I am no racist but Procter is a monkey

Last winter, when the cricket world was in the midst of another umpiring controversy, this blog had defended Mr. Darrell Hair - my stand was that in the process of indicting Hair, the ICC had violated one of the basic principles of modern democracies. The judiciary doesn't work like the legislature - on the principle of majority. A good judge dispassionately listens to witnesses, checks for evidences and motives only before pronouncing his sentence. Yesterday in Sydney, the ICC got it wrong yet again.

Handing out the Indian offie, Harbhajan Singh a 3 test ban for making a racist remark (he allegedly called Andrew Symonds a monkey), the ICC match referee Mike Procter said he was satisfied beyond doubt that the allegations made by the Australian cricketers was correct. And how exactly did he reach at this truth? The stump-mikes offered nothing, the umpires heard no such thing, out of the 4 Australian players who went along with Symonds for the hearing, 2 had heard nothing. Just that Ponting believed in the sincerity of his star all-rounder and decided to support him. Bhajji was supported by Tendulkar, Kumble and Dravid. They denied that their team-mate had made any such remark. So Procter, in the lack of any evidence went for the majority opinion! This team of people whose views was factored in included besides others the much maligned firm of Messers Bucknor and Benson!! Procter also added that he gave special importance to Michael Clarke's words. Now why would you that Mr. Neutral Refereee? Unless you have a thing for cute looking Aussie men or you are a racist yourself, Mr. Procter, I don't quite appreciate your modus operandi. And what was the Queen's Counsel, Nigel Peters doing all the while? He should surely have known a thing or two about the way legal systems work.