O yes, Mr. Procter, we know your history very well, din't you guys practice the same for years till Mandela came and mdae you realise what is RACISISM- aparthaid? you forgot it so soon? It seems we need another Nelson Mandela to clear the mess in Cricket. And you seem to be that! Keep it up man.
Let us make Mike Procter Thief Justice of India. He will drastically reduce the number of pending cases. No affidavits, no arguments, no vaaidaas. He will randomly give judgement that comes to his mind.
Absolute drivel.. Procter is effectively saying "I BELIEVE Aussies".. "I DON'T BELIEVE Indians".. Period. No investigation, no evidence, no proof, nothing required.. Ab..so..lu..te..ly nothing. Media: Mr. Procter Sir, on what basis do you think Harbhajan is guilty? Can you let us have the transcript of your (so called) hearing? Procter: Yes absolutely I will tell you the basis. Harbhajan is guilty because I FEEL so. Haven't I said it clearly enough? Refer to the transcript (hands over the transcript) Media: But sir, there has to be some evidence.. Procter: (cuts off the media mid-sentence) I have told you clearly enough, haven't I? These pure-as-driven-snow Aussies have given evidence haven't they? Media: But sir, what they have given is only a testimony. It's not evidence. Procter: See you. Who is the match referee? When I say it's evidence, then it IS. Anyway, even if you disregard what the Aussies say, didn't you read in the transcript what I THOUGHT? I have clearly written that IN MY OPINION the word was said. Since I am the match referee, my word is evidence. Period. Media: Hmmm... What have you to say, my dear friends?
And where was Brett Lee during the meeting? Brett Lee must have been closeby when the incident happened, because Symonds instigated Harbhajan after he saw Harbhajan 'hit' Lee with his bat.
Lee obviously wanted nothing to do with this matter, so he could protect his commercial interests in India. What a joke this whole episode is!
RE:Where was Brett Lee?
by Indian on Jan 25, 2008 07:39 AM
In Procter's OPINION Lee didn't hear anything. Hence he couldn't give evidence. That's the same logic he goes by for Tendulkar. Since in his opinion Tendulkar didn't hear anything, his word is null and void. As for Harbhajan himself... Since he is "guilty", his word doesn't count.. since his word doesn't count, and since other Aussies' word counts.. Harbhajan is guilty.. :-) Or maybe in Procter's opinion, since Harbhajan was speaking at the moment he uttered the word, he was too busy to listen what he just said. So since he didn't listen, he too is not evidence material, in Procter's dictionary.. :-) Whicever way you look at it, it does not make any legal sense at all.. A comedy show.. that's what it is.
If one of the umpires gave evidence, that's fine. Ban Harjbhajan. How can you impose such a serious punishment based on the word of members of the opposing team, when there's so much emotion involved? This is competitive sport, not a friendly game played in your backyard.
If this is how match referee's make decisions, the Indians can simply give evidence against an Australian player for racially abusing a teammate during the Adelaide test, and have that player banned.
