This truly is a wonderful piece of article posted in the 27 october issue in the Times Of India`s sports column.
For the people who might have missed it...Just take your time and go through it.
Adam Gilchrist was, from all accounts, an honourable man and cricketer. Are we entitled to change that opinion based on his latest reported comments about the Indians generally and Sachin Tendulkar in particular, with reference to the Sydney Test ‘monkey-remarks’ hearings?
Yes, we are. For two reasons. One, his unfair criticism of Tendulkar’s testimony before the ICC commissioner (which is directly contrary to the findings in the judgment). And two, his total silence on the proven unsporting conduct and untruthfulness of his own colleagues, Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke (ignoring the judicial findings).
A bare reading of the judicial verdict of justice John Hansen in the matter shows that the New Zealand judge expressly castigated Symonds for unsporting conduct and all but called Clarke an untruthful witness.
The judgment unequivocally holds that it was Symonds who initiated the exchange by the use of offensive words to Harbhajan. And that he did so in protest against a friendly gesture by Harbhajan acknowledging ‘well bowled’ to a brilliant Lee yorker which the Indian spinner just about managed to stave off his stumps. The judgment notes: “Mr Symonds appears to be saying that he finds it unacceptable that an opponent makes a gesture that recognises the skill of one of his own team mates.
In the transcript he stated:
“Mr Manohar: You had any objection to that patting on the back?
Mr Symonds: Did I have an objection to it my objection was that a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection.’’
If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is.’’
So, Symonds was judicially found to have an unsporting mentality. Yet, there is not a word of reproach from Gilchrist for this. Contrarily, Gilchrist appears to accuse Tendulkar of unsporting conduct. That is not the act of an honourable man. Moreover, he accuses Tendulkar of changing his testimony, suggesting he said one thing to Procter and another to the Appeals Commissioner. This is far from the truth.
In the first place, Gilchrist himself did not give evidence before the Appeals Commissioner. He did not attend the hearing, being unwell. The judgment notes: “It was accepted by all counsel that Mr Gilchrist’s evidence was to the effect that he did not hear anything and there was no prejudice to Mr Singh by his absence.’’ The appeal judgment in fact found Tendulkar to be an ‘impressive witness’. The judge notes: “Mr Hayden and Mr Tendulkar in particular were impressive witnesses.’’
The judge also observes: “Mr Symonds accepted that Mr Tendulkar of all the participants was closest to Mr Singh. A viewing of the video shows that people were moving around but certainly Mr Tendulkar appears to have been closest to Mr Singh in the course of the heated exchange we are concerned with. Contrary to reports that Mr Tendulkar heard nothing he told me he heard a heated exchange and wished to calm Mr Singh down. His evidence was that there was swearing between the two. It was initiated by Mr Symonds. That he did not hear the word “monkey’’ or “big monkey’’ but he did say he heard Mr Singh use a term in his native tongue “teri maa ki’’ which appears to be pronounced with a “n’’. He said this is a term that sounds like “monkey’’ and could be misinterpreted for it.’’
Thus, a judicial forum, duly constituted, has found Tendulkar to be a truthful witness. There was no change of testimony on his part.
On the contrary, the judge finds that it was an Australian cricketer, Michael Clarke who flip-flopped in his evidence, testifying to one set of facts before match referee Procter at the initial hearing and then changing his story at the appeal stage. In the words of the judgment: “at about this time Mr Michael Clarke was slowly crossing the pitch from cover to cover. His evidence was that he heard Mr Singh call Mr Symonds a big monkey. He was cross examined by Mr Manohar, counsel for the appellant, as to what he stated in the hearing before Mr Procter. There it was recorded that he stated he heard “something like big monkey’’. However, his evidence to me was not that this was the use of something similar to “big monkey’’. Rather he maintained that what he told Mr Procter was that he heard things being said that he did not hear or comprehend which he referred to as “something something something’’ but then he heard the words “big monkey.’’
In fairness, Gilchrist, as an honourable man, should have correctly identified the person who changed his sworn testimony. It was not Tendulkar but his Australian mate Clarke.
It gets worse for Clarke. The accepted fact was that Symonds said many things to Harbhajan. Yet, Clarke swore on oath that Symonds said nothing. Clarke’s testimony was correctly disbelieved by the judge, exercising typical judicial restraint and preferring the understatement for emphasis, in these words: “In this case there is a direct conflict as to whether or not the words were said. Mr Symonds accepted that in at least part of the heated exchange Mr Singh used his native tongue. Both Mr Singh and Mr Tendulkar gave evidence that he used words in his own language that were similar to monkey. On the other hand the three Australian players consider they heard the words “big monkey’’.
“Mr Procter also noted in his decision that he did not consider the umpires or Mr Tendulkar were in a position to hear the words. I have of course had the advantage of seeing extensive video footage which in fact establishes that Mr Tendulkar was within earshot and could have heard the words. Indeed it is now clear Mr Tendulkar did hear the exchange but not the words alleged.
I accept that Messrs Hayden, Clarke and Symonds are satisfied themselves that they thought they heard the words “big monkey’’.... But the evidence as to what was said by Mr Singh is completely at odds. Mr Tendulkar said there were offensive words in Mr Singh’s native tongue and he also heard abusive language in English between the two. Mr Hayden says he heard the words “big monkey’’ but could not recall for the court any other words that were said by either party. .... As well 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. 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, that is surprising....’’ It is clear, then, that Clarke was not speaking the truth. Yet Gilchrist ignores the judicial findings and condemns Tendulkar — hardly the act of an honourable man!
(FREDUN DE VITRE IS A SENIOR ADVOCATE IN THE
SUPREME COURT)
For the people who might have missed it...Just take your time and go through it.
