Sunil Gavaskar asks "Where is the proof?"

[F16]

Sunil Gavaskar asks "Where is the proof?"

By Sunil Gavaskar - Special Columnist

The BCCI deserves the fullest praise for standing behind its team in the crisis that has enveloped it after Harbhajan Singh was handed out a three-match ban by the match referee for a ‘racial’ slur at Andrew Symonds. The off-spinner has denied having used the word which has caused offence and in the absence of any audio recording and most crucially with both umpires not having heard it, the charge should have been dropped straightaway for lack of corroborating evidence. By accepting the word of the Australian players and not the Indian players, the match referee has exposed himself to the charge of taking a decision based not on facts, but on emotion. Worse still, his decision has incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn’t be considered a racist one considering the charges that were levied on Harbhajan were of a racist remark.

Putting it quite simply, if there was no audio evidence nor did the officials hear anything then the charge did not stand. This is what has incensed the millions of Indians who are flabbergasted that the word of one of the greatest players in the history of the game, Sachin Tendulkar was not accepted. In effect, Tendulkar has been branded a liar by the match referee. At the hearing the Indians were represented by the manager Chetan Chauhan, the media manager Dr M. V. Sridhar, the skipper Anil Kumble and the two men at the crease when the incident was said to have happened, Sachin Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh. The Australians were represented by Ricky Ponting, who lodged the complaint against Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds against whom the remark was supposed to have been made, Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke and Adam Gilchrist. Ponting claimed he didn’t hear anything nor did Gilchrist, so it all boiled down to the word of Hayden and Clarke and don’t forget Clarke had stood his ground after being caught at first slip and claiming that debatable catch of Ganguly.

The BCCI quite rightly respected Tendulkar’s word and asked it’s team not to carry on with the tour. The BCCI also asked that since the team had lost confidence in the umpire Steve Bucknor that he should not be officiating the next Test at Perth. Here the ICC too deserves praise for the swiftness with which it tried to defuse the tension by removing Bucknor from the duties of umpiring at Perth. But the ICC will do well to keep in mind that there were two umpires out there who had a bad game and not to penalize only one or it could be up against a racist charge too.

Ironically on the morning that the racism allegation against Harbhajan was made, one paper in Australia had a feature on Bucknor with his photograph with the catch line that he earns $ 440 an hour to make mistakes. Typically it forgot the other umpire Mark Benson who wasn’t exactly blameless in the game or did they really forget? Or was it simply that a black man’s errors were more highlighted than a white man’s? Throughout, as the controversy unfolded it was only Bucknor that the Aussie media was pillorying and not Benson. You form your opinion whether it was racist or not?

The moment a charge is upheld without any tangible proof and foolproof substantiation, it leaves the door open for similar charges to be made. Just suppose a team wants to get rid of a player who is a threat to them. The simplest thing to do is to have some players to say that there was a racist taunt directed at them and then its their word against the player who is accused if one goes by the recent verdict. So if Wasim Jaffer who is having a hard time against Brett Lee makes an allegation that he has been racially abused then without any proof he could get Lee out for three tests or more. That is the danger in this verdict and that’s why the BCCI is absolutely right in backing its man.

The Australian cricket media, which is almost like the extended support staff of the team, is doing its best to portray the whole issue as that of an umpiring one rather than the slur on Harbhajan Singh and Tendulkar’s integrity. Not one has stopped to think that if it was the reverse case and the word of their team member wasn’t accepted how they would have felt. And now as the charge against Brad Hogg is to be heard, they are now scouring footage to find out where Indians have used any offensive language and have targeted Ishant Sharma for using a Hindi expletive after his appeal for that catch off Symonds was disallowed. The difference is that Ishant’s expletive was not directed at Symonds or the umpire Steve Bucknor but in the direction of backward point and while that is no excuse to use foul language there’s a difference when a player is targeted and when a foul word is used in the air at no one in particular. If that is going to be the Australian defence for Hogg then all the Indians have to do is to crank up footage of every over that Australia bowled and they will find an abuse there just about every time.

