20 Apr 2004 04:46:12
Sultan
Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking about
changing the rules retrospectively.

He has clearly profited by breaking the rules. He deserves to be punished.


http://foxsports.news.com.au/story/0,8659,9332814-23212,00.html

Science says Murali chucks
April 20, 2004

MUTTIAH MURALITHARAN's doosra has been found to be illegal under
International Cricket Council laws, but the spinner may be allowed to keep
bowling the controversial delivery.

Match referee Chris Broad reported the Sri Lankan off-spinner for throwing
the doosra - a ball which spins away from the right-handed batsman - during
the recent Test series against Australia.

The Australian understands that tests conducted by biomechanics experts at
the University of Western Australia found Muralitharan straightens his arm
by about 10 degrees while bowling the doosra - twice the legal limit for a
spinner.

However, the Sri Lankan board is believed to have requested a rule change
and has placed political pressure on the ICC by reporting Broad for drinking
with Australian players during the tour.

The ICC - which is seen by the subcontinent cricket nations to represent the
interests of Australia, England and South Africa - is sensitive to
allegations of racism and is understood to be uncomfortable with the
reporting of Muralitharan.

Under the existing ICC rules spin bowlers may straighten their arm by only
five degrees or less, medium pacers 7.5 degrees and fast bowlers 10 degrees.

The Sri Lankan cricket board and the scientists who compiled the report on
Muralitharan believe he and all spinners should be given more leeway.

Chairman of Sri Lankan cricket Mohan de Silva has said he was confident
Muralitharan would be able to continue bowling the doosra.

Geoff Elliott, the biomechanist who conducted the review of the off-spinner
earlier this month and forwarded it to the Sri Lankan authorities, refused
to confirm the findings, but said the rules need changing.

"I don't want to comment on the bending of the arm, but most assuredly the
five degrees (rule) is based on illogical data because they've just tested
fast bowlers and assumed that there is some relationship between fast
bowlers and spin bowlers," Elliott said.

He said that recent studies at the Australian Institute of Sport showed that
up to half of fast bowlers bent their arm more than 10 degrees and the
biomechanists believe the limits should be changed.

"Fifteen degrees is the right angle to select for fast bowlers and you
probably should come down to 10 degrees for spin bowlers," he said.

The experts at the university were astounded by Muralitharan's action during
the recent Tests.

"We were quite shocked that the rotational rate of a spin bowler, in this
case Murali, is the same as a fast bowler," Elliott said.

This has led him and other biomechanical experts to reconsider the way ICC
rules on the legitimacy of deliveries.

The Sri Lankans will argue to the ICC that it is unfair for a fast bowler
like Brett Lee who delivers the ball at up to 160km/h, to be able to bend
his arm more than a spinner.

Elliott also said that he was annoyed by recent criticism from Adam
Gilchrist about the conditions of the test and said reviews showed
Muralitharan was bowling the same under laboratory conditions as he did
during games. The Australian wicket-keeper was invited to observe the tests
but refused after being fined last year for saying Muralitharan throws.

The Sri Lankan's doosra has been under criticism since he unveiled it
against England before Christmas to devastating effect.

It was not so deadly against the Australians, but accounted for nine of his
28 wickets in the series. Most of these were lower-order batsman.

Muralitharan has 513 Test wickets, six behind Courtney Walsh's world record
of 519. Shane Warne has 517 wickets, but does not play another Test until
after the Sri Lankans tour Zimbabwe.

Muralitharan's action in general has been controversial for a decade and the
off-spinner was no-balled by Australian umpire Darrell Hair in 1995 and
reported many times in the following years before the ICC took action in
1999.

That year Elliott tested the Sri Lankan and found he had a congenital
deformity of the elbow which prevented him from fully straightening the arm.

The scientist was sceptical about the doosra before testing, but is again a
supporter of the spinner.

Former captain Arjuna Ranatunga, who once threatened to lead his side off
the ground when Muralitharan was no-balled in Australia, recently insinuated
racism by England and Australia was behind the new report of the bowler.

"I just think with the world record looming some pressure might be coming
from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much earlier than
Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.

Sultan





20 Apr 2004 10:01:30
AJC
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Sultan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]rks.com.au...
>
> "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might be coming
> from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much earlier than
> Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
>
>
>

He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri lankans
thought he chucked then.
Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get called for a
no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get changed) then
the whole thing is a disgrace.
They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10 degrees or more
but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
Muralitharan...




20 Apr 2004 16:03:31
muzza
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking



> Muralitharan...?....sorry never heard of him



20 Apr 2004 16:15:09
witt
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

In article <[email protected] >, AJC
<[email protected] > wrote:

> "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]rks.com.a
> u...
> >
> > "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might be coming
> > from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much earlier than
> > Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
> >
> >
> >
>
> He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri lankans
> thought he chucked then.
> Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get called for a
> no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get changed) then
> the whole thing is a disgrace.
> They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10 degrees or more
> but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
> Muralitharan...
>
>
Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in the
world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its an
illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs to
either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's had no
problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
100%...

Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...


20 Apr 2004 17:18:51
AJC
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"witt" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> >
> Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in the
> world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its an
> illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs to
> either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's had no
> problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
> 100%...
>
> Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...

In fact, all the umpires that have been watching him bowl need to undergo
more training or be disciplined in some way for not calling no balls... if
he's obviously breaking the current laws then he should be called for it.




20 Apr 2004 17:49:57
Glenn Anderson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"witt" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, AJC
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> >
news:[email protected]rks.com.a
> > u...
> > >
> > > "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might be
coming
> > > from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much earlier
than
> > > Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri lankans
> > thought he chucked then.
> > Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get called
for a
> > no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get changed)
then
> > the whole thing is a disgrace.
> > They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10 degrees or
more
> > but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
> > Muralitharan...
> >
> >
> Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in the
> world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its an
> illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs to
> either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's had no
> problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
> 100%...
>
> Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...

It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
delivery..WTF???????????


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 4/15/04




20 Apr 2004 01:51:58
Bob Dubery
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"Sultan" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]rks.com.au>...
> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking about
> changing the rules retrospectively.

Suspending him now would require changing the rules retrospectively.


20 Apr 2004 19:08:16
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"muzza" <muzzzza.at.optushome.com.au > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> > Muralitharan...?....sorry never heard of him


Back to your well, frog...............

Laz








20 Apr 2004 19:15:09
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Glenn Anderson" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> > In article <[email protected]>, AJC
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > >
>
news:[email protected]rks.com.a
> > > u...
> > > >
> > > > "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might be
> coming
> > > > from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much earlier
> than
> > > > Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri lankans
> > > thought he chucked then.
> > > Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get called
> for a
> > > no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get changed)
> then
> > > the whole thing is a disgrace.
> > > They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10 degrees or
> more
> > > but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
> > > Muralitharan...
> > >
> > >
> > Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in the
> > world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its an
> > illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs to
> > either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's had no
> > problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
> > 100%...
> >
> > Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> > correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
>
> It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> delivery..WTF???????????


OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??

MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement during
their bowling action.

Now, do you

a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR

b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and only
keep the ones that pass the test??


Even simpler for you.

There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.

a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on speeding
OR
b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who are
speeding?

Which of the above is the really fair method??

Laz






>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 4/15/04
>
>




20 Apr 2004 21:00:18
AJC
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>
> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement during
> their bowling action.
>

Which article did you read, the bowlers flexing their arms more were fast
bowlers, not spinners. Brett Lee, Akhtar, etc have been tested and in
Akhtars case wasn't he told he had to change his technique? He was out of
cricket for a while if I recall correctly. Should he be forced to sit out
for chucking but Murali gets away with it? What kind of standard is that
setting mmm?


> Now, do you
>
> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
>
> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and only
> keep the ones that pass the test??
>

If the others had suspect action then they would be reported... people have
though Murali has chucked a long LONG time before he ever got near Warne's
record. Maybe it has nothing to do with that and more to do with his doosra,
ever thought of that?

>
> Even simpler for you.
>
> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>
> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on speeding
> OR
> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who are
> speeding?
>

The law is the law, you catch everyone who is PROVEN to be breaking it.




20 Apr 2004 21:15:04
Mad Hamish
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

On 20 Apr 2004 01:51:58 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
wrote:

>"Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]rks.com.au>...
>> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking about
>> changing the rules retrospectively.
>
>Suspending him now would require changing the rules retrospectively.

Really?
As Colin has pointed out
Section E - Member Boards Policy
Each Board shall formulate....Such policy and strategy shall as a
minimum requirement
...
3) Require that in the event of such analysis confirming that the
bowler has an illegal action, he shall not be selected by his Board
for any national representative team until such time as his action has
been remedied.


