I think that is a wonderful rejoinder, Mr. Panicker. Australia have very clearly indicated that their only target is to win - and win at any cost, even at the cost of bringing the game to utter shame. In the process, they had the tacit (nay, explicit) support of two fellows who are supposed to be the arbiters. And when they are in doubt, whose support do these jokers take? Ricky Ponting, himself a bad ambassador of rigging the game to suit his needs; and Michael Clarke, a childish prankster whose sole aim is to end up being on the winning side. By resorting to their support, the umpires have done nothing short of asking a bunch of thieves to take care of a treasure. Did Mr. Benson forget that he could have resorted to his fellow-umpire standing closer to the point-of-incident; or even better, the third umpire? On an earlier occasion, by adjudging Symonds not out when it was very clearly evident that his foot was still in the air when the bails were whipped off, the third umpire has also indicated his complicity in the entire stage-managed coup. It brings to one's mind the comment made by Chanderpaul sometime ago when he said 'if the 50-50 or even the 60-40 decisions are not necessarily Australia's way, it is not difficult to defeat Australia'. Ponting and his men have fully endorsed Chanderpaul's observation. In the process, the game has been brought to unimaginable levels of disrepute. Let India challenge the poor verdicts even at the cost of losing huge amounts of money.