Every time an Australian team has been cited for their behaviour on the field the standard line of defence that has been trotted out is, ‘what happens on the field should stay on it’. They seem to think that the worst of abusive language directed at a player and his family should stay on the field but when it comes to them getting something back then it’s to be reported. They also say that they play the game hard but fair. One would like to know exactly what is meant by ‘hard’ and what is their concept of ‘fair’ so that the rest of us ignoramuses are better informed than we are at the moment. And yes, while they are at it, also let the rest of the cricketing world know what exactly is the ‘spirit of cricket’ as they see it.

Maybe the spirit is black label

[Dhonifan]

Australians don't have a leg to stand on. If this goes to court even a mediocre lawyer would have it thrown out in half an hour.

[W63L35]

I bet he has proof of Hogg sledging Indian players!

[bones20]

Spot on! Our thoughts well represented.

I urge Aussies on this forum to respond to the points raised by Sunil Gavaskar directly WITHOUT COUNTER ALLEGATIONS. Its an open invitation to elucidate some of their blah blah (I have been referring to it as Aussie blah blah lately).

P. S. Please note that the readers on this forum are sensible enough to discriminate between logic and hypocrisy/diplomacy

[Random Aussie]

Sunil Gavaskar asks "Where is the proof?"

By Sunil Gavaskar - Special Columnist

The BCCI deserves the fullest praise for standing behind its team in the crisis that has enveloped it after Harbhajan Singh was handed out a three-match ban by the match referee for a ‘racial’ slur at Andrew Symonds. 1)

The off-spinner has denied having used the word which has caused offence and in the absence of any audio recording and most crucially with both umpires not having heard it, the charge should have been dropped straightaway for lack of corroborating evidence. By accepting the word of the Australian players and not the Indian players, the match referee has exposed himself to the charge of taking a decision based not on facts, but on emotion. Worse still, his decision has incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision shouldn’t be considered a racist one considering the charges that were levied on Harbhajan were of a racist remark. 2)

Putting it quite simply, if there was no audio evidence nor did the officials hear anything then the charge did not stand. This is what has incensed the millions of Indians who are flabbergasted that the word of one of the greatest players in the history of the game, Sachin Tendulkar was not accepted. In effect, Tendulkar has been branded a liar by the match referee. At the hearing the Indians were represented by the manager Chetan Chauhan, the media manager Dr M. V. Sridhar, the skipper Anil Kumble and the two men at the crease when the incident was said to have happened, Sachin Tendulkar and Harbhajan Singh. The Australians were represented by Ricky Ponting, who lodged the complaint against Harbhajan Singh, Andrew Symonds against whom the remark was supposed to have been made, Matthew Hayden, Michael Clarke and Adam Gilchrist. Ponting claimed he didn’t hear anything nor did Gilchrist, so it all boiled down to the word of Hayden and Clarke and don’t forget Clarke had stood his ground after being caught at first slip and claiming that debatable catch of Ganguly. 3)

The BCCI quite rightly respected Tendulkar’s word and asked it’s team not to carry on with the tour. The BCCI also asked that since the team had lost confidence in the umpire Steve Bucknor that he should not be officiating the next Test at Perth. Here the ICC too deserves praise for the swiftness with which it tried to defuse the tension by removing Bucknor from the duties of umpiring at Perth. But the ICC will do well to keep in mind that there were two umpires out there who had a bad game and not to penalize only one or it could be up against a racist charge too. 4)

Ironically on the morning that the racism allegation against Harbhajan was made, one paper in Australia had a feature on Bucknor with his photograph with the catch line that he earns $ 440 an hour to make mistakes. Typically it forgot the other umpire Mark Benson who wasn’t exactly blameless in the game or did they really forget? Or was it simply that a black man’s errors were more highlighted than a white man’s? Throughout, as the controversy unfolded it was only Bucknor that the Aussie media was pillorying and not Benson. You form your opinion whether it was racist or not? 5)

