Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seamer Not neccesarily. What it does prove is the Umpires decision no longer means anything and lawyers now rule the roost. |
Or it proves that if you want to go and accuse someone you better have a damn good evidence rather than work on your hunch. Just because you don a white coat, you shouldn't have to leave your common sense at the door.
You also make it sound like the presence of lawyers were the deciding factor without giving much credit to Ranjan's intelligence. Maybe this line from his
findings is worth reading:
Quote:
Having regard to the seriousness of the allegation of ball-tampering (it is an allegation of cheating), I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that there is sufficiently cogent evidence that the fielding team had taken action likely to interfere with the condition of the ball.
In my judgment, the marks are as consistent with normal wear and tear of a match ball after 56 overs as they are with deliberate human intervention.
|
Having played a little cricket himself, he should know a thing or two about the normal wear and tear.
Quote:
|
While Inzimam got off due to insufficient evidence, there is also insufficient evidence to prove that Doctrove and Hair are liars.
|
Wow, but it would have been ok for Inzi and his whole team to be labelled cheats without sufficient evidence?
Quote:
|
Exit, the noble umpire. Enter the scum sucking lawyer.
|
You make it sound like this is the first time that lawyers have been allowed. And hopefully, before calling the lawyers names, you'll spare a second in remembering all those wrongfully accused who were rescued by these lawyers.
And finally since Pakistan is not going to
appeal the ban for the forfeiture, they have shown to the world that their postion has always been against the label of cheats and not against the forfeiture. Hopefully, those who have been harping about how bringing the game to disrepute is the much bigger issue can now rest for a while
