How is it biased against India, it's merely an attempt to restore a modicum of balance? The key issues are: 1) the umpires performance 2) the Australians' behaviour 3) the Indians' behaviour 4) the racism claim 5) the hearing process 6) the spirit of the game
Since every allegation here is thrown at the Australians (with scarcely a mention of any potential Indian culpability), it's difficult to portray the situation any other way.
Yesterday, Indians were falling over themselves to quote Roebuck and other British journos.
Today, I give you these quotes: Agnew "They (Australia) can give it, but can't take it. That, of course does not offer any defence for racism" (if proved of course)
Agnew "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 "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."
