And that sums it up, he was singled out there were two umpires, a third umpire and a match referee, and hair cops the lot - I hope he make a million.

He made me chuckle a lot, but he made the game richer IMO - and I think Speedboy is right, I would pay to watch him in County cricket.

__________________
Ern

The phrase "racially aligned" to describe the ICC is an unusual one, but I am beginning to think that there is something in it. The big point in Hair's favour in this situation is that he was blatantly singled out and Doctove left alone in the fiasco. If this becomes a legal issue of Hair vs ICC, not only are the chances that the Aussie will win, the ICC could lose a lot of credibility (assuming, of course, that it had much of that in the first place).

Especially as Doctrove is appearing at the tribunal in support of Hair.

Personally i cant see how the ICC can get out of this. Hair broke no rules and by their own admission was in the top 3 umpires on the Elite list at the time of his "sacking". This infers that he was sacked for reasons other than poor performance.......

__________________
Mark.

Historically, in cases involving a big organisation against the proverbial little man, a lot of sympathy could go to the man especially when the evidence is in his favour. I am sure that Hair has taken good legal advice before filing the lawsuit; if he merely wants money, then he might consider an out of court settlement that is certain to crop up at some stage. If, on the other hand, Hair wants revenge and wants to see it through, then ICC could be facing some real trouble.

I think Hair wants at least a small amount of revenge Nostromo, I already think it's gone too far for an out of court settlement. Hair must feel as if he's got the entire ICC in the palm of his hand, especially now he's got Doctrove on his side. Expect the ICC's coffers to be a little thin on the ground after this.

__________________
Frank Skinner: "You know when Glenn McGrath trod on that cricket ball? Don't you wish it would've been a landmine?"

I am perfectly aware of the context in which the word 'irony' is used, perhaps the 'irony' I used it in the context of hasn't dawned on you yet. And I'm not so sure if anything about Hair can be said with "no doubt" as you imply, if it was that cut and try, he wouldn't have had to sue his employers for "racial" discrimination like he has had to do now and he wouldn't have been almost sacked as he is now (last time I heard he was still on the elite panel but allowed to officiate matches involving non-test playing nations only). And about his book, I don't know when it comes out, but I might decide to read it too, for comic relief if nothing.

After thought: What would be really interesting if the Asian boards/some Asian players decided at this point in time to counter sue (I may be using the wrong terminology here) Hair for racial discrimination. I bet they'll be more then just a handful of players who could come in and record their statements if such a law suit was ever to be filed. Now that, would have been the really interesting thing. Not that this isn't interesting, especially the fact that people here think he has a decent chance of winning. I for one think his claims will be dismissed.

Cricinfo - 'Mudslinger' Hair accused of blackmailing ICC

Oh!!!!



To be a fly on the wall.

Even more so when Doctrove comes around (if he hasn't already) to realising that Hair is saying he (Doctrove) is only continuing to umpire the top nation's games because he's black!!

Zainub, you are being naive in the extreme. If anyone in the "Asian Boards" as you put it, chose to make a monumentally stupid move at this stage like a counter-suit (which I seriously doubt), it will only give a lot of credibility to Hair's claim that the ICC is being institutionally racist, which is what this case is all about in the first place. If anything, it will strenghten his position and a lot of 'neutrals' will then support Hair. There are already quite a few rumblings that the ICC is a tad too pro-Asian and I am not all that certain that this view is entirely unjustified, especially when you read comments on certain other forums which are not as well moderated as this one. Furthermore, all concerned will be aware that such a move will simply create a 'regional' divide in the cricketing world, something which no one wants.

And Ninjaman, Hair will not be as stupid to lose his supporter by putting his case in the way you suggest. His lawyers will school him on exactly how to elicit maximum sympathy with least antagonism.

So Koertzen called the Pakistan team "cheats", this poses several questions/thoughts

a)why should one just assume he'll have said so because Hair said he said so
b)even if he said so that would be his 'opinion'
c)and most importantly how exactly does that prove that the ICC was racially discriminating towards Hair?

I'll go read the report and see if it says anything on the judges yawning during the court's session today, that would probably be the most interesting event of the day, I'd think.

Also, if Koertzen indeed said what he's being quoted/paraphrased as saying, then Pakistan could file a defamation case against him as well, not that I think they should, but stating it as a fact, for it is no small business labeling people "cheats" without sufficient evidence, as Hair, Doctrove and some of their sympathizers have have discovered.

Excuse me! I can do without others calling my opinions "naive". Just like you're entitled to your opinion of the ICC being institutionally racist and that Hair was wronged, I'm entitled to thinking he that he's person with a super inflated ego, a flawed sense of self-righteousness and that he is an Asian-phobist (I'm not sure if I think he's racist per se, but what I said that others in the cricket community in this region may think so and they're of course entitled to their views too, they can't be labeled 'naive' by Hair sympathizers for holding such views).

As for the ICC's structure, I'm sorry you're so miffed that the some of ICC's structure requires decisions being made on the principle of "majority" vote and that you find that offensive ("too pro-Asian" you call it) but that's just how most international organizations work. Ever figured out how the United Nations Security Counsel voting procedure works? Wait a second, isn't that how all real democracy works? As much as it would annoy England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the so-called 'Asian block' does form the majority of the ICC's test members, and that does mean that they'll have more say on matters. But I don't see how that is wrong. Its not perfect, but as the American president Jefferson once said, the only alternative that we have, is decesion of the minority and decesion by individuals, both of which are even more dangerous the decesion of the majority. This is how things the work the world over. Majority's decesion stands. If you don't like their decesion, either get in the majority your self or just learn to put up with it.