Chris, as Im sure Homer would tell you, proof-reading is only for people who need proof.

Homer’s schtick is to eschew namby-pamby discussion in favour of endless repetition of the same unsubstantiated – yet inevitably, infallible – points, delivered over and over again with mind-numbing, metronomic regularity.

So, I quite look forward to the dash of colour offered by his heroic disinclination to engage with the conventions of syntax, grammar and spelling. Who but Homer would observe that “…..the Aussies were so pricked to hear monkey?” Or, “In the end they were outsmarted in being heads?” And in relation to his stern injunction – “Do not rely on Wikipedia!” – you’d have to think twice, wouldn’t you?

Go with the flow. Attempting to engage will result in raging frustration and possibly the sledge-hammering of your PC. Worse, I understand that therapy involves an eternity of exposure to bad punning in a darkened room.

What did the Judge say about Clarke and his evidence? Did you notice how far away he was from the Umpire who didn’t hear anything?

Did you notice how quickly the Aussies were about to say twice?

Did you notice Symonds rather pathetic excuse for why he started swearing like a trooper at Singh?

Try thinking about the episode in a dispassionate way rather than as an Aussie apologist.

It was transparent what the Aussie team was attempting to do to anyone who has ever been involved in team sport.

Do not rely on Wikipedia!

Of course youneed legal expertise otherwise you get the absurd decision we got in Sydney which Mike Proctor clearly thought he was qualified to do.

Bizaare conspiracy nothing. They were baiting Singh plain and simple which is why the retorts were so quick. They were out to get Singh suspended.
Hence Symonds pathetic explanation of why he engaged in swearing at Singh in the first place.
Hence why Tendulkar why was warning him.
Hence why Aussies ears were so pricked to hear monkey.

In the end they were outsmarted in being ….heads

In all few people come out of this well except Tendulkar.

Contrast this with the process in the AFL. They do not require audio proof to convict a player for racial vilification. You also did not address Haiku’s reminder about the farcical lost record of Harbs. Surely, you do not deny that the whole appeal outcome was pre-arranged.

You seem touchingly respectful of Tendulkar – a convicted ball tamperer as I remember. (I really wonder whether he would ever be convicted these days). Apart from being a pretty handy bat, why this fawning, why is his testimony holy writ? What exactly did he recognise was going on quite quickly. Your comments on this topic consistently suggest some bizarre Aussie conspiracy. Could you perhaps carefully set out what you believe the Australians conspired to do? The only obvious conspiracy I can see is between the BCCI, ICC and the NZ judge.

It was quite apparent that once a person was brought in who had an inkling of legal expertise what the judgement would be particularly given 9 was telling anyone who inquired there was no monkey on the tape.

You also appear not to have read the judgment very well otherwise you may have understood why has was charged thus.

It is Symonds who has got off scott free from his behaviour. In essence without Symonds intervention nothing would have happened.

You also ignore Tendulkar’s behavour in this. He was so incensed he texted the BCCI over what they should do. He recogised what was going on quite quickly and ensured it didn’t eventuate.

He was quite emphatic about what was NOT said.

It wasn’t an inquiry perse but an appeals proceedings.

Judge Hansen was not brought in to find the truth. He was brought in to give legitimacy to the compromise agreed to by Cricket Australia, the ICC and the BCCI, in the face of the BCCI’s brinkmanship.

Here’s how it worked: Cricket Australia got its lawyers to heavy the Australians into presenting their evidence as “an agreed statement of facts”, in which the direct accusation of the use of the word monkey was watered down to “we heard monkey, but there may have been some Hindi”.

(The stump cam recordings are circumstantial and possibly hearsay, but the reactions of the Aussies are spontaneous and very clear – and Harbhajan’s “no, he started it” is extremely instructive, but I digress)

Now that the evidence is watered down enough, an agreement can proceed to reduce the charge from a racist comment to an offensive one. The suspension can be downgraded.

There’s just one problem – Harbhajan’s appalling previous record. Suspend a sentence there and no-one outside Hansie Cronje would ever be banned. Step forward the ICC and their magically lost records. Judge Hansen waits a day and then announces how angry he is that these records were lost and how lucky Harbhajan is not to be suspended, but alas, he can’t re-open the case, because … well, the ICC appeals process has so much integrity … or something. Apparently Judge Hansen has never heard of sentencing appeals.

The fact that Harbhajan was found guilty of something is also instructive. If he really did say “teri maki”, there’s no context in which that’s offensive to a non-hindi speaking, all-swearing, straight-up-and-down-fishing and solo-drinking having-a-shower-in-an-industrial-car-wash bloke like Symonds. But in the absence of some sort of “conviction”, it’s doubtful that Cricket Australia could have heavied its players into watering down their story.