The moment a charge is upheld without any tangible proof and foolproof substantiation, it leaves the door open for similar charges to be made. Just suppose a team wants to get rid of a player who is a threat to them. The simplest thing to do is to have some players to say that there was a racist taunt directed at them and then its their word against the player who is accused if one goes by the recent verdict. So if Wasim Jaffer who is having a hard time against Brett Lee makes an allegation that he has been racially abused then without any proof he could get Lee out for three tests or more. That is the danger in this verdict and that’s why the BCCI is absolutely right in backing its man. 6)

The Australian cricket media, which is almost like the extended support staff of the team, is doing its best to portray the whole issue as that of an umpiring one rather than the slur on Harbhajan Singh and Tendulkar’s integrity. Not one has stopped to think that if it was the reverse case and the word of their team member wasn’t accepted how they would have felt. And now as the charge against Brad Hogg is to be heard, they are now scouring footage to find out where Indians have used any offensive language and have targeted Ishant Sharma for using a Hindi expletive after his appeal for that catch off Symonds was disallowed. The difference is that Ishant’s expletive was not directed at Symonds or the umpire Steve Bucknor but in the direction of backward point and while that is no excuse to use foul language there’s a difference when a player is targeted and when a foul word is used in the air at no one in particular. If that is going to be the Australian defence for Hogg then all the Indians have to do is to crank up footage of every over that Australia bowled and they will find an abuse there just about every time. 7)

Every time an Australian team has been cited for their behaviour on the field the standard line of defence that has been trotted out is, ‘what happens on the field should stay on it’. They seem to think that the worst of abusive language directed at a player and his family should stay on the field but when it comes to them getting something back then it’s to be reported. They also say that they play the game hard but fair. One would like to know exactly what is meant by ‘hard’ and what is their concept of ‘fair’ so that the rest of us ignoramuses are better informed than we are at the moment. And yes, while they are at it, also let the rest of the cricketing world know what exactly is the ‘spirit of cricket’ as they see it. 8)

Maybe the spirit is black label 9)

As requested :)

1) No it does not, it has behaved appallingly for a national board - all the results could have been achieved (appeal, removal of Bucknor) without the BCCI inflaming things and essentially stirring up tension for the beneift of an Indian domestic audience without regard for the damage being done to the game of cricket.

2) Go ahead Sunil, claim racism at every opportunity. The world must be very racist place to poor Indians.

3) That's why players can appeal the findings and India are rightly doing so.

4) Go ahead Sunil, see racism at every opportunity.

5) As above, but Bucknor was targeted because he made the most glaring errors. For Sunil to suggest the Australian papers were targeting Bucknor because he is black (when the papers were all supportive of how badly India had been treated by the umpires) is contemptible.

6) Agree with this.

7) No offence to Sunil here but that is not going to be Australia's argument in defence of Hogg and if he has half a brain he is aware of that.

8) Fair point

9) Disgraceful but that's what we expect from Sunil "Take the team off the field because I can't make any runs" Gavaskar.

There you go, no counter allegations, have responded to the points raised. Your turn....

[Crusader]

I am pretty sure no OZs will ever look at this thread. Yeah Benson should be charged too otherwise Bucknor will surely sue ICC for racially acting against Bucknor. First lets get rid of this Malcolm Speed, he is the worst admnistrator ICC ever produced. Even Dal-Main-**** miya was better than this man.

[Crusader]

As requested :)

The world must be very racist place to poor Indians.



Just now you made a racist comment depicting about the socio-economic condition about 3rd world countries. So all Ozs are rich eh? We (applies to all 3rd world countries including IND, PAK, BD, SL etc) may be poor but not mean-minded, hypocrites and cheats like many of the OZs.

[inane]

I'm no lawyer but ....

Why does everyone assume that the criminal standard of proof is required for cricketing issues (ie beyond all reasonable doubt).

If this was the case then the laws would be practically useless at every level below international as there are no cameras to capture every infraction by a player. Even at international they cannot capture everything that happens on the field.

I believe that the the law as it applies to civil cases which is based on the a balance of probability that an event occurred, not beyond all doubt. It has a lesser burden of proof than criminal cases and is used exactly for these type of events.

