BREAKING NEWS : Hair wrote to ICC offering to resign

[FRAZ]

and your so pathatic Fraz...

Its alright Kweek . The thing is "Don't get angry" . Its not your mistake perhaps , its what there is in some minds. I don't really blame you for what you are saying but thats what some people are thinking . But still , Its not a good statement and you are labeling people over here .
What if some body meets a murderer from Holland and then makes up his mind that all the people from Holland are murderers and convicts . I know you won't feel good and same in this case and many Pakistani members won't feel good about your statement .
Stay happy and friendly and think before saying some thing .This is what ***cine type of people are also saying but their way of doing it is acceptable because they are hiding the filth beautifuly and wraping up with their own ideologies and saying that Hair is not the guilty party even after 500,000 $ thing ..

 

[Steulen]

I think so. An employee has a case for claiming Constructive Dismissal (Wiki) where the employer has made his position unworkable.

Here in the Netherlands, e-mail is protected by the same laws that make it a criminal offence to read letters meant for somebody else. Publishing private communications without prior consent from other parties is also punishable by law. So Hair has a very strong case legally, if these laws exist in the UK as well (and I believe they do).

 

[Fusion]

garg;

Sorry Fusion not ment in a racist way, but my feeling about this is that, people from pakistan will always root for there team, and will only look from there point of perspective and not from another one which might doesn't make pakistan looking good...I agree that Hair done some awefull stupid things, but if you read that article thousends of village umpires do the same...
sorry again, not ment that way.

Kweek, I appreciate your apology and thank you for being big enough to make it. I would like to say however that it's not necessary that one would blindly support their country or people, no matter what the issue. I know that I don't. I consider each issue by its own merit. Even in this case, many prominent Pakistani like Imran, Wasim, and Javed have disagreed with Inzi and the PCB. Lastly, the article I linked in my original post that you responded to was by Boycott, who is obviously a nuetral party. Anyways, no hard feelings. Cheers!

 

[Fusion]

Here in the Netherlands, e-mail is protected by the same laws that make it a criminal offence to read letters meant for somebody else. Publishing private communications without prior consent from other parties is also punishable by law. So Hair has a very strong case legally, if these laws exist in the UK as well (and I believe they do).

This is a different scenario though. It's not just a private conversation between two parties. In this case, the conversation was directly related to an issue under investigation. The ICC, who is supposed to be nuetral and is judging the matter, has to disclose the contents in order to be fair and transparent. They didn't break the law, in fact they were obligated under the law to release this e-mail.

 

[Sanz]

This is a different scenario though. It's not just a private conversation between two parties. In this case, the conversation was directly related to an issue under investigation. The ICC, who is supposed to be nuetral and is judging the matter, has to disclose the contents in order to be fair and transparent. They didn't break the law, in fact they were obligated under the law to release this e-mail.

Egg-jhaqtly (As javed would say )

 

[Fusion]

Egg-jhaqtly (As javed would say )

 

[JASON]

Latest from Cricinfo - " Hair hits back at ICC "

The issue seems to have evolved some what from Pakistan V Hair to ICC v Hair .

An umpire's tale

Hair hits back at the ICC

Cricinfo staff

August 27, 2006



Darrell Hair, the Australian umpire at the centre of the ongoing ball-tampering controversy, has claimed that his offer to resign if offered US$500,000 was made at the behest of the ICC. In a statement issued through his lawyers last night, Hair stated that he was invited to put his offer in writing by Doug Cowie, the ICC's umpires manager.

Hair said that his offer "was not a spur of the moment thing" and that he had a dialogue with the ICC. This immediately shifted the focus to Cowie, who first responded to the infamous Hair email last Tuesday by suggesting that his resignation offer "may have merit".

But Hair has now claimed that Speed made only a partial disclosure of exchanges three days later. Hair's lawyer also said that his latest statement was designed to "address certain misconceptions that appear to have arisen as a consequence of the release of certain confidential correspondence between Mr Hair and ICC".

