Firstly, the Australian team need to take a good, long look at how they conduct themselves on the field. Their sledging is very borderline and they appeal far too much. It is a gentleman's game after all. MUCH room for improvement!
India are not the innocent lambs either. Sreesanth was a total goose in the one day series. Harbhajan himself dishes it out - and his carry on after his dismissal of Ponting was not exactly humble.
If he called Symonds a Monkey after what happened in India then three games is consistent with Lehmann and Gibbs.
The idea that 'while he deserves to be listened to, his word alone has no evidentiary value' is misconceived in law and in common sense. It is direct, admissable evidence. Only Procter heard all the evidence and was able to assess the witnesses and their demeanour. In Australia we listen to ALL the evidence and make a decision. That is why, in the end, Haneef was given the benefit of the doubt AND it was upheld on appeal in a canter. Procter is not Australian anyhow.
India is entitled to appeal and must get a full and proper hearing. But the way they snipe at Procter and the decision is inappropriate.
IF the BCCI abandon the tour if the appeal fails then that is an absolute disgrace. Especially after its less than active response in India to the 'monkey' issue - its pious mouthings about racism must sound somewhat hollow to Symonds, who took a lot on the chin in India.