Racism is unacceptable at all levels of cricket, not just international. Demanding that full video and audio proof before anything is done about it is completely unworkable at lower levels and basically allows any comments said outside the umpires hearing to be acceptable. I am way more interested in making sure that people of Indian/Pakistani/English :)/etc heritage can play grade cricket in Australia without racial abuse than I am over the Harbhajan/Symonds spat.

(lawyers feel free to correct me if I am wrong about the criminal/civil stuff)

[jackal786]

inane,

For racism also you need proof. Otherwise you can randomly accuse people. You can get an entire team banned with careful scheming.

[Inswinger]

inane,

For racism also you need proof. Otherwise you can randomly accuse people. You can get an entire team banned with careful scheming.
Yeah. No wonder Indian reported Hogg because they learned proof is not required.

[inane]

inane,

For racism also you need proof. Otherwise you can randomly accuse people. You can get an entire team banned with careful scheming.

Of course you need proof, just not beyond all doubt. If they have two witnesses (not impartial I know but they claim to have heard it), video footage of the reactions of the players to the incident, previous history from the accused and whatever other evidence was given to Proctor.

Proctor would/should of taken this all into account when reaching his verdict.

[bones20]

Wow, nice response. Addressed the whole article! :14: . My comments are below:

9)
As requested :)

1) No it does not, it has behaved appallingly for a national board - all the results could have been achieved (appeal, removal of Bucknor) without the BCCI inflaming things and essentially stirring up tension for the beneift of an Indian domestic audience without regard for the damage being done to the game of cricket.

How exactly do you think could we have achieved this now without conditions?


2) Go ahead Sunil, claim racism at every opportunity. The world must be very racist place to poor Indians.


Sunil criticizing the referee for taking Aussie side without evidence - I am surprised you don't find it logical.


3) That's why players can appeal the findings and India are rightly doing so.


glad you agree


4) Go ahead Sunil, see racism at every opportunity.


he is suggesting that Bucknor might find it a partial decision to be singled out for all the bad decisions. IMO, all the officials for the last test match sucked.


5) As above, but Bucknor was targeted because he made the most glaring errors. For Sunil to suggest the Australian papers were targeting Bucknor because he is black (when the papers were all supportive of how badly India had been treated by the umpires) is contemptible.


If thats the case then yes, its irresponsible of Sunil to make such comments


6) Agree with this.




7) No offence to Sunil here but that is not going to be Australia's argument in defence of Hogg and if he has half a brain he is aware of that.


Lets see what happens


8) Fair point



9) Disgraceful but that's what we expect from Sunil "Take the team off the field because I can't make any runs" Gavaskar.


thats a counter allegation.

[kingusama92]

well technically Harbhajan also doesn't have proof he didn't say anything... and he does have a poor record behind him which doesn't help him out much...

[moumotta]

Of course you need proof, just not beyond all doubt. If they have two witnesses (not impartial I know but they claim to have heard it), video footage of the reactions of the players to the incident, previous history from the accused and whatever other evidence was given to Proctor.

Proctor would/should of taken this all into account when reaching his verdict.

I think you are right. Indians did not realise this and went totally unprepared and unadvised to the hearing. According to one report Chetan Chauhan had to be reminded to ask questions off Symonds & Co rather than make grand stand statements if he wanted to help his cause. Now that lawyers have been consulted you see some shuffling of positions.

Australian team was prepared and knew what they had to provide. Their motives and the merits of the case are pass now. It is down to the technicalities.

[bones20]

well technically Harbhajan also doesn't have proof he didn't say anything... and he does have a poor record behind him which doesn't help him out much...

Thats not how LAW works. the prosecutors (Australia) have to provide evidence which they don't have. The first thing any lawyer must have advised Harbhajan for the hearing is to not plea guilty which he has thankfully done so far. Arun Jaitley who has now flown in to Australia is a top lawyer and I am pretty certain Harbhajan is in very safe hands. By law, Harbhajan cannot be harmed as long as he does not admit guilt. Case rested. Any ruling against him under current circumstances is subject to challenge.

[bones20]

The best thing Harbhajan did for himself is to call Symonds in private away from stumps and umpires. Safe play.