Adam Gilchrist was, from all accounts, an honourable man and cricketer. Are we entitled to change that opinion based on his latest reported comments about the Indians generally and Sachin Tendulkar in particular, with reference to the Sydney Test ‘monkey-remarks’ hearings?
Yes, we are. For two reasons. One, his unfair criticism of Tendulkar’s testimony before the ICC commissioner (which is directly contrary to the findings in the judgment). And two, his total silence on the proven unsporting conduct and untruthfulness of his own colleagues, Andrew Symonds and Michael Clarke (ignoring the judicial findings).
A bare reading of the judicial verdict of justice John Hansen in the matter shows that the New Zealand judge expressly castigated Symonds for unsporting conduct and all but called Clarke an untruthful witness.
The judgment unequivocally holds that it was Symonds who initiated the exchange by the use of offensive words to Harbhajan. And that he did so in protest against a friendly gesture by Harbhajan acknowledging ‘well bowled’ to a brilliant Lee yorker which the Indian spinner just about managed to stave off his stumps. The judgment notes: “Mr Symonds appears to be saying that he finds it unacceptable that an opponent makes a gesture that recognises the skill of one of his own team mates.
In the transcript he stated:
“Mr Manohar: You had any objection to that patting on the back?
Mr Symonds: Did I have an objection to it my objection was that a Test match is no place to be friendly with an opposition player, is my objection.’’
If that is his view I hope it is not one shared by all international cricketers. It would be a sad day for cricket if it is.’’
So, Symonds was judicially found to have an unsporting mentality. Yet, there is not a word of reproach from Gilchrist for this. Contrarily, Gilchrist appears to accuse Tendulkar of unsporting conduct. That is not the act of an honourable man. Moreover, he accuses Tendulkar of changing his testimony, suggesting he said one thing to Procter and another to the Appeals Commissioner. This is far from the truth.
In the first place, Gilchrist himself did not give evidence before the Appeals Commissioner. He did not attend the hearing, being unwell. The judgment notes: “It was accepted by all counsel that Mr Gilchrist’s evidence was to the effect that he did not hear anything and there was no prejudice to Mr Singh by his absence.’’ The appeal judgment in fact found Tendulkar to be an ‘impressive witness’. The judge notes: “Mr Hayden and Mr Tendulkar in particular were impressive witnesses.’’
The judge also observes: “Mr Symonds accepted that Mr Tendulkar of all the participants was closest to Mr Singh. A viewing of the video shows that people were moving around but certainly Mr Tendulkar appears to have been closest to Mr Singh in the course of the heated exchange we are concerned with. Contrary to reports that Mr Tendulkar heard nothing he told me he heard a heated exchange and wished to calm Mr Singh down. His evidence was that there was swearing between the two. It was initiated by Mr Symonds. That he did not hear the word “monkey’’ or “big monkey’’ but he did say he heard Mr Singh use a term in his native tongue “teri maa ki’’ which appears to be pronounced with a “n’’. He said this is a term that sounds like “monkey’’ and could be misinterpreted for it.’’
Thus, a judicial forum, duly constituted, has found Tendulkar to be a truthful witness. There was no change of testimony on his part.
On the contrary, the judge finds that it was an Australian cricketer, Michael Clarke who flip-flopped in his evidence, testifying to one set of facts before match referee Procter at the initial hearing and then changing his story at the appeal stage. In the words of the judgment: “at about this time Mr Michael Clarke was slowly crossing the pitch from cover to cover. His evidence was that he heard Mr Singh call Mr Symonds a big monkey. He was cross examined by Mr Manohar, counsel for the appellant, as to what he stated in the hearing before Mr Procter. There it was recorded that he stated he heard “something like big monkey’’. However, his evidence to me was not that this was the use of something similar to “big monkey’’. Rather he maintained that what he told Mr Procter was that he heard things being said that he did not hear or comprehend which he referred to as “something something something’’ but then he heard the words “big monkey.’’
In fairness, Gilchrist, as an honourable man, should have correctly identified the person who changed his sworn testimony. It was not Tendulkar but his Australian mate Clarke.
It gets worse for Clarke. The accepted fact was that Symonds said many things to Harbhajan. Yet, Clarke swore on oath that Symonds said nothing. Clarke’s testimony was correctly disbelieved by the judge, exercising typical judicial restraint and preferring the understatement for emphasis, in these words: “In this case there is a direct conflict as to whether or not the words were said. Mr Symonds accepted that in at least part of the heated exchange Mr Singh used his native tongue. Both Mr Singh and Mr Tendulkar gave evidence that he used words in his own language that were similar to monkey. On the other hand the three Australian players consider they heard the words “big monkey’’.
“Mr Procter also noted in his decision that he did not consider the umpires or Mr Tendulkar were in a position to hear the words. I have of course had the advantage of seeing extensive video footage which in fact establishes that Mr Tendulkar was within earshot and could have heard the words. Indeed it is now clear Mr Tendulkar did hear the exchange but not the words alleged.
I accept that Messrs Hayden, Clarke and Symonds are satisfied themselves that they thought they heard the words “big monkey’’.... But the evidence as to what was said by Mr Singh is completely at odds. Mr Tendulkar said there were offensive words in Mr Singh’s native tongue and he also heard abusive language in English between the two. Mr Hayden says he heard the words “big monkey’’ but could not recall for the court any other words that were said by either party. .... As well 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. 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, that is surprising....’’ It is clear, then, that Clarke was not speaking the truth. Yet Gilchrist ignores the judicial findings and condemns Tendulkar — hardly the act of an honourable man!
(FREDUN DE VITRE IS A SENIOR ADVOCATE IN THE
SUPREME COURT)
No comments:
Post a Comment