The test has found that he has bowled illegally, his action has not
been remedied and, according to the cricinfo commentary, he has bowled
doosra against Zimbabwe.

So he's been found to bowl with an illegal action, it hasn't been
remedied...
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
[email protected]


20 Apr 2004 21:33:13
Glenn Anderson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> > > In article <[email protected]>, AJC
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> >
>
news:[email protected]rks.com.a
> > > > u...
> > > > >
> > > > > "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might be
> > coming
> > > > > from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much
earlier
> > than
> > > > > Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri
lankans
> > > > thought he chucked then.
> > > > Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get
called
> > for a
> > > > no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get
changed)
> > then
> > > > the whole thing is a disgrace.
> > > > They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10 degrees
or
> > more
> > > > but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
> > > > Muralitharan...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in the
> > > world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its an
> > > illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs to
> > > either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's had
no
> > > problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
> > > 100%...
> > >
> > > Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> > > correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
> >
> > It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> > delivery..WTF???????????
>
>
> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>
> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement during
> their bowling action.
>
> Now, do you
>
> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
>
> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and only
> keep the ones that pass the test??
>
>
> Even simpler for you.
>
> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>
> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on speeding
> OR
> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who are
> speeding?
>
> Which of the above is the really fair method??
>
> Laz
>

Murali has been proven that one of deliveries is against the rules of the
game. Shouldn't action be taken to remedy this rather than just a slap on
the wrist and saying don't do it again.
Akhtar has had remedial action done on a suspect delivery, why can't
Murali???
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> > Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 4/15/04
> >
> >
>
>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 4/15/04




20 Apr 2004 21:44:38
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Mad Hamish" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On 20 Apr 2004 01:51:58 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >"Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]rks.com.au >...
> >> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking
about
> >> changing the rules retrospectively.
> >
> >Suspending him now would require changing the rules retrospectively.
>
> Really?
> As Colin has pointed out
> Section E - Member Boards Policy
> Each Board shall formulate....Such policy and strategy shall as a
> minimum requirement
> ...
> 3) Require that in the event of such analysis confirming that the
> bowler has an illegal action, he shall not be selected by his Board
> for any national representative team until such time as his action has
> been remedied.
>
>
> The test has found that he has bowled illegally,


Where is the official ICC report dude?? Everything else is utter conjecture
& speculation that YOU normally dislike when it DOESN'T suit your views and
agenda HH.............

Laz




his action has not
> been remedied and, according to the cricinfo commentary, he has bowled
> doosra against Zimbabwe.
>
> So he's been found to bowl with an illegal action, it hasn't been
> remedied...
> --
> "Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
> Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
>
> Mad Hamish
> Hamish Laws
> [email protected]




20 Apr 2004 21:41:56
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"AJC" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "Larry de Silva" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
> >
> > MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement during
> > their bowling action.
> >
>
> Which article did you read, the bowlers flexing their arms more were fast
> bowlers, not spinners. Brett Lee, Akhtar, etc have been tested and in
> Akhtars case wasn't he told he had to change his technique? He was out of
> cricket for a while if I recall correctly. Should he be forced to sit out
> for chucking but Murali gets away with it? What kind of standard is that
> setting mmm?
>
>
> > Now, do you
> >
> > a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
> >
> > b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and
only
> > keep the ones that pass the test??
> >
>
> If the others had suspect action then they would be reported... people
have
> though Murali has chucked a long LONG time before he ever got near Warne's
> record. Maybe it has nothing to do with that and more to do with his
doosra,
> ever thought of that?
>
> >
> > Even simpler for you.
> >
> > There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> > Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
> >
> > a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
speeding
> > OR
> > b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who
are
> > speeding?
> >
>
> The law is the law, you catch everyone who is PROVEN to be breaking it.


HOW can you PROVE they are breaking the law without testing them dude??
Without having the speed cameras out?

Pray enlighten me?

Laz




>
>




20 Apr 2004 21:58:38
witt
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

In article <[email protected] >, Larry de Silva
<[email protected] > wrote:

> "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> > > In article <[email protected]>, AJC
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> news:[email protected]rks.com.a
> > > > u...
> > > > >
> > > > > "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might be
> > coming
> > > > > from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much earlier
> > than
> > > > > Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri lankans
> > > > thought he chucked then.
> > > > Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get called
> > for a
> > > > no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get changed)
> > then
> > > > the whole thing is a disgrace.
> > > > They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10 degrees or
> > more
> > > > but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
> > > > Muralitharan...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in the
> > > world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its an
> > > illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs to
> > > either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's had no
> > > problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
> > > 100%...
> > >
> > > Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> > > correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
> >
> > It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> > delivery..WTF???????????
>
>
> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>
> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement during
> their bowling action.
>
> Now, do you
>
> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
>
> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and only
> keep the ones that pass the test??
>
>
> Even simpler for you.
>
> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>
> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on speeding
> OR
> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who are
> speeding?
>
> Which of the above is the really fair method??
>
> Laz
>
What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
Broad has been proven correct...

You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
not too long ago...


20 Apr 2004 22:07:55
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"witt" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:200420042158387376%[email protected]
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry de Silva
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > >
> > > "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, AJC
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
news:[email protected]rks.com.a
> > > > > u...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might
be
> > > coming
> > > > > > from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much
earlier
> > > than
> > > > > > Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri
lankans
> > > > > thought he chucked then.
> > > > > Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get
called
> > > for a
> > > > > no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get
changed)
> > > then
> > > > > the whole thing is a disgrace.
> > > > > They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10 degrees
or
> > > more
> > > > > but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
> > > > > Muralitharan...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in the
> > > > world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its
an
> > > > illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs to
> > > > either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's had
no
> > > > problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
> > > > 100%...
> > > >
> > > > Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> > > > correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
> > >
> > > It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> > > delivery..WTF???????????
> >
> >
> > OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
> >
> > MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement during
> > their bowling action.
> >
> > Now, do you
> >
> > a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
> >
> > b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and
only
> > keep the ones that pass the test??
> >
> >
> > Even simpler for you.
> >
> > There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> > Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
> >
> > a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
speeding
> > OR
> > b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who
are
> > speeding?
> >
> > Which of the above is the really fair method??
> >
> > Laz
> >
> What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> Broad has been proven correct...
>
> You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> not too long ago...


Quote me the official ICC report dude..............not mere bullshit AGP
speculation.

I repeat, I WILL accept the OFFICIAL test results.

Laz




20 Apr 2004 22:20:00
The Wog
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> > It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> > delivery..WTF???????????
>
>
> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>
> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement during
> their bowling action.

I for one don't understand the source of "most bowlers". Considering the
public comment nearest to this contained the words "fast bowlers" I'm
wondering where the Muralitubbies get this certainty that up to 99% of off
spinners are also violating ICC rules. I'm also wondering how "most
straighten between 3 and 22 degrees" proves that "most straighten between
10.5 and 22 degrees" when it's also quite consistent with the above if 99%
were microchuckers straightening 3-5 degrees and one or two was a
macrochucker straightening 22.
>
> Now, do you
>
> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR

Er, what about that BAN bowler who was chucking his toppie?
>
> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and only
> keep the ones that pass the test??

How about c) Test ALL the other bowlers that get reported by match officials
for a suspect action. As required by ICC protocols.
>
>
> Even simpler for you.
>
> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>
> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on speeding
> OR
> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who are
> speeding?

What about c) if they pulled over the first bloke doing 65, and because he
was from BAN he gets a ticket and his licence suspended. Then they pull over
the second bloke doing 70, and because he's from SL they not only rip up the
ticket, they tell him to go back and keep driving the same way, and then
come along 6 weeks later and put up a sign posting the new limit at 75?
>
> Which of the above is the really fair method??

I know which is the really unfair method. That would be c).

