IPB
Custom Search

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> My Judgement On Judge Hansen
Brendon
post Jan 31 2008, 08:04 AM
Post #1


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-January 08
Member No.: 1,758



Firstly, Hansen all but called Clarke and Hayden liars. His point that neither could remember other words spoken except the slur imply that they made it up. He is saying that their memory is "contrived".

His opinion that the standard of proof required under the code of conduct of players should be somewhere between "balance of probabilities" used in civil cases and "proof beyond reasonable doubt" used in criminal cases. And that says one thing:

the balance of probabilities are that Hayden and Clarke are lying and/or there is a reasonable doubt that they are not telling the truth.

Keep in mind neither have backed away from their initial statements.

Secondly,Hansen takes the side of Harbhajan on the start of the incident. He claims that Harbhajan was not trying to stir things up in his contact with Lee.

"Mr Singh had innocently, and in the tradition of the game, acknowledged the quality of Mr Lee's bowling. That interchange had nothing to do with Mr Symonds but he determined to get involved and as a result was abusive towards Mr Singh. Mr Singh was, not surprisingly, abusive back."

In the "tradition" of what game? What tradition is there that has opposition Test players giving each other high five-type exchanges when they play well?

Hansen gives no proof for this "innocent" assertion. In fact, Harbhajan had spent the whole series trying to stir the pot with the Aussies. He had already riled them that game with his histronics about Ponting. Even Roebuck had written about Harbhajan's misbehaviour on the field at that point and attempts to niggle the Australian team. I'm not saying he was directly inviting Symonds to have a go at him, just that it would jave been consistent with his character that he was trying to psyche opposition players out any way he could.

Really, there was no real need for this partisan defence of Harbhajan by Hansen. He could have accused Symonds of needlessly buying into the niggle without declaring Harbhajan innocent of playing mind games. It just shows where Hansen is coming from.

Thirdly, Hansen takes the view that racial slurs are not all that offensive:

"But in my view even if he had used the words "alleged" an "ordinary person" standing in the shoes of Mr Symonds who had launched an unprovoked and unnecessary invective laden attack would not be offended or insulted or humiliated in terms of .."

You see, its all Symonds fault. Not only did Symonds invite a racial slur, but also he should not be offended by one.

Lastly, Mr Hansen's get-out clause for letting Harbhajan off the hook: Hansen claims in his finding that he hadn't all Harbhajan's prior infringements to consider.

QUOTE
[66] I need to add something about the penalty I imposed. ...... After the penalty was announced I was made aware that in fact there were three further matters I had not been informed of.

67] ..... It was simply human error that led to the Level 1 offence in November 2005 not being made available. None of these three offences were advised to Mr Jordan and because of that he was not in a position to advise me of them. Other counsel did not alert me to this information during the sentencing process. ..... ..if I had been aware of the serious transgression in November 2001 I would have required more extensive submissions as to the offence in mitigation which could have led to a different penalty..... Regrettably I have concluded that I cannot do so and the penalty imposed by me must stand. At the end of the day Mr Singh can feel himself fortunate that he has reaped the benefit of these database and human errors. But judicial experience shows that these are problems that arise from time to time.


Well, well, well. How convenient, Mr Hansen. Please tell us why we should not believe you that you put this in just to cover your arse. They do say no-one lies better than legal folk. I find his excuses on sloppy paperwork unconvincing. I find a motivation not to know about about Harbhajan's priors to be probable. He needs to tell us excactly how it was he knows about Harbhajan's priors AFTER his judgement. Seems pretty vague and convenient to me.

Hansen tells us he can't believe Hayden and Clarke. I can't say I believe him! Reasonable doubt, and all that.

He had a counsel to get that type of information, but somehow his counsel couldn't be bothered. Or wasn't "told". Or was misinformed. Or got mixed up.

Hansen could have googled this stuff up himself.

It is very difficult to accept that he could not have this information. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT WANT TO KNOW about that information as it would have forced hime to suspend Harbhajan.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew Beacom
post Jan 31 2008, 08:12 AM
Post #2


Dedicated Member
**

Group: Dedicated Member
Posts: 698
Joined: 29-July 05
Member No.: 565



The stuff I have read has him singling out Pup as someone who changed his story. Sachin changed his story but he is apparently more believable. He has now set a precedent where anyone charged can get out of it on appeal if there isn't legal proof of what they did. It also hangs the match referee out to dry as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shane
post Jan 31 2008, 08:38 AM
Post #3


Site Administrator
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,109
Joined: 28-March 04
From: Australia
Member No.: 1



Brendon, you have been very selective in your analysis of Hansens findings and to merely select paragraphs of same that support your view shows a great deal of bias.