[Random Aussie]

Just now you made a racist comment depicting about the socio-economic condition about 3rd world countries. So all Ozs are rich eh? We (applies to all 3rd world countries including IND, PAK, BD, SL etc) may be poor but not mean-minded, hypocrites and cheats like many of the OZs.

Ah I think you are taking that out of context - it was sacastic remark about Indians seeing racism everywhere and thinking "poor me".

Nothing in relation to material wealth was meant by my comment.

A little sensitive huh?

[Random Aussie]

Wow, nice response. Addressed the whole article! :14: . My comments are below:



How exactly do you think could we have achieved this now without conditions?

I mean that the BCCI could have made representations to the ICC in private and had Bucknor removed and they could have simply appealed Harbajan's decision without all this "we are bringing the team home", the 2 hour bus trip that wasn't, various officials making comment. If BCCI is the most powerful group in cricket it needs to behave in a more professional manner. They have happily stirred up tension just for an Indian domestic audience.



Sunil criticizing the referee for taking Aussie side without evidence - I am surprised you don't find it logical.

No sorry - Sunil insinuated that the decision made by Proctor was racist. I have no problem with critizing the decision on it's merits.

glad you agree

India have the right to appeal and based on what we know, they have grounds to appeal.

he is suggesting that Bucknor might find it a partial decision to be singled out for all the bad decisions. IMO, all the officials for the last test match sucked.

Yes but Benson is new umpire and we don't have many international umpires. Can't sack them all.



If thats the case then yes, its irresponsible of Sunil to make such comments


Agree



Lets see what happens


Hogg's defence is not going to be based on Ishant Sharma. I would almost bet my house on it.


thats a counter allegation.

Not an allegation - Sunil led his team from the field when given out (he was having a run of low scores) and was convinced to continue playing by the team manager. It would have been the first forfeit in Test history. Look it up - many articles on it.

In any event, why end the article with a comment about "black label"? Disgraceful from someone who should know better. Especially considering it is an Indian who is being accused of racism. Somehow this has now become Australia are racist. :20:

[bones20]

I mean that the BCCI could have made representations to the ICC in private and had Bucknor removed and they could have simply appealed Harbajan's decision without all this "we are bringing the team home", the 2 hour bus trip that wasn't, various officials making comment. If BCCI is the most powerful group in cricket it needs to behave in a more professional manner. They have happily stirred up tension just for an Indian domestic audience.
First of all I doubt if any request going to ICC can remain private. If at all, we would have had to tolerate Bucknor for 2 more tests cause I am sure ICC would digressed at private requests. Bucknor has become intolerable for us. we cant take him anymore. He had to go at any cost, now, and there are no second thoughts on that.


No sorry - Sunil insinuated that the decision made by Proctor was racist. I have no problem with critizing the decision on it's merits
How else do you explain him taking Aussie side inspite of lacking evidence. how else do you explain him punishing rashid latif for 5 matches for claiming a false catch and not even a warning to the Australian team? Call it racist or whatever, he sure is biased towards Australia as demonstrated on several occasions.


Not an allegation - Sunil led his team from the field when given out (he was having a run of low scores) and was convinced to continue playing by the team manager. It would have been the first forfeit in Test history. Look it up - many articles on it.

In any event, why end the article with a comment about "black label"? Disgraceful from someone who should know better. Especially considering it is an Indian who is being accused of racism. Somehow this has now become Australia are racist

you are unnecessarily putting his playing career in the same context as his comments in this article. We can sure argue and debate on his comments in this article (and as you agreed, some of them are quite valid).

He (and many other cricket followers outside Australia) are questioning Australia's hard and fair play and the right spirit as they claim because to us they seem to contradict these time and again. He is being humble enough to revisit his own understanding of these terms and requesting them to explain these terms as they mean so that we can appreciate it better.

[Random Aussie]

First of all I doubt if any request going to ICC can remain private. If at all, we would have had to tolerate Bucknor for 2 more tests cause I am sure ICC would digressed at private requests. Bucknor has become intolerable for us. we cant take him anymore. He had to go at any cost, now, and there are no second thoughts on that.

