That might have been universally true during Jefferson's time, but I doubt if in this day and age an organisation can simply browbeat an individual because they are "the majority". If this cae has to be decided in a court of law, they are supposed to be looking at the evidence before making a decision, not at relative numbers on either side.

And before you start getting hot and bothered again Zainub, I am not a Hair (or ICC, for that matter) supporter or otherwise. I am just amused that the ICC managed to shoot themselves in both feet and get themselves in this position. Irrspective of the outcome of this case, the ICC is bound to lose what little credibility it has left.

How does that work then?

Asia: Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
Rest of the world: Australia, England, New Zealand, South Africa, West Indies

__________________
Money won't buy you friends. But it gets you a better class of enemy.
Spike Milligan

Maths not a strong point for you then Zainub?

Unfortunately, I doubt that Pakistan could file a defamation case against him, because as I recall, Shahid Afridi was actually caught (and admitted to) cheating by deliberately scuffing up the pitch during a drinks break against England. Obviously, tarring the whole Pakistan team on this basis would be massively unfair, but Koertsen could quite easily claim that it is a fact that members of the Pakistan cricket team have been caught cheating!

Also, as you pointed out, there is only Hair's word that Koertsen said that. Frankly, I find it bizarre in the extreme that Hair decided to mention this as it seems to have very little to do with the case at hand.

EDIT: And to give the opposite view to the slightly patronising one regarding Zainub's maths; South Africa, Zimbabwe and the West Indies have a decent recent record of siding with the 'Asian Bloc', giving them a 7 vs 3 majority.

I agree and quite frankly I dont blame them. I have pointed out before that Hair has got far too many decisions wrong when it comes to the "7 member Asian block". This could be 2 reasons. He is biased (possible but unlikely) or he is just a pathetic umpire( I think that this is fact now). I also find it amazing that the English and the Australians still believe that Hair is a good umpire. Perhaps this is because they have always benefited from his poor decisions.

I also belive that the sub-continental teams claim that Hair is a "racist" is false. SA, Zim and WI have arguably suffered as much at the hands of Hair.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

You'll be saying next that Kortzen is a good umpire.

You obviosuly missed my

But that IS the case Hair is puting forward.

Like it or lump it, Hair is saying that Doctrove, in his opinion, is equally culpable as him and has not been treated like him because he is not white.

Hence, the case for racial discrimination.

If the ICC members had voted to do the same to Doctrove as they did to Hair, then this case would have zero merit and would never be brought.

How they school him is another issue entirely.

Once again missing the point completely. Please show me where I have said that Koertzen is a good umpire. On this forum I said that Koertzen is a poor umpire. I can also show you numerous posts of English and Australian posters claiming that Hair is a good umpire. That is all I pointed out. Keep doing your selective reading mate.

__________________
434, world record for the shortest period. Whos choking now?

Which is why i support Hair,whether he is a good umpire or not is irrelevant now,the fact is he has been unfairly singled out while Doctrove has had nothing happen to him and that is wrong.

For some reason certain people seem to think that because Hair is a poor umpire he deserves it well forgive me for having a fair sense of justice.You would think people from certain countries would know all about prejudice but apparently not.

As one of the moderating team has noted, this thread "was always going to develop into a heated corner of the board". We have no wish to take a heavy handed approach but do ask, in return, that contributers take particular care in making contributions - and most particularly that members are scrupulously polite and avoid personal comments about other contributers.