It would be much better if people could read the full findings and the reasons behind certain decisions. Like me, they will probably see this whole appeal was merely a whitewash, however the conspiracy of the whitewash can be clearly seen to involve ALL parties....Indian and Australian.

Clarke and Hayden were in fact not called liars, but their very selective memories of who said what clearly painted the picture of avoiding dobbing in Andy Symonds, something Hansen would have immeidately recognised as would any other individual with an open mind.

Personally, I still believe the allegations as made by Ponting and the boys, but can also see how Hnasen was hamstrung in presenting a finding on the matter based on ALL the facts which officials basically chose to bury on the basis of good relations and the threat of India abandoning their tour.

I have the full official findings of Hansen, so best we post a copy of it and allow people to make up their own mind. I'll post a link to it somewhere shortly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shane
post Jan 31 2008, 08:44 AM
Post #4


Site Administrator
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,109
Joined: 28-March 04
From: Australia
Member No.: 1



Hansens Full Findings - Need Word to view.
Attached File  Commissioner_Decision_30.1.08.doc ( 93K ) Number of downloads: 0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brendon
post Jan 31 2008, 10:05 AM
Post #5


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-January 08
Member No.: 1,758



QUOTE (Shane @ Jan 31 2008, 09:38 AM) *
Brendon, you have been very selective in your analysis of Hansens findings and to merely select paragraphs of same that support your view shows a great deal of bias.

It would be much better if people could read the full findings and the reasons behind certain decisions. Like me, they will probably see this whole appeal was merely a whitewash, however the conspiracy of the whitewash can be clearly seen to involve ALL parties....Indian and Australian.

Clarke and Hayden were in fact not called liars, but their very selective memories of who said what clearly painted the picture of avoiding dobbing in Andy Symonds, something Hansen would have immeidately recognised as would any other individual with an open mind.

Personally, I still believe the allegations as made by Ponting and the boys, but can also see how Hnasen was hamstrung in presenting a finding on the matter based on ALL the facts which officials basically chose to bury on the basis of good relations and the threat of India abandoning their tour.

I have the full official findings of Hansen, so best we post a copy of it and allow people to make up their own mind. I'll post a link to it somewhere shortly.


How do you know that Hayden and Clarke were using "selective memory"? Where is your proof? You say it as if it were fact.

Hansen doesn't come out and call them liars. But their evidence is unequivical. I have read Hansens finding. It is basic. Either he believes them, or not. You can't have it both ways. The only evidence presented in theirs.

Clarke and Hayden had no reason to cover for Symonds as Symonds freely admitted he started the exchange and freely admits he got stuck into Harbhajan. So your claim about them having motive to have selective memories makes no sense. Neither player claims to have been standing in on the conversation. Both players state they were walking across to their positions and not listening in. It is perfectly reasonable to assume Harbhajan raised his voice to abuse Symonds. It is also perfectly reasonable to assume both players weren't so close when Symonds started off on the exchange. That being so, their evidence makes perfect sense.

This post has been edited by Brendon: Jan 31 2008, 10:27 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brendon
post Jan 31 2008, 10:25 AM
Post #6


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-January 08
Member No.: 1,758



QUOTE (Andrew Beacom @ Jan 31 2008, 09:12 AM) *
The stuff I have read has him singling out Pup as someone who changed his story. Sachin changed his story but he is apparently more believable. He has now set a precedent where anyone charged can get out of it on appeal if there isn't legal proof of what they did. It also hangs the match referee out to dry as well.


Yes, excactly.

QUOTE
HANSEN: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”

To me Hansen is saying Clarke is changing his story.

Hansen is saying that Clarke testified he heard Harbhajan say something that sounded like "big monkey" to Procter.

Hansen says Clarke is now changing his story so that Harbhajan definitely said "big monkey", and the "something" was Clarke referring to OTHER words he could not hear.

I would like to read Procter's transcripts and Clarke's reply to this accusation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brendon
post Jan 31 2008, 10:34 AM
Post #7


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-January 08
Member No.: 1,758



QUOTE (Shane @ Jan 31 2008, 09:38 AM) *
Brendon, you have been very selective in your analysis of Hansens findings and to merely select paragraphs of same that support your view shows a great deal of bias.


Show me where I take Hansen's findings out of context. That is the essence of being "selective".

