" doesn't count as sufficient evidence) is as good as hiding it, specially in the face of such adversity.

 

[kilroy]

I'm sure the Indians know what the evidence is. They just don't accept it, clearly.

Besides that, the appeal is the proper place for making their concerns heard. If they feel they have been hardly done by and that Singh did not make the comment, then this will be borne out in the appeal.

By trying to prejudice the outcome, they do themselves no credit.

i agree. the indians know what the evidence is. it's, apprently, an aussie word, and hell no we won't accept that. and doubt you are any different.

also, i agree that the appeal is the proper procedure & that it was wrong to threaten. but maybe there's more to this. mabye the ICC wouldn't have held hearing before the perth test.
but then again, that shouldn't matter to india coz bhajji shouldn't be picked for the 3rd test anywayz. what the heck. whatever.

 

[skeepe]

i agree. the indians know what the evidence is. it's, apprently, an aussie word, and hell no we won't accept that. and doubt you are any different.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Monkey is an Aussie word?

also, i agree that the appeal is the proper procedure & that it was wrong to threaten. but maybe there's more to this. mabye the ICC wouldn't have held hearing before the perth test.

There's still a chance that they might not. It's a moot point anyway as Harbhajan will be free to play until his appeal can be heard, in the interests of fairness.

but then again, that shouldn't matter to india coz bhajji shouldn't be picked for the 3rd test anywayz. what the heck. whatever.

Really? I thought he's been close to India's best personally.

 

[mickdo]

and two Indians (dare I suggest 100% of the Indians on the field) and two umpires (100% of the umpires) and no microphones (100% of the microphones) didn't

Hence, the evidence (if there is more) should be released

I didn't hear it either... that doesn't mean it didn't happen. The umpires were nowhere near the incident, and it is unclear how close Tendulkar was as well.

 

[mickdo]

if it's not 1 persons against others, what is it ?

5v2, 4v1, who knows? You certainly don't.

for them not to release it or even come out in the open & say we have sufficient evidence (mind you, procters "im satisfied beyond doubt" doesn't count as sufficient evidence) is as good as hiding it, specially in the face of such adversity.

What twaddle

 

[kilroy]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Monkey is an Aussie word?

aussie testimony vs indian.

Really? I thought he's been close to India's best personally

not on a fast track. anil is enuff for the 3rd test (spin wise) & then again u have part timers like sachin sehwag (if picked) & yuvraj

 

[El Diablo]

and two Indians (dare I suggest 100% of the Indians on the field) and two umpires (100% of the umpires) and no microphones (100% of the microphones) didn't

Hence, the evidence (if there is more) should be released

none of these statements apart from the umps can be backed up

the ICC are not compelled to report to you either. i know you think that should be the case, but it's not

deal with it

 

[mickdo]

i agree. the indians know what the evidence is. it's, apprently, an aussie word, and hell no we won't accept that. and doubt you are any different.

Do you deny the crowd in India on the last tour called Symonds a monkey in a derogatory fashion, or are you one of these 'hear no evil' idiots who thinks that was actually a complement? If you can't see the problem with using that word on a person of african descent then I feel very sorry for you.

 

[dice]

I am curious to know whether those of you defending Harbhajan actually believe he is innocent, and that Symonds and the other aussies have fabricated their allegations?

 

[kilroy]

Do you deny the crowd in India on the last tour called Symonds a monkey in a derogatory fashion, or are you one of these 'hear no evil' idiots who thinks that was actually a complement? If you can't see the problem with using that word on a person of african descent then I feel very sorry for you.

i absolutely don't deny that it happened. and i criticise the BCCI for that. It was shameful, but more can u accept from a politically motivated pack of goons.
but i can honestly tell you that a majority of the indian population din't know the seriousness of the term monkey. even if i were to imagine myself saying the term to symonds, it would only be to describe his physical appearance & and not his african descent.
and to be absolutely honest, even i din't know about the seriousness of the word untill this fiasco. and don't assume that i stand by bhajji for repeating the offense. i'm totally against it.

 

[kilroy]

I am curious to know whether those of you defending Harbhajan actually believe he is innocent, and that Symonds and the other aussies have fabricated their allegations?

as for me, i'm not defending him. i'm questioning the credibility of the referee judgement.

 

[mickdo]

i absolutely don't deny that it happened. and i criticise the BCCI for that. It was shameful, but more can u accept from a politically motivated pack of goons.
but i can honestly tell you that a majority of the indian population din't know the seriousness of the term monkey. even if i were to imagine myself saying the term to symonds, it would only be to describe his physical appearance & and not his african descent.
and to be absolutely honest, even i din't know about the seriousness of the word untill this fiasco. and don't assume that i stand by bhajji for repeating the offense. i'm totally against it.

So do you believe Singh knew what the word meant with reference to Symonds after Mumbai?

 

[mickdo]

as for me, i'm not defending him. i'm questioning the credibility of the referee judgement.

based on media reports...

 

[El Diablo]

i even i din't know about the seriousness of the word untill this fiasco. and don't assume that i stand by bhajji for repeating the offense. i'm totally against it.

so why did you say this earlier today?

maybe u shud take a close look at symonds...looks like he's only just evolved.

 

[skeepe]

i absolutely don't deny that it happened. and i criticise the BCCI for that. It was shameful, but more can u accept from a politically motivated pack of goons.
but i can honestly tell you that a majority of the indian population din't know the seriousness of the term monkey. even if i were to imagine myself saying the term to symonds, it would only be to describe his physical appearance & and not his african descent.
and to be absolutely honest, even i din't know about the seriousness of the word untill this fiasco. and don't assume that i stand by bhajji for repeating the offense. i'm totally against it.

You say this here, yet in another thread...

maybe u shud take a close look at symonds...looks like he's only just evolved.

And yet you say you have no idea of the seriousness of the term? Looks like you've got it down pat to me, just like your racist buddy Bhajji.

 

[Thomas]

but i can honestly tell you that a majority of the indian population din't know the seriousness of the term monkey.

Absolute horse sh*t. The Indian crowds knew exactly what the term monkey means. Just like the football crowds you see in Spain and Italy calling black players monkeys and throwing bananas onto the field know what it means.

Having seen footage of the Indian crowds there is no way in hell they were calling him a monkey because it is a term of endearment. To suggest that is pure lunacy.

even if i were to imagine myself saying the term to symonds

Which you wouldn't because he'd crush you.

it would only be to describe his physical appearance & and not his african descent.

His physical appearance being that he looks like someone from african descent.

Go burn something you racist fool.

 

[El Diablo]

Go burn something you racist fool.

preferably himself