Wog




20 Apr 2004 22:51:06
muzza
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

with a name like yours.....keep moving

--

Regards
Muzza
"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "muzza" <muzzzza.at.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> >
> > > Muralitharan...?....sorry never heard of him
>
>
> Back to your well, frog...............
>
> Laz
>
>
>
>
>
>



20 Apr 2004 23:10:40
conehead
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"muzza" <muzzzza.at.optushome.com.au > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> > Muralitharan...?....sorry never heard of him
>

You can look him up in Hansard in twenty years. He'll be listed under "also
played, disrupted all averages, chucked blatantly, retrospectively banned"

--
conehead





20 Apr 2004 23:13:35
conehead
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:200420042158387376%[email protected]
> > In article <[email protected]>, Larry de Silva
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> > > >
> > > > "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>, AJC
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>
news:[email protected]rks.com
.a
> > > > > > u...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "I just think with the world record looming some pressure
might
> be
> > > > coming
> > > > > > > from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much
> earlier
> > > > than
> > > > > > > Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri
> lankans
> > > > > > thought he chucked then.
> > > > > > Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get
> called
> > > > for a
> > > > > > no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get
> changed)
> > > > then
> > > > > > the whole thing is a disgrace.
> > > > > > They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10
degrees
> or
> > > > more
> > > > > > but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
> > > > > > Muralitharan...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in
the
> > > > > world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its
> an
> > > > > illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs
to
> > > > > either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's
had
> no
> > > > > problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
> > > > > 100%...
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> > > > > correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
> > > >
> > > > It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> > > > delivery..WTF???????????
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
> > >
> > > MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
during
> > > their bowling action.
> > >
> > > Now, do you
> > >
> > > a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
> > >
> > > b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and
> only
> > > keep the ones that pass the test??
> > >
> > >
> > > Even simpler for you.
> > >
> > > There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> > > Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
> > >
> > > a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
> speeding
> > > OR
> > > b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who
> are
> > > speeding?
> > >
> > > Which of the above is the really fair method??
> > >
> > > Laz
> > >
> > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > Broad has been proven correct...
> >
> > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> > not too long ago...
>
>
> Quote me the official ICC report dude..............not mere bullshit AGP
> speculation.
>
> I repeat, I WILL accept the OFFICIAL test results.
>
> Laz
>
>
You sound like John Howard saying he'll accept the report into the DIO
fracas, Larry, ie not believable.

--
conehead






20 Apr 2004 14:35:59
Spaceman Spiff
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Larry de Silva <[email protected] > scratched his armpit and
grunted:
> "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>>
>> It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
>> delivery..WTF???????????
>
>
> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>
> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
> during their bowling action.
>
> Now, do you
>
> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
>
> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and
> only keep the ones that pass the test??
>
larry, it's obvious that murali's other deliveries don't exceed the 5 deg
threshold- otherwise icc automatically branded him a chucker when they set a 5
deg limit.
the 5 deg limit was set by analysing biomechanics results which included
murali's earlier results.
true or false?

now, since only this one delivery is proven to break the limit, this one
delivery is what needs to be fixed- not the law.

>
> Even simpler for you.
>
> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>
> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
> speeding OR
can't charge them if you can't catch them.

> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who
> are speeding?
>
catch them all, of course. but don't increase the speed limit.

how is this analogy- this driver has 3 cars, and drives under the speed limit
in 2 of them. in the 3rd one he always speeds.
is the solution to stop him from driving the 3rd car or increasing the speed
limit?

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

No more cryin' and memories find their way back
Tomorrow's waiting let's journey there together
Yesterday is gone but tomorrow is forever




20 Apr 2004 17:19:10
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Larry de Silva wrote:
>
> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>
> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
> during their bowling action.

Where does this comfe from then ?


> Now, do you
>
> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR

No, you stop him using the delivery if it is deemed a chuck.

> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and
> only keep the ones that pass the test??

Eventually, yes.

> Even simpler for you.
>
> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>
> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
> speeding OR
> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who
> are speeding?
>
> Which of the above is the really fair method??
>

Probably the one where having caught someone doing twice the speed limit
they double the speed limit on that road so he's allowed to ?




20 Apr 2004 17:19:57
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Larry de Silva wrote:
> "AJC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> "Larry de Silva" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>>>
>>> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
>>> during their bowling action.
>>>
>>
>> Which article did you read, the bowlers flexing their arms more were
>> fast bowlers, not spinners. Brett Lee, Akhtar, etc have been tested
>> and in Akhtars case wasn't he told he had to change his technique?
>> He was out of cricket for a while if I recall correctly. Should he
>> be forced to sit out for chucking but Murali gets away with it? What
>> kind of standard is that setting mmm?
>>
>>
>>> Now, do you
>>>
>>> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R?
>>> OR
>>>
>>> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been
>>> and only keep the ones that pass the test??
>>>
>>
>> If the others had suspect action then they would be reported...
>> people have though Murali has chucked a long LONG time before he
>> ever got near Warne's record. Maybe it has nothing to do with that
>> and more to do with his doosra, ever thought of that?
>>
>>>
>>> Even simpler for you.
>>>
>>> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road.
>>> The Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>>>
>>> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
>>> speeding OR
>>> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers
>>> who are speeding?
>>>
>>
>> The law is the law, you catch everyone who is PROVEN to be breaking
>> it.
>
>
> HOW can you PROVE they are breaking the law without testing them
> dude?? Without having the speed cameras out?
>

When the MR or Umps think their action, or a delivery in it, is dodgy,
you test them ?




20 Apr 2004 17:20:49
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

witt wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Larry de Silva
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]
>>>
>>> "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, AJC
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
news:[email protected]rks.com.a
>>>>> u...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might
>>>>>> be coming from somewhere. He is going to go past the world
>>>>>> record much earlier than Shane Warne and that could be part of
>>>>>> it," Ranatunga said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri
>>>>> lankans thought he chucked then.
>>>>> Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get
>>>>> called for a no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules
>>>>> dont get changed) then the whole thing is a disgrace.
>>>>> They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10
>>>>> degrees or more but the only spinner they seem to be basing their
>>>>> opinions on is Muralitharan...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in
>>>> the world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that
>>>> its an illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he
>>>> needs to either stop bowling it or be given remedial
>>>> treatment...the SL's had no problem with the 5% before the doosra
>>>> but now want it increased by 100%...
>>>>
>>>> Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
>>>> correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
>>>
>>> It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
>>> delivery..WTF???????????
>>
>>
>> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>>
>> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
>> during their bowling action.
>>
>> Now, do you
>>
>> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R?
>> OR
>>
>> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been
>> and only keep the ones that pass the test??
>>
>>
>> Even simpler for you.
>>
>> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road.
>> The Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>>
>> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
>> speeding OR
>> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers
>> who are speeding?
>>
>> Which of the above is the really fair method??
>>
>> Laz
>>
> What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> Broad has been proven correct...
>
> You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> not too long ago...

SLarry's judgement on the tests include the crap about how he should be
allowed to chuck anyway because the criteria are wrong, and the doosra
doesn't give him any advantage.




20 Apr 2004 17:22:14
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

The Wog wrote:
> "Larry de Silva" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>>
>>> It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
>>> delivery..WTF???????????
>>
>>
>> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>>
>> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
>> during their bowling action.
>
> I for one don't understand the source of "most bowlers". Considering
> the public comment nearest to this contained the words "fast bowlers"
> I'm wondering where the Muralitubbies get this certainty that up to
> 99% of off spinners are also violating ICC rules. I'm also wondering
> how "most straighten between 3 and 22 degrees" proves that "most
> straighten between
> 10.5 and 22 degrees" when it's also quite consistent with the above
> if 99% were microchuckers straightening 3-5 degrees and one or two
> was a macrochucker straightening 22.

Well duh!

Look, Murali doesn't chuck right, so none of the others do either, so
their arm straightening must be like Murali's because they are the
same, so they have the same flexion.





21 Apr 2004 10:24:30
AJC
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
>
> HOW can you PROVE they are breaking the law without testing them dude??
> Without having the speed cameras out?
>
> Pray enlighten me?
>
> Laz
>

As you used this example to compare Murali's problem I'd think even the most
dim witted person could tell if someone is going DOUBLE the speed limit, no
cameras would be required.




21 Apr 2004 11:41:53
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Paul Robson" <[email protected] > wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> witt wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, Larry de Silva
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]
> >>>
> >>> "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> >>>> In article <[email protected]>, AJC
> >>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
news:[email protected]rks.com.a
> >>>>> u...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might
> >>>>>> be coming from somewhere. He is going to go past the world
> >>>>>> record much earlier than Shane Warne and that could be part of
> >>>>>> it," Ranatunga said.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri
> >>>>> lankans thought he chucked then.
> >>>>> Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get
> >>>>> called for a no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules
> >>>>> dont get changed) then the whole thing is a disgrace.
> >>>>> They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10
> >>>>> degrees or more but the only spinner they seem to be basing their
> >>>>> opinions on is Muralitharan...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in
> >>>> the world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that
> >>>> its an illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he
> >>>> needs to either stop bowling it or be given remedial
> >>>> treatment...the SL's had no problem with the 5% before the doosra
> >>>> but now want it increased by 100%...
> >>>>
> >>>> Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> >>>> correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
> >>>
> >>> It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> >>> delivery..WTF???????????
> >>
> >>
> >> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
> >>
> >> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
> >> during their bowling action.
> >>
> >> Now, do you
> >>
> >> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R?
> >> OR
> >>
> >> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been
> >> and only keep the ones that pass the test??
> >>
> >>
> >> Even simpler for you.
> >>
> >> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road.
> >> The Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
> >>
> >> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
> >> speeding OR
> >> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers
> >> who are speeding?
> >>
> >> Which of the above is the really fair method??
> >>
> >> Laz
> >>
> > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > Broad has been proven correct...
> >
> > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> > not too long ago...
>
> SLarry's judgement on the tests include the crap about how he should be
> allowed to chuck anyway because the criteria are wrong, and the doosra
> doesn't give him any advantage.