"I was encouraged to make the offer that was disclosed by ICC on August 25. During an extended conversation on August 21 with Mr Cowie I was invited to make a written offer. The figure in the e-mail correspondence was in line with those canvassed with the ICC. I would have thought that it was quite apparent from the text of correspondence that I had been in discussions with ICC about the issue. The opening words of my e-mail to Mr Cowie confirm this: 'Just (to) firm up what we discussed earlier this evening ... '"

The ICC quickly rebutted the claim. A spokesman said: "There were many informal discussions between Mr Hair and Mr Cowie between the end of the Oval Test and Mr Hair's first e-mail on Tuesday, including a discussion on the potential impact on his career. Mr Cowie's role was to support and counsel Mr Hair, as his manager, at a difficult time. It is our understanding that at no stage during their conversations was there discussion of a pay-off, nor secrecy, nor deadlines, nor misleading the public over reasons for retirement -- all of which was subsequently laid out in Mr Hair's email."

Speed said he wanted Hair to continue as an international umpire but wasn't sure whether it would be possible after all this. He went on to back Cowie as well. "If he could play it again, Doug would play it differently," Speed said. "When the email came to me, I saw that not for one second could we contemplate it."

Hair's next international appointment is the Champions Trophy in India in October but it remains to be seen if he retains his job until then.

 

[Steulen]

I would have thought that it was quite apparent from the text of correspondence that I had been in discussions with ICC about the issue. The opening words of my e-mail to Mr Cowie confirm this: 'Just (to) firm up what we discussed earlier this evening ... '"

Yes, and the first line is: just to firm up what we discussed earlier this evening. To me, that indicates they had more or less agreed what strategy to take (Hair resigns, ICC makes sure he's not scrutinised to death as to why, and he gets a bag of money). They probably didn't count on him asking for 500k, and they decided to change their tack. To drag out the old saying: it's just not cricket

 

[honestbharani]

I don't think what Hair did is shameful at all. If anything it was a semi-honourable way out. He is looking for a solution for all involved and getting a payout under the table would work out well for everyone, mostly the game of cricket.

His only mistake was leaving evidence that looks like extortion. Making an offer like this, not in person is idiotic. I was and still am critical of Hairs initial actions in this whole mess but in the latest twist in this saga I think he did the right thing in offering the ICC a solution to this problem.

To be honest, I do agree with that to an extent. My guess on how the whole thing must have happened is that first, Hair sees some changes to the ball and decides to slap the punishment then and there, with very little dialogue or verification. Inzy stays on the field and goes in during tea time where the issue is discussed and they decide to protest. But then after a while they realize they will lose the game if they don't come out and decide to come out and play. But by that time, Hair (given his egoistical nature) decides that he will award the game to England, even if England themselves were ready to play. The ICC initially side with Hair and back their employee (as is the case). Then, a little further on in time, they realize that there isn't too much 'real' evidence to conclude that Pakistan have tampered with the ball and hence negotiations begin (not sure who started it till now, but probably it was Hair who started it all and Cowie was responding to it). Speed says that all this was between Hair and Cowie and that no one else from the ICC was aware of all this. As difficult it is to believe the man, let us believe him in this case to see how it fits in. So Hair discusses going out on his own with Cowie and then consults his lawyers and demands a fat payment (all this about how he could have earned this money if he was an umpire is not exactly relevant, because he himself in an interview only a few months back had said that he probably won't be umpiring after the WC). Then it gets fwded to Speed and they are taken aback by the demand of a big sum. So they discuss it with lawyers and it obviously won't help to keep this a secret (the ICC is just a council of the various international boards and if the PCB raised this matter and said they wanted to look at these communications, I don't think ICC would have had much choice than give to the PCB and then look bad in this issue). So they take their lawyers' advice and show it to the PCB lawyers and then they decide to make it public because otherwise it might be 'leaked'.


That is how I think the things should have played out. But nothing changes the fact that Hair doesn't really deserve to be on the panel because of his attitude and also the fact that PCB deserve some sort of punishment (and not Inzy, AFAIC) for the way they handled this situation.

 

[honestbharani]

And Speed has said that all that were mails between Cowie and Hair and it wasn't brought into the ICC's notice till that last mail that was released. I wonder what Cowie is gonna say, his statement becomes important here.


And even now we don't know who started the negotiations for this deal. Could still be Hair, you know.

 

[Slow Love™]

Well, it's obvious that the ICC have decided to hung Hair out to dry - he of course gave them the perfect opportunity with his letter.

Tony Cozier basically agrees that the ICC have their part to play in this incident, and advocates that ball tampering allegations ought to be forwarded to match referees at the end of the day, like chucking allegations. I believe it's a sensible way to do things, and furthermore, when Pakistan have received these reports where players's actions have been criticized and required to be worked on, they have largely complied without question.