Fair enough but the threats to cancel the tour were unneccesary and provocative.


How else do you explain him taking Aussie side inspite of lacking evidence. how else do you explain him punishing rashid latif for 5 matches for claiming a false catch and not even a warning to the Australian team? Call it racist or whatever, he sure is biased towards Australia as demonstrated on several occasions.

You know it's a radical idea but maybe he felt the Australians were correct and the comment had been made (see the other thread on whether Harbajan said it or not) and found accordingly. It is possible to make an adverse finding against the Indian players without being racist.

you are unnecessarily putting his playing career in the same context as his comments in this article. We can sure argue and debate on his comments in this article (and as you agreed, some of them are quite valid).

Yes and we are debating it - the final line about black label was disgraceful. The shot at his playing career was a cheap dig I admit but if you are going to write things like that you deserve it.

He (and many other cricket followers outside Australia) are questioning Australia's hard and fair play and the right spirit as they claim because to us they seem to contradict these time and again. He is being humble enough to revisit his own understanding of these terms and requesting them to explain these terms as they mean so that we can appreciate it better.

This is a fair point but it gets lost in this article - when I read this article what I notice is racist this racist that everybody is racist against Indians racism racism racism.

Oh and that India are 100% completely correct and anyone who says otherwise is racist. :43:

[bones20]

You know it's a radical idea but maybe he felt the Australians were correct and the comment had been made (see the other thread on whether Harbajan said it or not) and found accordingly. It is possible to make an adverse finding against the Indian players without being racist.

Agreed, but then I am surprised he made the decision just based on his feelings without any substantial evidence. If he is wise enough to assume the monkey chant, IMO, he sure is wise enough to have understood that Symonds was the instigator (infact, he confessed). How could he not consider that? If harbhajan was the offender who first instigated Symonds by calling him monkey (or for that matter, something minor in Australian books), I would not defend him. Symonds is the cause of this episode. Inspite of putting him to task, he gave him two thumbs up by banning Harbhajan. :13: Australian team tried to take advantage of this racist clause to get at harbhajan, thats all I see and Proctor aided them by granting this inspite of lacking evidence and inspite of knowing that Symonds started all this. Looks like you dont like to hear racist, alright, IMO he has been partial towards Australia without doubt or simply, he lacks good judgment, your call.


This is a fair point but it gets lost in this article - when I read this article what I notice is racist this racist that everybody is racist against Indians racism racism racism.

Oh and that India are 100% completely correct and anyone who says otherwise is racist. :43:
Well yes, this episode has sure sparked emotions in all of us. In his defense, I will say that compared to the western teams, Indian has always been on the receiving end and cant remember if the western teams were ever victimized because of decisions from the cricketing authorities in India's favor. your citations otherwise are welcome. we have cited ours.

[Random Aussie]

Looks like you dont like to hear racist, alright, IMO he has been partial towards Australia without doubt or simply, he lacks good judgment, your call.

Happy with lacks good judgement. I have heard and read too much "racist" this and that. I don't believe the reporting of Harbajan or the subsequent hearing were in any way racist. For that matter I don't believe even if Harbajan said "monkey" he intended it to be racial - I just think he knew it would get at Symonds.


Well yes, this episode has sure sparked emotions in all of us. In his defense, I will say that compared to the western teams, Indian has always been on the receiving end and cant remember if the western teams were ever victimized because of decisions from the cricketing authorities in India's favor. your citations otherwise are welcome. we have cited ours.

OK - we got robbed in a Test match in India by Indian umpires a few times.... :burn:
On a serious note, that explains some things to me. Thanks for that.

[Robert]

HM Prison Service definition of a racial incident: any incident which is considered racist by any party who saw or overheard the incident.

[flawed_genius]

Lolz prison?

They thrive on racism there so that they can start a riot! :)))

[bones20]

OK - we got robbed in a Test match in India by Indian umpires a few times.... :burn:
On a serious note, that explains some things to me. Thanks for that.
Me too, I feel it was a pretty constructive debate.

[david_becks]

Thats the same question i am also asking to my OZ and Pak members.Where is the proof?