As opposed you you agenda of already calling him a cheat and wanting him
banned??

Piss off Paul.

Laz


>
>




21 Apr 2004 11:51:27
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Spaceman Spiff" <[email protected]_spam_mail.com > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Larry de Silva <[email protected]> scratched his armpit and
> grunted:
> > "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> >>
> >>
> >> It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> >> delivery..WTF???????????
> >
> >
> > OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
> >
> > MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
> > during their bowling action.
> >
> > Now, do you
> >
> > a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
> >
> > b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and
> > only keep the ones that pass the test??
> >
> larry, it's obvious that murali's other deliveries don't exceed the 5 deg
> threshold- otherwise icc automatically branded him a chucker when they set
a 5
> deg limit.
> the 5 deg limit was set by analysing biomechanics results which included
> murali's earlier results.
> true or false?
>
> now, since only this one delivery is proven to break the limit, this one
> delivery is what needs to be fixed- not the law.


Bullshit. The ICC and the Murali bashers want to ban him from bowling
anymore and keeping the W/R away from Warne. They will report his top
spinner next, then his stock ball etc etc..............

All this while MOST of the other bowlers get away with doing the VERY SAME
thing. But the flavour of the month is to target, victimise and vilify only
Murali to keep all the Murali bashers content.
And all the gullible dickbrains here think that getting rid of Murali will
get rid of chucking!! LOL!!

I have been predicting this anti Murali/anti SL behaviour for months now and
have been proved to be TOTALLY right. My description of Murali haters as
fucking bigots also has been spot on. This is a public lynching, nothing
more, nothing less.



> > Even simpler for you.
> >
> > There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> > Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
> >
> > a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
> > speeding OR
> can't charge them if you can't catch them.
>
> > b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who
> > are speeding?
> >
> catch them all, of course. but don't increase the speed limit.
>
> how is this analogy- this driver has 3 cars, and drives under the speed
limit
> in 2 of them. in the 3rd one he always speeds.
> is the solution to stop him from driving the 3rd car or increasing the
speed
> limit?


As soon as they get him to stop driving car 3, they will pick on the 2nd car
for not being roadworthy, the right colour or whatever, then stop him
driving that. Next onto the 3rd car because of whatever. Police with hidden
agendas can get anybody dude. Seen heaps of this stuff happen in my life.

With Murali, my source has been spot on. They have made a concerted effort
to get rid of Murali and they will do anything they can to make this happen
very soon.

Murali is gone.

Laz



>
> --
> stay cool,
> Spaceman Spiff
>
> No more cryin' and memories find their way back
> Tomorrow's waiting let's journey there together
> Yesterday is gone but tomorrow is forever
>
>




21 Apr 2004 11:53:36
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Paul Robson" <[email protected] > wrote in
message news:[email protected]
> Larry de Silva wrote:
> >
> > OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
> >
> > MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
> > during their bowling action.
>
> Where does this comfe from then ?
>
>
> > Now, do you
> >
> > a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
>
> No, you stop him using the delivery if it is deemed a chuck.
>
> > b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and
> > only keep the ones that pass the test??
>
> Eventually, yes.
>
> > Even simpler for you.
> >
> > There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> > Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
> >
> > a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
> > speeding OR
> > b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who
> > are speeding?
> >
> > Which of the above is the really fair method??
> >
>
> Probably the one where having caught someone doing twice the speed limit
> they double the speed limit on that road so he's allowed to ?


Wrong answer Murali hater. Speed today said that the tolerance level WILL
remain at 5 degrees for spinners.

Now for your next guess...................

My guess? The answer is a).

Laz





20 Apr 2004 21:22:15
Shatadal
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
--- >8---

>
> Murali is gone.

Tere moonh mein ghee shakkar :-)

>
> Laz




21 Apr 2004 07:56:27
CiL
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:22:15 -0500, "Shatadal"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>
>"Larry de Silva" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>>
>--->8---
>
>>
>> Murali is gone.
>
>Tere moonh mein ghee shakkar :-)


So Ghosh.... u think Murali chucks...?!

u copped out last time this q was asked , said u will post a long post
on that but u then ran away from rsc for few days.. ab to say it..!




20 Apr 2004 22:25:53
Shatadal
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"CiL" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:22:15 -0500, "Shatadal"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Larry de Silva" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >>
> >--->8---
> >
> >>
> >> Murali is gone.
> >
> >Tere moonh mein ghee shakkar :-)
>
>
> So Ghosh.... u think Murali chucks...?!

Bokachoda did you see the smiley at the end? Waiting for Larry to spray all
over me :-)

>
> u copped out last time this q was asked , said u will post a long post
> on that but u then ran away from rsc for few days.. ab to say it..!

Since you are asking me again:

1. You can refer to my earlier long post (in reply to Larry's sensible
discussion thread).

2. The problems I have with the current state of affairs:

a. How were the tolerance levels established? Did Elliott pull them out
of his arse or was there a well defined scientific protocol which led to the
adoption of these levels?
b. The current testing (atleast Stage I) is heavily loaded in favour of
the bowler; it is not under match conditions (eg the pressure to push the
boundaries of the rules is not present, conversely the pressure is to stay
as much within the rules), the arbitrator of how realistically the bowler is
bowling during tests may not be unbiased (eg Yardley in these tests has been
known to support Murali unequivocally, why not have somebody like Hair, or
even Broad at these tests, to provide the other perspective?)
c. The Stage I testing is under the home board, which has a vested
interest in the bowler bowling. Why not have the testing under the ICC?
d. The initiation of the process is subjective (i.e. the same bowler may
not be reported by another referee who honestly believes that his bowling is
OK). Of course you can argue that a lot of cricket is subjective (e.g LBWs)
but I believe it is fair that the subjectivity is kept at a minimum.
e. The push to change the levels of tolerance, now that one bowler has
been found to break it by nearly a 100% margin. If Elliott now believes that
these levels are wrong, on what basis did he suggest them? Does he have any
credibility now as a bowling expert? If another bowler is found to flex at
an angle of 20 degrees later should we again change the law to accommodate
one bowler?

What I think should be done:

1. All the bowlers should be made to wear the bowling markers during matches
which Murali wore during the tests. Of course since the bowlers would be
wearing clothes over these markers, instead of being visual they could be
radio wave emitting markers (dunno how practical this would be)

2. Blindly test the bowlers during matches (choosing matches at random)using
the same testing apparatus as for Murali, i.e. let the bowler have no idea
whether he is being filmed or not. However at the end of the testing period
(say one year or the minimum time within which all the test playing nations
have played a series) all bowlers must have been filmed. Similar idea as
random drug testing.

2a. Let the testing be double blind, i.e. the people who will analyse the
data should have no idea who the data belongs to. Let them just be provided
the raw numbers.

3. At the end of the testing period, analyse the data to calculate the mean
of flexion angle and the standard deviation. Based on these values let a
panel of cricketers decide which should be the appropriate tolerance level
(also based on the judgement that what tolerance value will not lead to any
unfair advantage to the bowler, unfair being decided by the panel, just like
beamers are deemed unfair)) . If the mean and s.d. values for different
classes of bowlers (spin, medium-fast and fast) are significantly different
have different tolerance values for them.

4. The next question would be, would these tolerance levels be flexible,
i.e. should they be subject to review from time to time? I would rather they
be set in stone. Does anybody have a contrary viewpoint?

5. What if due to a physical/mental reason a bowler cannot adhere to the
tolerance levels? Tough luck, they can try their hand at baseball or javelin
throwing.

Will amplify on these thoughts as they crystallise.

Another thing, as Bob D so perspicaciously noted, both the Murali defenders
and Murali bashers have a remarkably symmetric way of thinking. While Murali
bashers like Colin K, dishonestly point out terms of reference which have no
jurisdiction over international matches, demanding that Murali be banned,
Murali defenders like SLC and Larry De Silva have no hesitation in launching
tasteless smear campaigns against officials which have views not to their
liking (e.g, Broad and his socialising with the Aus team). A lot of people
out here have no interest in wanting to know what the truth is.

Some other thoughts:

1. Why was Broad summarily removed as match ref from the SL-Zim? This may
lead to a dangerous precedent of teams trying to remove officials they don't
agree with (This has happened once earlier with Hair. Why SL can do this to
Hair and Broad and India cannot wrt Bucknor is puzzling :-))
2. On the other hand I think it is right that Broad is not officiating in
this series. Since he is the accuser it is wise not to let him be at a
position of judgement when the trial is still going on.