You can see my bias against Hansen in the last part of my opening post when I state how convenient it was for him to not have relevant information when passing his judgement. I was very disappointed in his findings. It was so biased against the Australian side, I did not feel guilty to give him the same sort of serve he dished out and the same absence of benefit of the doubt. I have no idea whether Hansen found it "convenient" not to have in front of him all Harbhajan's prior offences. I was just giving him the same treament he gave the Australians.

But I think I represented his argument in not accepting Clarke Hayden's evidence fairly well. Then I put my view.

I have not read Hayden and Clarke's testimony in full, but have merely read Hansen's opinion of it, and I'm not sure whether it is Hansen who is the one taking things out of context and being selective.

This post has been edited by Brendon: Jan 31 2008, 12:07 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brendon
post Jan 31 2008, 12:21 PM
Post #8


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-January 08
Member No.: 1,758



It would have been nice to see the transcripts of Clarke and Hayden to see what they said, and not the selective quotes of what they said that Hansen dishes out.

On the few occasions that fuller testimony is revealed it shows Hansen being led by the nose by the Indian side and twisting Symonds testimony. For instance:


QUOTE
[13] However Mr Symonds took objection to this and at the end of the 116th over he approached Mr Singh telling him he had no friends among the Australians in foul and abusive language. Mr Singh became angry and responded in kind. It was accepted by Mr Symonds that some of Mr Singh's response was in his native language

"MR MANOHAR: I put it to you that apart from the other Indian abuses he said to you the words "teri maki"?

MY SYMONDS: Possibly, I don't recall, I don't speak that language.

MR MANOHAR: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: But you accept that as a possibility, My Symonds?

MR SYMONDS: As a possibility I accept that, yes."


Here we have Hansen trying to fudge the issue. He is joining in on the Indian side. Symonds isn't interested in what Harbhsjan may or may not have said in his own native tongue. But Hansen presents it almost as if Symonds might be confused as he tries to fit "teri maki" into the evidence..


Symonds never agrees that "teri maki" may have been what Harbhajan said and not "monkey", but that is how it is presented. If not, then why the bleed'n hell is it included in his findings. And neither Manohar or Hansen seem toi keen to directly confront him with this question: "Could you have mistaken "teri maki" for "monkey", Mr Symonds?"

They dare not ask that question. Because they know Symonds is adamant on what Harbhajan called him. And I would bet they don't believe the Indian alibi either.

This post has been edited by Brendon: Jan 31 2008, 01:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brendon
post Jan 31 2008, 12:28 PM
Post #9


Newbie


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 15-January 08
Member No.: 1,758



Shane,

find in the report where Hansen states that either Tendulkar or Harbhajan uses the term "teri maki" in evidence first given to Procter. If not, how can you say Hansen is being fair and unbiased by trying to shoehorn this term into evidence into this hearing. And how can he then attack Hayden and Clarke's evidence as being selective then have the nerve to say Tendulkar's evidence was any better?

They came up with this lame alibi a full week after Procter's hearing. After they realized nothing else would fly. Given that Hansen is not stupid, what else may he be?

This post has been edited by Brendon: Jan 31 2008, 01:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shane
post Jan 31 2008, 03:42 PM
Post #10


Site Administrator
Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,109
Joined: 28-March 04
From: Australia
Member No.: 1



Mate....give a bloke a chance to answer one post before launching into a bombardment of follow ons.

Just read Hansens report and you will clearly form the opinion that Clarke and Hayden were obviously not alluding to all the facts regarding Symonds or worse they heard nothing of any real substance.

Like I said, this was a whitewash and a brokered deal. However, on the evidence before him, Hansen could reach no other conclusion based on the known facts.

Clarke couldn't repeat what was said between the parties, only bits thereof, same goes for Hayden. A good witness would be able to repeat exactly what was said apart from any foreign lingoe bits that is. Neither could say exactly what Harbhajan called Symonds, even Symonds admits he was possibly mistaken with what was said. Maybe all these guys were coached into having very selective memories and holding off on the most damning evidence. IF they were, then they are the idiots even if it was under instruction from higher authority.

I think we can all safely bet Harbhajan did say what it was alleged he is supposed to have said based on his body language at the time and his remark about Symo starting it, but without one solid witness who could repeat the exact words stated, the benefit of the doubt must go to the Indian. There simply was not enough evidence either way.

Hansen got it right based on the facts before him and I would have reached the same conclusions, just as any reasonable person would.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th March 2017 - 11:36 PM