He does put a new interesting angle on the situation with the following excerpt, though (and EVERYBODY SHOULD READ THIS):

http://www.nationnews.com/story/324825232347671.php

"BILLY DOCTROVE, Darrel Hair's almost anonymous fellow umpire in ball tampering that has thrown international cricket into such chaos, is no stranger to the infringement.

The 51-year-old Dominican was also previously involved in the only two matches in West Indies cricket in which teams have been penalised for the offence.

Barbados was the team on each occasion on neither of which a guilty player was identified.

In a controversial decision, taken by the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) almost a year after Doctrove and fellow umpire Rawle Greenidge changed the ball and filed their report from the match in the 1995 Under-19 Championships in Grenada, the eight points Barbados gained for first innings lead over Guyana were deducted.

It cost them a share of the championship in which they had finished level with Guyana and Jamaica.

In the 2004 Carib Cup at Kensington Oval, Doctrove and umpire Vincent Bullen of Barbados deemed the state of the ball had been altered and added five penalty runs to the Guyana second innings total. Barbados still won the match by ten wickets.

Bullen said on the CBC TV programme, Line And Length, last Wednesday that the decision, like that in the Oval Test, had been based on circumstantial evidence."

On this basis, it looks like Pakistan drew the short straw, having both Hair AND Doctrove officiate this match. It would seem from this that the result of the coming inquest will hinge on whether the ball shows enough evidence to imply tampering. The lack of video evidence will likely be irrelevant. I would still say however, that the ICC should look at the current process, which IMO is flawed and lends itself to such an incident.

 

[honestbharani]

Well, it's obvious that the ICC have decided to hung Hair out to dry - he of course gave them the perfect opportunity with his letter.

Tony Cozier basically agrees that the ICC have their part to play in this incident, and advocates that ball tampering allegations ought to be forwarded to match referees at the end of the day, like chucking allegations. I believe it's a sensible way to do things, and furthermore, when Pakistan have received these reports where players's actions have been criticized and required to be worked on, they have largely complied without question.

He does put a new interesting angle on the situation with the following excerpt, though (and EVERYBODY SHOULD READ THIS):

http://www.nationnews.com/story/324825232347671.php

"BILLY DOCTROVE, Darrel Hair's almost anonymous fellow umpire in ball tampering that has thrown international cricket into such chaos, is no stranger to the infringement.

The 51-year-old Dominican was also previously involved in the only two matches in West Indies cricket in which teams have been penalised for the offence.

Barbados was the team on each occasion on neither of which a guilty player was identified.

In a controversial decision, taken by the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) almost a year after Doctrove and fellow umpire Rawle Greenidge changed the ball and filed their report from the match in the 1995 Under-19 Championships in Grenada, the eight points Barbados gained for first innings lead over Guyana were deducted.

It cost them a share of the championship in which they had finished level with Guyana and Jamaica.

In the 2004 Carib Cup at Kensington Oval, Doctrove and umpire Vincent Bullen of Barbados deemed the state of the ball had been altered and added five penalty runs to the Guyana second innings total. Barbados still won the match by ten wickets.

Bullen said on the CBC TV programme, Line And Length, last Wednesday that the decision, like that in the Oval Test, had been based on circumstantial evidence."

On this basis, it looks like Pakistan drew the short straw, having both Hair AND Doctrove officiate this match. It would seem from this that the result of the coming inquest will hinge on whether the ball shows enough evidence to imply tampering. The lack of video evidence will likely be irrelevant. I would still say however, that the ICC should look at the current process, which IMO is flawed and lends itself to such an incident.

That I agree with completely. I have been advocating that for a long time now. Unless you are caught on camera, you cannot just slap a penalty on such issues based on circumstantial evidences at best. Esp. when it is a sensitive issue for one of the teams involved, in this case, Pakistan.

 

[Slow Love™]

And Speed has said that all that were mails between Cowie and Hair and it wasn't brought into the ICC's notice till that last mail that was released. I wonder what Cowie is gonna say, his statement becomes important here.

And even now we don't know who started the negotiations for this deal. Could still be Hair, you know.

It's actually feasible that Hair was set up, you know. Not saying it definitely happened, but it's far from beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[Slow Love™]

That I agree with completely. I have been advocating that for a long time now. Unless you are caught on camera, you cannot just slap a penalty on such issues based on circumstantial evidences at best. Esp. when it is a sensitive issue for one of the teams involved, in this case, Pakistan.