BTW how many here think that McGrath chucks any delivery? His delivery seems
to be smoothest of all in the last decade, just like a Rolls Royce (with
apologies to Holding :-))

Shatadal.




21 Apr 2004 03:52:27
Spaceman Spiff
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Shatadal <[email protected] > scratched his armpit and grunted:
>
> 1. Why was Broad summarily removed as match ref from the SL-Zim? This
> may lead to a dangerous precedent of teams trying to remove officials
> they don't agree with (This has happened once earlier with Hair. Why
> SL can do this to Hair and Broad and India cannot wrt Bucknor is
> puzzling :-))
>
have you forgotten mike denness?


--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

No more cryin' and memories find their way back
Tomorrow's waiting let's journey there together
Yesterday is gone but tomorrow is forever




20 Apr 2004 23:02:29
Shatadal
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Spaceman Spiff" <[email protected]_spam_mail.com > wrote in message
news:%[email protected]
> Shatadal <[email protected]> scratched his armpit and grunted:
> >
> > 1. Why was Broad summarily removed as match ref from the SL-Zim? This
> > may lead to a dangerous precedent of teams trying to remove officials
> > they don't agree with (This has happened once earlier with Hair. Why
> > SL can do this to Hair and Broad and India cannot wrt Bucknor is
> > puzzling :-))
> >
> have you forgotten mike denness?

I knew somebody would ask the question :-). For the record I do think
Denness was correct in the punishment he handed down (though why he did not
do that to Pollock was mystifying). But did India gain anything tangible out
of the affair? The next match never got Test status and AFAIK Sehwag was not
pocked for the next test at home (I think against Eng). The fact is that the
it is becoming a pattern with SL. First Hair then Broad.

My point does stay though. Broad was not removed from this series
immediately after he filed his report, but after Murali was found to exceed
the limit. The circumstances are very suspicious. Same with the stories of
his "boozing".

The next point which you ommitted to include addresses the situation.


>
>
> --
> stay cool,
> Spaceman Spiff
>
> No more cryin' and memories find their way back
> Tomorrow's waiting let's journey there together
> Yesterday is gone but tomorrow is forever
>
>




20 Apr 2004 21:08:49
kenhiggs8
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

witt <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<200420042158387376%[email protected]>...

snip

> >
> What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> Broad has been proven correct...
>
> You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> not too long ago...

Why do you guys have to resort to lying through your teeth all the
time?

Larry was TOLD by the various factions here that he had to abide by
the results of the tests.

When he then asked if anyone would abide by the reults of the tests if
they proved Murali innocent, no-one answered.

H


21 Apr 2004 14:11:08
witt
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

In article <[email protected] >, Larry de Silva
<[email protected] > wrote:

> "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:200420042158387376%[email protected]
> > In article <[email protected]>, Larry de Silva
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]
> > > >
> > > > "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>, AJC
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> news:[email protected]rks.com.a
> > > > > > u...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might
> be
> > > > coming
> > > > > > > from somewhere. He is going to go past the world record much
> earlier
> > > > than
> > > > > > > Shane Warne and that could be part of it," Ranatunga said.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri
> lankans
> > > > > > thought he chucked then.
> > > > > > Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get
> called
> > > > for a
> > > > > > no-ball during their next series (assuming the rules dont get
> changed)
> > > > then
> > > > > > the whole thing is a disgrace.
> > > > > > They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10 degrees
> or
> > > > more
> > > > > > but the only spinner they seem to be basing their opinions on is
> > > > > > Muralitharan...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in the
> > > > > world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means that its
> an
> > > > > illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing again...he needs to
> > > > > either stop bowling it or be given remedial treatment...the SL's had
> no
> > > > > problem with the 5% before the doosra but now want it increased by
> > > > > 100%...
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
> > > > > correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
> > > >
> > > > It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
> > > > delivery..WTF???????????
> > >
> > >
> > > OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
> > >
> > > MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement during
> > > their bowling action.
> > >
> > > Now, do you
> > >
> > > a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
> > >
> > > b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and
> only
> > > keep the ones that pass the test??
> > >
> > >
> > > Even simpler for you.
> > >
> > > There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road. The
> > > Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
> > >
> > > a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
> speeding
> > > OR
> > > b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers who
> are
> > > speeding?
> > >
> > > Which of the above is the really fair method??
> > >
> > > Laz
> > >
> > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > Broad has been proven correct...
> >
> > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> > not too long ago...
>
>
> Quote me the official ICC report dude..............not mere bullshit AGP
> speculation.
>
> I repeat, I WILL accept the OFFICIAL test results.
>
> Laz
>
The official test results are with SL...you're connected so u should be
able to find out...they have the report but are taking their time in
presenting it to the ICC...instead they're seeking a change to the laws
and more complaining about Chris Broad who has done his job to the
letter...why cant they cop it on the chin and get on with it...


21 Apr 2004 07:36:46
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Larry de Silva wrote:
> "Paul Robson" <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]
>> witt wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>, Larry de Silva
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>
>>>>> "witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:200420041615090861%[email protected]
>>>>>> In article <[email protected]>, AJC
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
news:[email protected]rks.com.a
>>>>>>> u...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "I just think with the world record looming some pressure might
>>>>>>>> be coming from somewhere. He is going to go past the world
>>>>>>>> record much earlier than Shane Warne and that could be part of
>>>>>>>> it," Ranatunga said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He wasn't near the record in 1995 and the majority of non sri
>>>>>>> lankans thought he chucked then.
>>>>>>> Under the current laws the doosra is illegal and if doesn't get
>>>>>>> called for a no-ball during their next series (assuming the
>>>>>>> rules dont get changed) then the whole thing is a disgrace.
>>>>>>> They keep talking about fast bowlers who bend their arm 10
>>>>>>> degrees or more but the only spinner they seem to be basing
>>>>>>> their opinions on is Muralitharan...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly...change the rules to accomodate the ONLY spin bowler in
>>>>>> the world that has this problem...he bends at 10% which means
>>>>>> that its an illegal delivery...the rules dont need changing
>>>>>> again...he needs to either stop bowling it or be given remedial
>>>>>> treatment...the SL's had no problem with the 5% before the doosra
>>>>>> but now want it increased by 100%...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chris Broad isn't the villian...he saw something and was proven
>>>>>> correct...its the folly of the umpires to have not reported it...
>>>>>
>>>>> It is amazing it has been proven illegal yet he can still use that
>>>>> delivery..WTF???????????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>>>>
>>>> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
>>>> during their bowling action.
>>>>
>>>> Now, do you
>>>>
>>>> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R?
>>>> OR
>>>>
>>>> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been
>>>> and only keep the ones that pass the test??
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even simpler for you.
>>>>
>>>> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road.
>>>> The Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>>>>
>>>> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
>>>> speeding OR
>>>> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers
>>>> who are speeding?
>>>>
>>>> Which of the above is the really fair method??
>>>>
>>>> Laz
>>>>
>>> What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests
>>> show his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current
>>> rules...Chris Broad has been proven correct...
>>>
>>> You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any
>>> tests not too long ago...
>>
>> SLarry's judgement on the tests include the crap about how he
>> should be allowed to chuck anyway because the criteria are wrong,
>> and the doosra doesn't give him any advantage.
>
>
> As opposed you you agenda of already calling him a cheat and wanting
> him banned??
>
> Piss off Paul.
>

I don't want him banned.

I want him to stop bowling this blatantly illegal ball.
I want SL to accept the rules and not smear people in an attempt to change
them.

If he's still bowling the doosra NOW, IMO he's a cheat, yes.




21 Apr 2004 07:39:14
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Larry de Silva wrote:
> "Paul Robson" <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:[email protected]
>> Larry de Silva wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, WHICH part of the next sentence DON'T you understand??
>>>
>>> MOST bowlers flex their arms more than the arbitrary requirement
>>> during their bowling action.
>>
>> Where does this comfe from then ?
>>
>>
>>> Now, do you
>>>
>>> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R?
>>> OR
>>
>> No, you stop him using the delivery if it is deemed a chuck.
>>
>>> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been
>>> and only keep the ones that pass the test??
>>
>> Eventually, yes.
>>
>>> Even simpler for you.
>>>
>>> There are 20 car drivers most of whom are speeding along the road.
>>> The Police decide to test the speed and catch one driver speeding.
>>>
>>> a) Do they just charge ONLY him and leave the others to carry on
>>> speeding OR
>>> b) Do they pull out the speed cameras and catch ALL those drivers
>>> who are speeding?
>>>
>>> Which of the above is the really fair method??
>>>
>>
>> Probably the one where having caught someone doing twice the speed
>> limit they double the speed limit on that road so he's allowed to ?
>
>
> Wrong answer Murali hater. Speed today said that the tolerance level
> WILL remain at 5 degrees for spinners.
>

And SL are desperately trying to get the speed limits changed....




