RE:Prem Panicker ''Justice''
by Sandeep on Jan 08, 2008 04:50 PM Permalink
What Prem Panicker is trying to say is that from tv replays it seems apparent that Sachin was the only player who seemed to be within ear shot of what transpired between Bhajji & Symmonds.It is therefore extremely difficult to believe the 4 or 5 Aussie players who claim to have heard the exchange taking place despite apparently being nowhere near the scene.
RE:RE:Prem Panicker ''Justice''
by Calvin Corser on Jan 08, 2008 05:27 PM Permalink
That may well be what he was "trying to say", but it is what he did say. And that is what i replied to. There is more than tv replays at work here. And just because they don't show anything, and unlike what Prem Panicker did say. Just because Sachin didn't hear the word used, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Everyone must be able to see that. That being said I don't know what was said, neither do you. but I would like journalists who are claiming to present the facts, actually do so. There are 2 players including Gilchrist and Ponting who claim to have heard nothing. But 3 Australians do claim to have heard the remarks made. And that was sadly missing from the "facts" as presented by Prem Panicker and most articles. As was the fact that it was used by the accused in India as well, when he was informally told that word was unacceptable.
And that is what I was referring to. I am not condoning the Australians behaviour in all cases, or the umpiring, nor the way the hearing was conducted. I am trying to fill in a few vital facts that seem to be overlooked. And I would feel you would all like to be informed of the whole truth, not just be told a biased account to suit an obvious agenda. Which most, on both sides, appear to be here.
RE:Prem Panicker ''Justice''
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 05:40 PM Permalink
what abt lehmann's case then ? unless there was incontrovertible evidence, he wasnt to be punished. when he was found guilty, they took him to task. 3 aussies can get together and frame bhajji. plain and simple. its very very possible. if bhajji had a precedent of abusing symonds once. there's also a precedence of the entire aussie team getting together for sledging and hunting in packs. lou vincent gave an excellent brief about the aussie behaviour. in short, the aussie behaviour is old, they can cheat they can lie and are quite capable of framing bhajji. in fact clarke and ponting have both lied openly. this tour has been an eye opener of sorts about the true face of an average aussie crickter. liars to the core, they can deny and lie about whats on tv. what people saw live. its like insulting all those millions of people who have watched those catches being grassed
RE:RE:Prem Panicker ''Justice''
by Calvin Corser on Jan 08, 2008 05:59 PM Permalink
Lehmann was guilty and owned up and served his ban. And in his case no player heard it, nor was there any sound recording of it. He owned up, pure and simple.
I'm a little disappointed, but not surprised, someone obviously not wanting to see another option has reported my first article when I insulted nobody at all, and condoned nobody either.
RE:RE:RE:Prem Panicker ''Justice''
by raj on Jan 08, 2008 06:12 PM Permalink
bhajji was never given a chance. its kinda beating into submission. the man says he hasnt done it. the person who hears it says he hasnt done it. australians can of course claim anything they want, as there's lack of evidence.
RE:Prem Panicker ''Justice''
by binu on Jan 08, 2008 05:11 PM Permalink
hey buddy who branded monkey as race as per darwin all r from monkey not just one race...if one can be called abuses ...we term monkey as abuse not a racial issue. don't go around justifying aussies ...try view this clip youtube.com/watch?v=aMQUqky18uw&feature=related
RE:Prem Panicker ''Justice''
by shreepal surana on Jan 08, 2008 04:54 PM Permalink
First of all sir with all due respect.. In any case when their is a hearing both parties word should be listened by the match referee.
Secondly you can punish the person only if you evidence. Both the parties are going to say this happened and that mot but you cant take that as a evidence to the act.
So the way in which Harbajan was banned is not showing great colors to the people reading all this and listening on the television.
First the way in which ICC runs must be corrected and then it has the right to ban a cricket.
