See the problem is that people are reading my comments and mistaking it for some pro-Australia defence of their actions.
As I've made blatantly clear, I also found the Australians' behaviour churlish, childish, without grace, without humility and outside the spirit of the game.
Quote from Agnew "They can give it, but can't take it. That, of course does not offer any defence for racism" (if proved of course)
Agnew then says "I am going to throw in Sreesanth's name as an example of an Indian cricketer who has often - and recently - gone well beyond the spirit of cricket: it is not purely an Australian thing"
Roebuck today "BY NO means can the Indians escape censure for the unpleasantness that took place in cricket's dark hour at the SCG...India has a right to demand a second hearing, but it is hardly fit and proper for the entire tour to shudder to a halt in the meantime...Of course vociferous fanatics will remain loyal but only fools play to that gallery...India's top-order deficiencies were also anticipated. It also bowled its overs so slowly that the match finished past exhaustion time...None of these matters ought to be forgotten. India must not merely complain about the Australians."
As for Harbhajan - I'm willing to trust the Australians' word when it is corroborated by Mr. Panicker who has written with a fair degree of vitriol on the matter.
