Here is my conspiracy theory

Bhajj said the monkey word despite symonds warning him back in IND that its an unwelcomed word. Dont think sachin or anyone else heard it (except a few who said they heard it). The outcome does not surprise anyone given the clout india has in generating revenue for ICC.

How come just the part where in bhajj taunts symonds goes missing in mic transcript ? Its there but it has been not brought into the limelight. Proctor should have taken a grasp of mic transcripts on first place itself. Now that proctor's reputation is at stake, why cant proctor fight against ICC...he will not given the success darrell hair had in the past against ICC

Now coming to the racism issue...on how many occasions cases involving reverse race taunts(non white taunting a white) got their due justs ? very few...makes me feel symonds in this case has become synonynmous with white and bhajj with brown and case like..take it in ur stride white guy...Had the outcome been any different if Symonds was black ?...m sure it wud have been different.atleast Cricket australia would not have surrendered to the indian black mail....as it may have other spinoff affects

The reason i say indian black mail is..how can a board take a stand with just bhajj's words ? Did BCCI ever stand in favor of Azhar during match fixing issues ? what if bhajj lied ?what if it gets proved bhajj said it...Doesnt BCCI's reputation take a beating. BCCI decided in first place...no matter bhajj said it or not..we will make this a big issue and we will ensure bhajj is not guily

I may be entirely wrong...but...i have a feeling...bhajj said it...indian board cannot officially say that Come on monkey is not a racial slur and hence this drama and thus followed the blackmail

uttering a word monkey is not considered racist in india..nor is it considered castiesm( twin brother of racism in india).Anyone based upon their actions or look ( yes..look) can get called a monkey regardless of their birth background

__________________
Tendulkar - A gift to the game of cricket

It is there but it is inaudible is what they claim, i mean they are stump mic's meants for sounds near the stumps not in the middle of the pitch. but the words after that were probably said close to the stumps when they came to the crease... which were audible.

Now for people like u... who rn't aware of facts( i'm not trying to make a personal attack on a fellow indian supporter)...for the last time Symonds IS of west indian origin born in england but grew up in australia with parents who adopted him...so yes he is black and still bhajji escaped!!! and the whole issue was made racist coz of symonds black origin and apparently non-whites in aussie land are insulted as monkey...so it was a racist taunt.
i do agree that the BCCI did a cover up job and cricket australia would have huge losses had the series been called off. but harbhajan accepted to have said an insulting word(possibly in hindi or punjabi) but not monkey and due to his good conduct since 1998 was let off with a fine. there isn't concluding evidence anyway, so the BCCI shouldn't have influenced australian board to come to a compromise on this issue since he was gonna be let off anyway due to lack of evidence.

The azhar case and bhajji case r entirely different scenario's as there was pretty much conclusive evidence for match-fixing. here its one man's word against another...if symonds can be backed by cricket australia, why cant bhajji be backed by BCCI? specially if the player says i've not said it. whether bhajji said it or not is a totally different issue. i think BCCI has taken the right stand on this issue, given the evidence. the stump mic's have not picked up what bhajji said, even if the word monkey was said, BCCI would ask for forensic evidence for the fear of them being doctored or edited improperly as the tapes were submitted weeks after the incident,wonder why channel 9 sat with the evidence for so long... but channel 9 couldn't decipher what he said, it was inaudible almost. so there is no conclusive evidence. but BCCI messed up the affair by asking for a compromise and australian board forced its players to reconcile. i think BCCI was more in a hurry to get this matter over with and get on with it as soon as possible and due to the hush-up affair have infact earned the ire of suspicious indians as well as australian players and public.

This explaination itself can be doubted.


I am aware of his background..What i meant was...if Symonds was black by appearance and race...cricket australia would not have taken the same stance.

Again the veracity of he uttering a word in hindi which sounds like monkey can be nothing but an advice given by legal experts to bale out of the situation

Correct. BCCI should not have been like we will boycott the tour if proven guilty. The very fact that BCCI took such a stance makes it seem fishy. Infact the statement that stump mikes do not have enough conclusive evidence itself is a cover up.

__________________
Tendulkar - A gift to the game of cricket

support your player by saying that we stand by his words and we shall provide him with the best legal and moral help necessary to deal with it coz we believ in him. sayin that we shall boycott the tour if bhajj is proven guilty is not a correct stand. It's mismanagement and to put in straighter words,blackmail.

Arranging a charter flight to indian cricketers to go back to india if the decision is unfavorable...man...this is crime court scene drama...

__________________
Tendulkar - A gift to the game of cricket

I doubt it, I mean if ur of black origin it doesn't matter whether u look black or not.To be honest Symonds does have quite a few black characteristics in his appearance, his skin color isn't as fair as a regular white guy. In the same way as u mentioned, I've heard of a really fair indian girl, a friend of mine being racially taunted. do u think she felt this doesn't apply to me as I am really not brown-skinned per se?
could be. but then we just don't know what transpired. sachin also says he is fairly confident he didn't say it. truth be told, for now only bhajji knows if he said or not. even symonds could've mis-interpreted what he said if bhajji chose to scold him in hindi. 'Maa Ki' followed by something couldve been said, which couldve been misinterpreted. for the non-hindi speaking members it means ur mothers......
i guess there r so many sinister cover ups in this whole affair, its hard to say who did what and for what reason. at the end of the day channel 9 and australian board was going to heavy losses. as u said even saying that what harbhajan said was inaudible was a cover up was valid. even channel 9 might have wanted to cover the fact that it actually had the tapes when it said it didn't have the recording, somehow that leaked out.then BCCI got into the act of striking a deal with australian board and possibly with channel 9 too and hushed-up the whole affair before it blew up into a controversy in india yet again. anyways no point talking about issues like this when a judgement has been made..just hope such incidents dont repeat themselves and make the cricketers and playfield look ugly.

exactly what i was trying to say. very foolish stand taken by the BCCI. I can understand if this stand was taken for bucknor to be removed as umpire for perth. but to give this threat before a hearing is illogical, specially when there is no concrete evidence(apparently.. though as u said this couldve been a cover up by channel 9) and he was gonna be acquitted!!!

Now there are calls from the BCCI for Symonds to be punished.

Indians want Symonds punished | The Courier-Mail

As Symonds (no doubt due to CA pressure) dropped the charges, legally that amounts to Symonds admitting the charges were false. And as such, Harbhijan has a perfect right to sue Symonds for defamation. And the ICC has an obligation to punish Symonds for bringing the game into disrepute.

We can no longer say that Harbhijan is a racist, but we can now officially say that Symonds is a liar.

Australians will now have to ask themselves. Do we want a liar such as Symonds representing our national cricket team?

__________________

Why? There's no reason at all why cricket should not be able to administer itself without wasting court time. Every time bodies like the ICC fail to come to their own conclusions and cede authority to an external body, whoever it is, the ICC loses some of its own credibility. As long as there is a robust internal disciplinary procedure backed up by an equally robust appeals procedure - which it appears from this case there is - there should be no need for recourse to the courts unless the ICC itself is a party to the dispute.

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

Not at all. It suggests either that he had insufficient evidence to prove that the charges were true to whatever standard of proof the ICC requires (I don't know whether that is "on the balance of probabilities" or "beyond reasonable doubt", but I guess it's in their regulations somewhere) or that, for whatever reason, he no longer wished to pursue the case or support the ICC in its case. Charges are dropped in and outside courts all over the world for all sorts of reasons: it is far from the case that all such instances involve an admission that the charges were false.

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