First time poster on one of these boards, but this one seems a bit more reasonable and considered than most on this topic.
You have presented your argument as a debating contest rather than an attempt at balanced commentary. I think there are a number of issues that are above debate - ie the umpiring was bad, and (given the circumstances of the recent Indian tour) calling Symonds a "monkey" is unacceptable.
As to whether or not Bajji called Symonds a "monkey", well no-one one on this site can make a call on that. To try to argue, as you do, that the truth can mathematically be deduced by adding one "truthful" Bajji to one "never lies" Tendulkar and saying this beats 4 "cheating" Australians is not an argument. You pretty much admit this when you claim Symonds has "no evidentiary value" and that you know that only Tendulkar is telling the truth because you "trust" him. Not arguments. The Symonds bit doesn't even make sense. I guess if someone robbed you, you wouldn't report it to the police because, as the victim, you have "no evidentiary value".
Finally, your point about the appeal is misleading. Making an appeal with the threat India will boycott unless they win is not within the spirit (or rules) of the game. It is blackmail, regardless of how strongly it is felt that Bajji is innocent.
India has legitimate grievances about how the match was adjudicated. They can only lose sympathy and respect by trying to unfairly muscle the ICC.