21 Apr 2004 20:47:22
witt
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

In article <[email protected] >, kenhiggs8
<[email protected] > wrote:

> witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<200420042158387376%[email protected]>...
>
> snip
>
> > >
> > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > Broad has been proven correct...
> >
> > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> > not too long ago...
>
> Why do you guys have to resort to lying through your teeth all the
> time?
>
> Larry was TOLD by the various factions here that he had to abide by
> the results of the tests.
>
> When he then asked if anyone would abide by the reults of the tests if
> they proved Murali innocent, no-one answered.
>
> H

Read this thread...ICC and chucking 5/4/04 12.33AM

"Colin Kynoch" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 03:41:50 +1000, "Larry de Silva"
> <[email protected]> parted their butt cheeks and let rip
> with this:
>
> >
> >"Colin Kynoch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]
> >> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 21:36:50 +1000, "Larry de Silva"
> >> <[email protected]> parted their butt cheeks and let rip
> >> with this:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"witt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:310320041148197961%[email protected]
> >> >> In article <[email protected]>, Larry de Silva
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As soon as the six weeks is up and Murali plays a test, watch &
see.
> >> >Also,
> >> >> > remember that Murali can be called at anytime.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Laz
> >> >> >
> >> >> But he won't be called by Broad...he's made his observation and
acted
> >> >> on it...and no umpire will call him in fear of ending their
career...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >OH PLEASE!! LOL!!! Not THIS bullshit again! For years now, posters
here
> >said
> >> >that Murali will not be reported by a MR.....guess what dude? THEY
WERE
> >> >WRONG. But very few have the guts, if any, to admit that they were
wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >> And you claimed the fact he hadn't been reported was a sign that he
> >> was clean. Now that he has been reported does this mean you will
> >> admit he isn't clean?
> >>
> >> Colin Kynoch
> >
> >
> >Colin, your repetitive tactic of answering a question with a question is
> >both avoiding the question and very boring.
>
> Larry considering the recent change of heart by the ICC it is about
> time he has been reported. And considering his action for his doosra
> in the latest series the MR would have had to have been bent to have
> not reported him.
>
> Colin Kynoch


So will you accept the decision whichever way it goes dude?

Laz


21 Apr 2004 11:31:32
Bob Dubery
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Mad Hamish <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 20 Apr 2004 01:51:58 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >"Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]rks.com.au>...
> >> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking about
> >> changing the rules retrospectively.
> >
> >Suspending him now would require changing the rules retrospectively.
>
> Really?
> As Colin has pointed out
> Section E - Member Boards Policy
> Each Board shall formulate....Such policy and strategy shall as a
> minimum requirement
> ...
> 3) Require that in the event of such analysis confirming that the
> bowler has an illegal action, he shall not be selected by his Board
> for any national representative team until such time as his action has
> been remedied.
>
>
> The test has found that he has bowled illegally, his action has not
> been remedied and, according to the cricinfo commentary, he has bowled
> doosra against Zimbabwe.
>
> So he's been found to bowl with an illegal action, it hasn't been
> remedied...


Has he "been found to bowl with an illegal action"?

Murali's in stage 1 of the 2 stage process. Something is missing from
that stage - namely the finding of a verdict. The called/reported
bowler must be tested and the home board must make their own
assessment and appraise the ICC.

Stage 2 is different. The ICC sets up a bowling review group to test
the bowler. A formal hearing is held during which both sets of video
footage are considered along with the umpire's and RIMRs reports, the
stage-1 assessment and any other evidence that the bowler or his home
board might wish to submit. The BRG takes a vote with a simple
majority being enough to actually find that he has an illegal action.
Now he's been found guilty and now he can be suspended.

What I found confusing was that Jermaine Lawson is still out of the
game. Shabbir, however, is still playing.

What's going on?

[start bob's query to the ICC]
I have a question about the ICC protocol for dealing with reports of
suspected illegal actions.

Some time ago Jermaine Lawson was reported and entered stage 1 of the
2
stage process. He has not since been considered for selection by the
West Indies.

On the other hand Muttiah Muralitharan has been reported, has entered
stage 1 and is in Zimbabwe as a member of the Sri Lankan side.

This seems odd to me. One board has withdrawn their player, the other
picks the player reported.

Is a regulation being contravened? Why is Lawson not permitted to play
but Muralitharan is?

Section E.3 of the ICC protocol says that "in the event of such
analysis
confirming that the bowler has an illegal action, he shall not be
selected by the Board for any national representative team until such
time as his action has been remedied."

Thanks

Bob Dubery
Johannesburg
South Africa
[end query]

[start reply from the ICC]
Dear Bob

Hope this clarifies the procedure for you.

The regulations allow the player to continue to be selected during
stage
1 (as in effect they are assumed innocent until proven otherwise),
however the player can still be called on the field by the umpires as
per the Law if he continues playing.

It is the Board's discretion as to whether they select the player in
the
team, or elect to withdraw the player until after the process is
complete, or until after the player conducts remedial work on his
action.

Jermain Lawson completed stage 1 after being reported and the WICB did
indeed find a problem with his action and decided to withdraw him from
the team.

Thanks for taking the time to write and for your interest in cricket.

Yours sincerely
ICC Corporate Affairs
[end reply]


21 Apr 2004 20:54:52
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Bob Dubery wrote:
> Mad Hamish <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> On 20 Apr 2004 01:51:58 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
news:<[email protected]rks.com.au >...
>>>> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of
>>>> talking about changing the rules retrospectively.
>>>
>>> Suspending him now would require changing the rules retrospectively.
>>
>> Really?
>> As Colin has pointed out
>> Section E - Member Boards Policy
>> Each Board shall formulate....Such policy and strategy shall as a
>> minimum requirement
>> ...
>> 3) Require that in the event of such analysis confirming that the
>> bowler has an illegal action, he shall not be selected by his Board
>> for any national representative team until such time as his action
>> has been remedied.
>>
>>
>> The test has found that he has bowled illegally, his action has not
>> been remedied and, according to the cricinfo commentary, he has
>> bowled doosra against Zimbabwe.
>>
>> So he's been found to bowl with an illegal action, it hasn't been
>> remedied...
>
>
> Has he "been found to bowl with an illegal action"?
>
> Murali's in stage 1 of the 2 stage process. Something is missing from
> that stage - namely the finding of a verdict. The called/reported
> bowler must be tested and the home board must make their own
> assessment and appraise the ICC.
>
> Stage 2 is different. The ICC sets up a bowling review group to test
> the bowler. A formal hearing is held during which both sets of video
> footage are considered along with the umpire's and RIMRs reports, the
> stage-1 assessment and any other evidence that the bowler or his home
> board might wish to submit. The BRG takes a vote with a simple
> majority being enough to actually find that he has an illegal action.
> Now he's been found guilty and now he can be suspended.
>
> What I found confusing was that Jermaine Lawson is still out of the
> game. Shabbir, however, is still playing.
>
> What's going on?
>

Lawson isn't out of the game, he just hasn't been selected. I think
OTOMH he's in the ODO squad.

It may be simply that WI accept Lawson had a problem and it is their
decision to wait till they are sure he is okay.




22 Apr 2004 08:14:53
Mango
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Glenn Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
> a) ONLY ban Murali because he is a SL and nearing GOD Warne's W/R? OR
>
> b) Do you test ALL the other bowlers the same way Murali has been and only
> keep the ones that pass the test??
>

You forgot option c which is simply that he stops bowling an illegal
delivery and sticks to his other ones that the authorities believe he can
bowl legally. Very very simple.





21 Apr 2004 15:51:22
kenhiggs8
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

witt <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<210420042047225189%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<200420042158387376%[email protected]>...
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > >
> > > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> > > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > > Broad has been proven correct...
> > >
> > > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> > > not too long ago...
> >
> > Why do you guys have to resort to lying through your teeth all the
> > time?
> >
> > Larry was TOLD by the various factions here that he had to abide by
> > the results of the tests.
> >
> > When he then asked if anyone would abide by the reults of the tests if
> > they proved Murali innocent, no-one answered.
> >
> > H
>
> Read this thread...ICC and chucking 5/4/04 12.33AM

What of it?

Larry is asking Col if he'll accept the decision WHICHEVER way it goes
(you can tell by the question mark at the end).

See if Col answers him or not.