Like Sir Humphrey says, you don’t start an inquiry until you know the answer.

Remember, it was Tendulkar who pressed the BCCI over this issue.

He thought the way the matter had been handled was to be euphumistic, badly as it was.

ICC step forward, Once we had a person of a legal background, we got the result which most impartial observers thought was always the case.

I do agree, however, that it’s depressing that he did not point out the complete farce of the BCCI producing various excuses until they found one that would exonerate a “proud Sikh warrior” (which is ridiculous, too. He’s a flaming cricketer).

Harbhajan charged with offensive behaviour

Tendulkar was asked about the incident at the press conference following the day’s play and said he thought it was not an issue. “There were a couple of lines exchanged,” he said. “It keeps happening virtually every day. As far as I’m concerned [as long as] the game moves on and the players don’t cross their limits its fine. It’s good for the spectators too. Sometimes it’s humorous and sometimes it is funny.”

There was an immediate denial.

Indeed Tendulkar, who possibly has the best reputation in the game, said so.

I didn’t say cconcocted it I am quite sure they thought they heard the word afterall that is what they were wanting to hear.

Having said all that the Indian reaction re BCCI was as disgraceful as the affair preceding it.

If it were true and Tendulkar “knew what was going on” you would expect an immediate denial wouldn’t you?

I agree that all forms of abuse should be banned. They should have mikes everywhere (obviously not broadcast) and review the tapes after each day. Once again, the problem is that the ICC are a sad joke.

Symonds sees Singh playfully tap his bat on Lee’s behind and then Symonds gives him a full volley of expletives.
No comment here on Symonds rasther pathetic explanation of why he did this and REPEATEDLY does this

We have the little Master obviously knowing whst is going on here and warn Sing what the Aussies are up to.

We have no evidence that Singh actually said monket rather the contrary. please note where Tendulkar is in all of this.

It is rather surprising not to have heard the word.

We have evidence that hindi was spoken.

What is blatantly apparent was an attempt by the Aussies to goad Sing into saying monkey.
anyone notice on how quickly the word is brought up and it is the second time?

It failed .

It is the case that all forms of abuse should be banned.

A person who swears like a trooper to someone for sometime must surely expect a retort back.

I have no sympathy for such a person whatever that comeback is.

They have fully deserved it

His initial piece triggered an avalanche of online comment support from the Sub-Continent which the ABC’s “Grandstand” commentary team – apparently unfamiliar with the concept of India being a significant part of the World Wide Web (“they have computers in India? Wow! They know how to get to the Sydney Morning Herald website? Amazing!)- put down to domestic revulsion at the vileness of Ponting and his thugs. It was happening on Australian media websites so……….obviously it had to be Australians commenting.

Led by “Grandstand” luminaries like Tracey Holmes – whose forced laugh resonates like a herd of baby harp seals being machine-gunned – the commentary zeitgeist was all about Bollyline being long overdue payback for the ruthless, mind-gaming in which Australia has apparently singularly engaged. Never mind that the BCCI was embarked upon a mind game of Herculean proportions.

And so, the whole sorry saga unfolded. Indians can not, by definition, be racist and in the unlikely event that they ever are, it is completely unacceptable to point it out let alone penalise them for it. “Monkey” is a term in widespread affectionate use in the Sub-Continent and any African with an alternative experience is presumably just resentful of the fact that he doesn’t have the “wheat-coloured” skin much desired in prospective romantic companions sought via the classifieds in the India media.

It was all incredibly unedifying and Gideon Haigh’s contribution is depressing confirmation.

Cricket’s history (even before Bodyline) is not one of uniformly high virtues. WG Grace’s gamesmanship was well known (once he nodded to an Australian batsman to suggest that he could leave his crease, and then ran him out; Spofforth was so angry that he produced one of the best spells of fast bowling ever, and his 7/44 won the Test for Australia). But it goes back much further than that. Cricket in the early 19th century was full of gambling and gamesmanship. One of the two stand-out all-rounders of 1800-1825, Lord Beauclerk, was said to put an expensive watch on his middle stump while batting. He was a clergyman who made hundreds of pounds a year from betting on cricket. He was foul-mouthed and generally repulsive. He was made president of the MCC!

Thanks for your e-mail. Your points are good ones and many other people feel Ricky Ponting was too harshly criticised, and actually misunderstood. Much has been said and written about the issues arising from the Sydney Test and the fire has to some extent been fuelled by media coverage. After the dust eventually settled, one thing appeared to be glaringly obvious (and ominous for the future of cricket): that the ICC is a toothless tiger, and well out of it’s depth in being able to handle and control the changing power bases of international cricket.