Did you make absolutely nothing from the content involving Doctrove in the report, though, HB?

 

[honestbharani]

Did you make absolutely nothing from the content involving Doctrove in the report, though, HB?

my point is that Hair is the senior guy and even if Doctrove had not agreed with him, I don't think it would have made a diff. If Hair thought there was no tampering, I think Doctrove would have went with him on that too. It is tough to see a junior disagreeing with a senior, esp. with someone like Hair. If Doctrove thought there was tampering, then there is a little bit more to back up Hair's judgement but even that is not too much, given that Doctrove's word can't be the final thing either. Hair was the one who went to talk to Inzy after they refused to come out and Hair was the one who decided to not let the game restart even both teams (and the ICC) wanted to. I am sorry, but I think it is obvious that Hair is more to blame here than Doctrove as far as the umpires part in this issue is concerned.

 

[honestbharani]

It's actually feasible that Hair was set up, you know. Not saying it definitely happened, but it's far from beyond the realms of possibility.

sure. equally possible that Hair instigated it. Could be either thing. But Hair was stupid if he thought that he could actually get away with such stuff. Even if he was asked to make the offer by Cowie, he should have thought a while before doing this. As I said, the ICC is a panel of member countries and even if one country wants, it beehoves upon the ICC to show all their correspondence and stuff.

 

[Rob T]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UqWYSXz7Yfw

Inzi talking to media

 

[Rob T]

Holding's take on the issue

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

West Indian great defends Pakistan over ball tampering charge

NEW DELHI (AFP) - Legendary West Indian fast bowler Michael Holding wants Pakistan absolved of ball tampering charges, saying "first world hypocrisy" was to blame for cricket's present crisis.

"I have absolute and all sympathy with (Pakistan captain) Inzamam-ul Haq. If you label someone a cheat, please arrive with the evidence," Holding wrote in the latest issue of the respected 'India Today' weekly magazine.

Inzamam stands accused of bringing the game into disrepute after his team refused to take the field in the recent Oval Test match against England in protest at umpires Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove reporting them for ball tampering.

The umpires later awarded the match to England, the first instance in the 129-year history of Test cricket that a game was forfeited, triggering the biggest upheaval in the sport since the match-fixing row in 2000.

Holding, now a popular and respected television pundit, wrote it was "insensitive" of the umpires, Hair in particular, to penalise Pakistan for ball tampering.

"Most other umpires would have said something to the captain, given the offending team a warning of some kind. Then if the tampering continued, they would have been totally justified in taking action," Holding wrote.

"There is a double standard at work in cricket and this episode has only highlighted it.

"When England used reverse swing to beat the Australians in the 2005 Ashes, everyone said it was great skill. When Pakistan does it, the opposite happens, no one thinks it is great skill. Everyone associates it with skullduggery.

"When bombs go off in Karachi and Colombo everyone wants to go home. When bombs go off in London, no one says anything.

"That is first world hypocrisy and we have to live with it."

Holding said he was astonished that both teams and match referee Mike Procter were willing to resume play on the final day, but the umpires cited rules and insisted the game was already over.

"Being the senior umpire, Hair was probably leading the way in that decision," wrote Holding.

"Today, Hair is being defended in Australia but that is just a matter of friends sticking together, the Aussies defending an Australian umpire.

"Everyone now citing the cricketing law as the absolute and final truth is talking absolute rubbish. Every law has room for flexibility.

"I read a prime example recently in the British press. It said that by law, you can be fined for parking within the yellow lines in England. If you do that to run into a chemist to buy emergency medicines, a sensible policeman would more than likely tell you about the law but it's unlikely a ticket would be forthcoming."

The International Cricket Council's powerful Executive Board, comprising the heads of all 10 Test-playing nations, is due to meet in Dubai on Saturday to discuss the crisis

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/28082006/3/west-indian-great-defends-pakistan-ball-tampering-charge.html

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Darrell Hair could just say that he saw it with his own eyes and it's not his fault if the multitude of cameras didn't see it. I don't think he is obliged to check with the TV stations and pressmen before making a decision.
He may yet surprise everyone and provide some real evidence.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

"I read a prime example recently in the British press. It said that by law, you can be fined for parking within the yellow lines in England. If you do that to run into a chemist to buy emergency medicines, a sensible policeman would more than likely tell you about the law but it's unlikely a ticket would be forthcoming."

Yeah right!