I cannot make head or tail of Procter’s statement on Harbhajan ruling.
On one side, it seems he has arrived at the decision going by the evidence proffered. The problem is that all the corroborative evidence comes from the Australian side. That is outwardly logical but how does he negate the motivation. On the other side, he dismisses Tendulkar’s statement saying that he was nowhere near the scene of the ‘crime’.
Apart from this at the end, he says, “Once I had read the verdict to the players, I heard submissions from Chetan Chauhan and Dr.M.V.Sridhar. I gave them some thought five to ten minutes and then I imposed a penalty of a three Test-match ban.”
If we are to take the last statement at face value, it seems that hearing took just a few minutes, but then how does he account for the hearing that went past midnight.
Any conspiracy theories?
No comments:
Post a Comment