H


21 Apr 2004 21:03:59
Bob Dubery
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"Paul Robson" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Lawson isn't out of the game, he just hasn't been selected. I think
> OTOMH he's in the ODO squad.
>
> It may be simply that WI accept Lawson had a problem and it is their
> decision to wait till they are sure he is okay.
Which is what the ICC says ":"It is the Board's discretion as to
whether they select the player in the team, or elect to withdraw the
player until after the process is complete, or until after the player
conducts remedial work on his
action. Jermain Lawson completed stage 1 after being reported and the
WICB did
indeed find a problem with his action and decided to withdraw him from
the team."

The catch is that you would actually have to read the entire post to
get to that bit.


21 Apr 2004 21:09:31
Bob Dubery
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"Paul Robson" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Lawson isn't out of the game, he just hasn't been selected. I think
> OTOMH he's in the ODO squad.

You should check what's on top of your head.

http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/ENG_IN_WI/SQUADS/ENG_IN_WI_MAR-MAY2004_WI-SQUAD.html
lists the WI squads for the various tests to date plus the first 3
ODIs. Lawson is not included.

Your every post on the "chucking" issue suggests that it might also be
a good idea to check your head for contents. You might have left a bit
in there.


22 Apr 2004 09:46:11
CiL
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

On 21 Apr 2004 21:09:31 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
wrote:

>
>You should check what's on top of your head.
>
>http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/ENG_IN_WI/SQUADS/ENG_IN_WI_MAR-MAY2004_WI-SQUAD.html
>lists the WI squads for the various tests to date plus the first 3
>ODIs. Lawson is not included.
>
>Your every post on the "chucking" issue suggests that it might also be
>a good idea to check your head for contents. You might have left a bit
>in there.

Bobby! ditch the horse, u need a Tiger, roar Dubery roar!




22 Apr 2004 06:53:06
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Bob Dubery wrote:
> "Paul Robson" <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Lawson isn't out of the game, he just hasn't been selected. I think
>> OTOMH he's in the ODO squad.
>>
>> It may be simply that WI accept Lawson had a problem and it is their
>> decision to wait till they are sure he is okay.
> Which is what the ICC says ":"It is the Board's discretion as to
> whether they select the player in the team, or elect to withdraw the
> player until after the process is complete, or until after the player
> conducts remedial work on his
> action. Jermain Lawson completed stage 1 after being reported and the
> WICB did
> indeed find a problem with his action and decided to withdraw him from
> the team."
>
> The catch is that you would actually have to read the entire post to
> get to that bit.

If anything I misread the first bit ; I thought you were puzzled as to why
Lawson had not returned to the test team.




22 Apr 2004 06:54:52
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Bob Dubery wrote:

> "Paul Robson" <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Lawson isn't out of the game, he just hasn't been selected. I think
>> OTOMH he's in the ODO squad.
>
> You should check what's on top of your head.
>
>
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2003-04/ENG_IN_WI/SQUADS/ENG_IN_WI_MAR-MAY2004_WI-SQUAD.html
> lists the WI squads for the various tests to date plus the first 3
> ODIs. Lawson is not included.
>
> Your every post on the "chucking" issue suggests that it might also be
> a good idea to check your head for contents. You might have left a bit
> in there.

Most of my posts are not based on the ICC rules. It is a personal opinion.
I am well aware that MM cannot be banned at this point. It is a view that
if he continues to bowl doosras in defiance of just about everyone it
would be justified.

Lawson is cleared for f/c cricket because he bowled in a tour game vs
England. OTOMH means "I haven't checked it" ; you are just being
pedantic.





22 Apr 2004 06:03:17
Colin Lord
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Bob Dubery" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Mad Hamish <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected] >...
> > On 20 Apr 2004 01:51:58 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >"Sultan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]rks.com.au >...
> > >> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of
talking about
> > >> changing the rules retrospectively.
> > >
> > >Suspending him now would require changing the rules retrospectively.
> >
> > Really?
> > As Colin has pointed out
> > Section E - Member Boards Policy
> > Each Board shall formulate....Such policy and strategy shall as a
> > minimum requirement
> > ...
> > 3) Require that in the event of such analysis confirming that the
> > bowler has an illegal action, he shall not be selected by his Board
> > for any national representative team until such time as his action has
> > been remedied.
> >
> >
> > The test has found that he has bowled illegally, his action has not
> > been remedied and, according to the cricinfo commentary, he has bowled
> > doosra against Zimbabwe.
> >
> > So he's been found to bowl with an illegal action, it hasn't been
> > remedied...
>
>
> Has he "been found to bowl with an illegal action"?
>
> Murali's in stage 1 of the 2 stage process. Something is missing from
> that stage - namely the finding of a verdict. The called/reported
> bowler must be tested and the home board must make their own
> assessment and appraise the ICC.

SL cricket will try to sit on the report until AFTER the Zimb tour is
completed and Murali has the record.




22 Apr 2004 21:26:44
bigbadja
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Enlighten you???????

I don't think you can ever find enlightenment, Larry, not whilst you
continue to dwell in cloud cuckoo land.

You make a fool of yourself every time you try to defend the indefensible.

Come on Larry, give me another serve, I love it when you talk
dirty.............




22 Apr 2004 22:39:57
witt
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

In article <[email protected] >, kenhiggs8
<[email protected] > wrote:

> witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<210420042047225189%[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:<200420042158387376%[email protected]>...
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> > > > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > > > Broad has been proven correct...
> > > >
> > > > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> > > > not too long ago...
> > >
> > > Why do you guys have to resort to lying through your teeth all the
> > > time?
> > >
> > > Larry was TOLD by the various factions here that he had to abide by
> > > the results of the tests.
> > >
> > > When he then asked if anyone would abide by the reults of the tests if
> > > they proved Murali innocent, no-one answered.
> > >
> > > H
> >
> > Read this thread...ICC and chucking 5/4/04 12.33AM
>
> What of it?
>
> Larry is asking Col if he'll accept the decision WHICHEVER way it goes
> (you can tell by the question mark at the end).
>
> See if Col answers him or not.
>
> H

You said I was lying thru my teeth...I was just giving you an example
that Laz asked the question to prove I wasn't lying...


23 Apr 2004 11:06:46
bigbadja
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Bullshit Larry,
You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it.
I don't care who the whacko was who insulted all bowlers in general about
most having varying degrees of chucking.
I played for 40+ years and only came across 1 definite chucker in the past
20 years....and I called him umpiring from Square -leg.....and his captain
took him off.....and the bowler/chucker disappeared from our competion.
This should also be Murili's fate if there ever is any justice from the ICC
and the SL Cricket Board.
"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote i




22 Apr 2004 18:22:47
kenhiggs8
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

witt <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<220420042239577964%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<210420042047225189%[email protected]>...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:<200420042158387376%[email protected]>...
> > > >
> > > > snip
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests show
> > > > > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > > > > Broad has been proven correct...
> > > > >
> > > > > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any tests
> > > > > not too long ago...
> > > >
> > > > Why do you guys have to resort to lying through your teeth all the
> > > > time?
> > > >
> > > > Larry was TOLD by the various factions here that he had to abide by
> > > > the results of the tests.
> > > >
> > > > When he then asked if anyone would abide by the reults of the tests if
> > > > they proved Murali innocent, no-one answered.
> > > >
> > > > H
> > >
> > > Read this thread...ICC and chucking 5/4/04 12.33AM
> >
> > What of it?
> >
> > Larry is asking Col if he'll accept the decision WHICHEVER way it goes
> > (you can tell by the question mark at the end).
> >
> > See if Col answers him or not.
> >
> > H
>
> You said I was lying thru my teeth...I was just giving you an example
> that Laz asked the question to prove I wasn't lying...

But it's a misrepresentation.

When Broad reported Murali, a whole host of posters here said if
Murali was found to chuck, Larry would have to accept the verdict.
I think Larry is pretty brave, he said he would accept it.
This, of course, didn't stop several people saying Larry was a liar
and he wouldn't accept a negative result.

Then the posters who'd made the same demand of Larry were asked (both
by me and by larry) if they would accept the verdict, no matter what
the outcome.
Not one single one was game to say they would.

As in nobody.

And a week or so ago it looked as if the tests were going to find
Murali didn't chuck, so these posters suddenly started to speculate
how the tests were flawed, there was a conspiracy, Murali was a cheat
etc etc.

I think Larry has behaved with some dignity, as opposed to the
multitude of Murali bashers and Larry baiters who have, in my opinion,
totally misrepresented what he said and have made up lies about him.

