No accurate record of the hearing

In the absence of a transcript of the proceedings, the process so far lacks transparency

SYDNEY: An appeal against match referee Mike Proctor’s three-Test ban on Harbhajan Singh for calling Andrew Symonds a “monkey” has, as per International Cricket Council (ICC) provisions, to be heard within nine days.

This means, technically, the matter can be disposed off — one way or another — before the 3rd India-Australia Test, scheduled to start at Perth on 16 January, unless deferred after consultation between authorities concerned, which is not unlikely.

A postponement will enable Harbhajan to be eligible for selection for the remaining two Tests in the current series against Australia.

After such an appeal is lodged by or on behalf of Harbhajan to the ICC (expected to have been submitted by Monday evening), this body is required to appoint a commissioner to consider an appeal within two days; and the application must be heard within another week.

It is incredible, though, that there is no accurate record of the hearing that took place on 6 January night, at the end of which Proctor deemed Harbhajan to be guilty. James Fitzgerald, an official spokesman of the ICC, admitted there is no transcript available.

According to Fitzgerald, Proctor read out his verdict to the players and officials who attended the hearing. A copy of this “judgement”, as he put it, has been sent to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI). This document has not been made public by the ICC, either.

The key question that arises is on what basis Proctor found Harbhajan to be culpable? The umpires, apparently, did not pick up anything, neither did the stump microphones.

Harbhajan was batting when the alleged incident occurred. In other words, he could not have been too far away from the pitch area. There was, therefore, every possibility that one of the mikes would have recorded any exchange that took place between Harbhajan and Symonds, the complainant, even if this wasn’t broadcast.

From all indications so far, this wasn’t the case or there is, thus, no independent corroboration.

Unconfirmed reports indicate Mathew Hayden and Michael Clarke presented evidence in support of Symonds, while Sachin Tendulkar defended Harbhajan.

On the 4th day of the 2nd test, Clarke shamelessly waited for umpire Steve Bucknor to give him out — perhaps taking a chance — even after manifestly cutting a ball to slip.

On the final day, he claimed a catch at 2nd slip against Sourav Ganguly, which, if referred to the 3rd umpire, would probably not have been accepted.

The same Clarke is said to have substantiated Symonds’ charge at the hearing. Is his word more trustworthy than Tendulkar’s? Clarke, Hayden and Symonds are reported to be buddies. Could they have conspired to entrap Harbhajan?

In the absence of a transcript of the hearing — a clumsy oversight on the part of the ICC — the process adopted so far lacks transparency.

Consequently, Proctor’s conclusion lacks credibility, unless he or the ICC can provide details of the procedure undertaken, the evidence received and the reasons for reaching the decision he has.

The last aspect was, hopefully, been addressed in the statement he read out to the concerned parties on Sunday night and has now, presumably, been incorporated in the document sent to the BCCI and the Indian team management.

It is in the ICC’s interests to share this with media, so that the world at large is able to take an informed view of the vexed issue.