Yes, both of them should have been sacked. ICC's fault to this extent.

Edited by GreenCap - 04 October 2007 at 6:09am

Yes he sticked to the rules by blaming the side with ball-tempering without having any proof. Just ironic.

Then he again sticked to the rules by asking ICC to pay him  millions so that they can get rid of him.

Yes, he's a man of principals and rules.

 

Edited by GreenCap - 04 October 2007 at 6:21am

 He had a conversation with Speed (that means both people were talking) , and Speed told him that the ICC wanted him out.  He said he'd go for 250,000 pounds - much like anyone seeking compensation when being asked to leave.
     There is nothing corrupt in that - what was sickening was Speed releasing a confidential email to the entire world concerning that meeting.  That shows the calibre of the ICC man - I've scraped material off the sole of my shoe with more integrity than that creature.

Yes bit hard to argue the indefencable isn't it.

 If he wins , he'll be vindicated , simple as that.

Let's see. I am smelling some foul matter surfacing during the course!

Hair needs to prove a difficult point. He has to show that ICC discrimiinates racially. So he has to prove that all fair skinned umpires were treated differently. Tough task I think! But he may salvage his pride on unfair dismissal (I am not sure wheter he is expelled from the elite panel or whether he is only getting 1st class matches to be officiated)

quite clearly nothing is beneath that particular organisation

And worse still we'll end up with the usual blinkered few who say much yet understand little blabbering on about how justice was served!

Now he (Hair) claims that Rudi Koertzen has called Pakistanis as cheats. This is turning ugly. Better to get rid of this contreversial charachter once and for all even if it costs ICC dearly.

  If Koetzen didn't say what Hair said he said , then why is Koertzen so quiet ?

I read a couple of excellent articles today on this trial, after Hair's crew had a far better day on Friday.

Michael Atherton summed up a lot of our feelings;

But on Friday it was the turn of three of the ICC directors – Sir John Anderson (New Zealand), Inderjit Singh Bindra (India) and Ray Mali (then the South African director, now the president) – to face cross-examination by Hair's lawyer, Robert Griffiths QC. ........... One by one these well-meaning, certainly not racist but undoubtedly bumbling and, on this evidence, incompetent administrators shuffled to the front of the room, raised their right hands and promised to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Malcolm Speed alone came out of it a little better on the basis that his recommendations as to how best deal with Hair (keep him on the panel but don't give him much to do) had been ignored by these three.

And how about this for another revelation in The Times;

Shaun Pollock, of South Africa, inset, was fined his match fee after a one-dayer against Pakistan for asking Hair to ‘keep an eye on Shoaib Malik scratching the ball’. Officially, Pollock’s punishment was described as ‘dissent when an appeal was turned down’. Malik is now Pakistan captain

Atherton's view - probably accurate - is that Hair has perhaps erred in pursuing his claim on racial grounds instead of constructive dismissal.

Originally posted by Clobber And worse still we'll end up with the usual blinkered few who say much yet understand little blabbering on about how justice was served!

Well.....Bondy can have a say at it.

Edited by GreenCap - 08 October 2007 at 8:58am

 Clobber has done that - go to the Telegraph and read Atherton's article.