As an Australian born Indian lawyer, I found the Proctor decision impossible to understand. He said he was convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" yet all we have heard is the word of 3 Australians who say they heard it versus 2 who say it wasn't said. I'm glad that it has been clarified that Harbhajan did racially abuse Symonds in India, but that they discussed it privately and he agreed to not repeat it. So it's quite clear cut. On the disclosed facts, Proctor couldn't possibly find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt unless a) he's biased, b) he only found guilt "on the balance of probabilities" (ie 4 vs 2) or c) there is other evidence.
If the BCCI wants to prove their point, they should authorise Sachin and Harbhajan to come out PUBLICLY AND EXPLICITLY confirm that the words "big monkey" never came from Harbhajan's mouth. Then let the ICC deal with the resulting ultimatum.
Some commentators said they would be interested to see what Sachin would say in a quasi-judicial environment (ie a hearing), and I'd love to know whether he chose his words carefully. There is a big difference between "I didn't hear anything said by Harbhajan" and "I can definitely confirm he did not say "big monkey".
Please note, almost every Australian worships the ground that Sachin walks on (in cricketing terms of course) - his skill, his record in Australia, and his ability to perform on the big stage.
If he verifies it publicly, most Australians would support the BCCI in the appeal!
