Following are extracts from my previous post which were from ‘The Australian’ and neutral Cricinfo articles. AT THE BOTTOM, I have also added an extract of an Indian view from Cricinfo.
Most Aussie media articles have blanketed these by ‘ICC bungled the Harbijan decision’ ramblings. Got to read though to get the truth.
Rabittoh ... I was merely letting out myself. The antiques some of them display on the field surpass the drunkard behaviour of the shanty dwellers in India and I hate to see them become a laughing stock reflecting rest of us...and some of us who deal in global affairs feel the most.
1. Michael Clark was guilty of lying. A judge cannot put it better than the following to that effect.
Michael Clarke's account was critical, considering that it did not coincide favourably with the rest. "It is not without significance that the Australian players maintain other than Mr Symonds that they did not hear any other words spoken, only the ones that are said to be of significance to this hearing," Hansen said. "This is a little surprising in the context where there was a reasonably prolonged heated exchange. Indeed Mr Clarke went so far as to say that he did not hear Mr Symonds say anything. Given Mr Symonds' own acceptance that he initiated the exchange and was abusive towards Mr Singh, that is surprising. This failure to identify any other words could be because some of what they were hearing was not in English."
2. Mike Proctor favoured the Australian witnesses and dismissed Tendulkar. Judge believe Tendulkar was a credible witness and only Mat Hayden was credible among Australians. Given Proctors history against subcons, he clearly favoured Australians as witnesses by dismissing Tendulkar.
In a 22-page document that detailed the reasons for his decision, it emerged that Sachin Tendulkar's word could have had a big role to play too. Unlike Mike Procter, who thought Tendulkar was not in a position to hear what was uttered, Hansen said "extensive video footage" establishes that Tendulkar "was within earshot and could have heard the words". Hansen praised the evidence of Matthew Hayden and Sachin Tendulkar, but is sceptical about some of the other witnesses. The judge said match referee Mike Procter's findings that Tendulkar did not hear the exchange was a mistake. "Mr Hayden and Mr Tendulkar in particular were impressive witnesses. But their evidence as to what was said by Mr Singh is completely at odds," he said
An Indian view from Cricinfor :
The second story was a growing South Asian unease with the successful Australian attempt to claim the moral high ground in world cricket. Australians don't like it but the country's cricketers are widely seen as potty-mouthed bullies who manage to get away with murder partly because they sledge strategically and partly because the Australian definition of 'hard but fair'—filth on the field and a beer off it—seemed to have been swallowed whole by the umpires and match referees who supervise international cricket. Every time Ponting tells television cameras that after 2003 the Australian team cleaned up its act and then cites figures to show that Australian players have been brought before the match referee much less often than any other major Test side, aggrieved Indian supporters put this down to Australian hegemony. They remain convinced that umpires are willing to sanction manly truculence (obscenity, lewdness and intimidation) but not shrill petulance (jack-in-box appeals, visible disappointment) because the former affects players while the latter is directed at umpires.
Michael Clarke, who as a batsman had stood his ground after being caught off a massive edge at slip and who as a fielder had confidently claimed a bump ball catch, over the testimony of Tendulkar who insisted he hadn't heard 'monkey' being said, was the final straw. The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of the slippery Clarke as an unreliable witness. From the Indian point of view, the Sydney Test was a textbook illustration of the way in which an Australian series is loaded against the opposition. The Indian team got a slew of awful umpiring decisions, the Australians did their tiresome all-in-the-game-mate routine, Clarke exploited a gentleman's agreement to claim a dodgy catch, Ponting disclaimed a catch and then unsuccessfully appealed for another that he had obviously grounded (and, post-match, barked at an Indian reporter who questioned him about it), then reported Harbhajan for racially abusing Symonds.
When Mike Procter upheld the Australian charge and banned Harbhajan for three matches he brought the two live wires into contact and the lights nearly went out on the game. Indian players have been on the receiving end of the match referee's kangaroo court before and know it to be dysfunctional. Procter is a notably inept match referee who presided over the shambles created by Darrell Hair and the Pakistan cricket team last year. For him to have taken the word of the likes of Michael Clarke, who as a batsman had stood his ground after being caught off a massive edge at slip and who as a fielder had confidently claimed a bump ball catch, over the testimony of Tendulkar who insisted he hadn't heard 'monkey' being said, was the final straw. The most satisfying part of Hansen's judgment is his characterisation of the slippery Clarke as an unreliable witness