H


23 Apr 2004 20:02:53
witt
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

In article <[email protected] >, kenhiggs8
<[email protected] > wrote:

> witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<220420042239577964%[email protected]>...
> > In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:<210420042047225189%[email protected]>...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:<200420042158387376%[email protected]>...
> > > > >
> > > > > snip
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests
> > > > > > show
> > > > > > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > > > > > Broad has been proven correct...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any
> > > > > > tests
> > > > > > not too long ago...
> > > > >
> > > > > Why do you guys have to resort to lying through your teeth all the
> > > > > time?
> > > > >
> > > > > Larry was TOLD by the various factions here that he had to abide by
> > > > > the results of the tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > When he then asked if anyone would abide by the reults of the tests if
> > > > > they proved Murali innocent, no-one answered.
> > > > >
> > > > > H
> > > >
> > > > Read this thread...ICC and chucking 5/4/04 12.33AM
> > >
> > > What of it?
> > >
> > > Larry is asking Col if he'll accept the decision WHICHEVER way it goes
> > > (you can tell by the question mark at the end).
> > >
> > > See if Col answers him or not.
> > >
> > > H
> >
> > You said I was lying thru my teeth...I was just giving you an example
> > that Laz asked the question to prove I wasn't lying...
>
> But it's a misrepresentation.

But I'm not lying thru my teeth...you claimed that of me...

>
> When Broad reported Murali, a whole host of posters here said if
> Murali was found to chuck, Larry would have to accept the verdict.
> I think Larry is pretty brave, he said he would accept it.
> This, of course, didn't stop several people saying Larry was a liar
> and he wouldn't accept a negative result.

When Broad reported him Larry said he had a source that claimed the
international cricket community was conspiring to get rid of MM...a
"set up"...he named India as one of the countries involved...he also
said this source was never wrong...

I'm sorry but statements like that makes one think twice about other
things that may be said from him IMHO....
>
> Then the posters who'd made the same demand of Larry were asked (both
> by me and by larry) if they would accept the verdict, no matter what
> the outcome.
> Not one single one was game to say they would.
>
> As in nobody.
>
> And a week or so ago it looked as if the tests were going to find
> Murali didn't chuck, so these posters suddenly started to speculate
> how the tests were flawed, there was a conspiracy, Murali was a cheat
> etc etc.

I had no doubt about what the testings would show based on what Elliot
said before & after...he claimed it was antomically impossible to bowl
the doosra with his action without breaking current rules...immediately
after testing he said he couldn't comment until SL did cuz he had to
remain unbiased until SL had his report...

Larry still wont accept that the current reportings indicating that he
bends his arm over the 5% threshold even tho Elliot has now confirmed
this...he'll only accept it from the ICC...pity the SL's wont pass the
report on to the ICC and instead want to persure a change in the law &
to speculate on some plot about Broad having a drink with the
Australians...

Currently SL are in Zimbabwee and will soon play the test series...SL
appear to be delaying the reporting & pondering on what they'll do
next...
>
> I think Larry has behaved with some dignity, as opposed to the
> multitude of Murali bashers and Larry baiters who have, in my opinion,
> totally misrepresented what he said and have made up lies about him.
>
> H

I'm basing my opinions on what I understand and havn't posted any lies
about him...


23 Apr 2004 04:01:38
Samantha James
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking about
> changing the rules retrospectively.

ICC retrospectively changed its laws and legalised thresholds
of chucking (5, 7.5 and 10 degrees) when it was found out
that practically all bowlers chuck to a certain extent.

Now, what do Murali bashers say about that ? Has ICC
done the wrong thing by not banning those who chuck
instead of allowing 'chucking thresholds' ?


23 Apr 2004 21:30:49
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"bigbadja" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Enlighten you???????
>
> I don't think you can ever find enlightenment, Larry, not whilst you
> continue to dwell in cloud cuckoo land.
>
> You make a fool of yourself every time you try to defend the indefensible.
>
> Come on Larry, give me another serve, I love it when you talk
> dirty.............


Instead of trying to get your jollies, you do your home work, talk to your
old Ceylonese cricket mates (if you REALLY aren't a racist) and then tell me
what their views on Murali are. The vast majority of the older Sri Lankans I
talk to reckon Murali is being targeted and victimised by the authorities. A
few of these chaps have played a top class of cricket in the past too.

Laz




24 Apr 2004 00:04:49
The Wog
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"Samantha James" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking
about
> > changing the rules retrospectively.
>
> ICC retrospectively changed its laws and legalised thresholds
> of chucking (5, 7.5 and 10 degrees) when it was found out
> that practically all bowlers chuck to a certain extent.
>
> Now, what do Murali bashers say about that ? Has ICC
> done the wrong thing by not banning those who chuck
> instead of allowing 'chucking thresholds' ?

What's the definition of "Murali basher" these days? The last one I heard
held that all Murali bashers want him banned after being found to throw the
doosra by twice the legal limit. That definition excludes me because I don't
see the need to ban any bowler simply because he's found to be unable to
bowl one variant legally. If the basic action had failed (like it did in
HK), that would be a different story that SHOULD (but doesn't) call for a
mandatory remediation break.

However, if the question can be addressed by the broader population, I have
no problem with the RIICC creating a tolerance for chucking because I have
no problem with microchucking. The Laws were written many years ago to be
applied by the naked eye. If someone is chucking to the naked eye, and the
technology confirms that it's not OI, it's only then I think intervention
should be called for. If someone is straightening their arm by 5 degrees,
and it's not visible to the naked eye, and it's not visible on 2D slow-mo
analysis, then it's not offending the intent of the laws.

Wog




23 Apr 2004 07:07:51
Bob Dubery
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"bigbadja" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Bullshit Larry,
> You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
when LARRY does it.

You, as a principled man, will know what you must do.


24 Apr 2004 01:15:51
Mad Hamish
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
wrote:

>"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Bullshit Larry,
>> You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
>Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
>interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
>in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
>guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
>when LARRY does it.

Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
crusade.

Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.
--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
[email protected]


23 Apr 2004 18:17:50
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Samantha James wrote:

>> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking
>> about changing the rules retrospectively.
>
> ICC retrospectively changed its laws and legalised thresholds
> of chucking (5, 7.5 and 10 degrees) when it was found out
> that practically all bowlers chuck to a certain extent.
>
> Now, what do Murali bashers say about that ? Has ICC
> done the wrong thing by not banning those who chuck
> instead of allowing 'chucking thresholds' ?

Hmmm.... who is this person who is ranting on and on about
Murali bashers ?



24 Apr 2004 07:48:59
alvey
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Mad Hamish wrote:

> On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
>
>>"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>Bullshit Larry,
>>>You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
>>
>>Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
>>interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
>>in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
>>guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
>>when LARRY does it.
>
>
> Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
> crusade.
>
> Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
> you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.

Oh FFS Hamish. *Please* don't encourage him as it'll probably just
mean that he'll inflict another of those piteously nauseous,
hand-wringing and cringingly embarrassing "my concience is clear"
genre posts onto this forum. Please stop highlighting his inadequacies
and just let him slide away.



alvey





24 Apr 2004 00:33:04
anil k goel
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Bob Dubery" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> ... Yet it's wrong
> when LARRY does it.

To be fair, Bob, you also seem to have been much harsher on one group of
people (e.g., "talking out of their hole").

Besides, why do you even bother responding to some of the trolls (including
"bigdajia" in this case)?

-anil




24 Apr 2004 00:54:31
Colin Kynoch
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

On 23 Apr 2004 04:01:38 -0700, [email protected] (Samantha
James) parted their butt cheeks and let rip with this:

>> Let's hope they do the right thing and suspend him, instead of talking about
>> changing the rules retrospectively.
>
>ICC retrospectively changed its laws and legalised thresholds
>of chucking (5, 7.5 and 10 degrees) when it was found out
>that practically all bowlers chuck to a certain extent.

I suggest you find out what the word retrospectively means.

>Now, what do Murali bashers say about that ?

You don't understand what retrospectively means.

> Has ICC done the wrong thing by not banning those who chuck
>instead of allowing 'chucking thresholds' ?

Considering it has been shown that most if not all bowlers straighten
their arm to small degrees I think the current thresholds are
perfectly acceptable. To increase them further would be yet another
example of changing the rules for Murali.

Colin Kynoch



23 Apr 2004 22:05:28
Bob Dubery
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Mad Hamish <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Bullshit Larry,
> >> You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
> >Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
> >interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
> >in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
> >guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
> >when LARRY does it.
>
> Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
> crusade.
You're suprised? You might think - and it seems lately that you do -
that some lies are OK and others are to be discouraged, but I chose to
believe otherwise.

It's not lies that get your goat at all.
>
> Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
> you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.
Well why don't you take a look at, say, the bilge that Rats has been
spewing over RSC lately and ask yourself why you've joined in that
braindead, mendacious chorus and then go around lecturing other people
about honesty.

It's never the lie, is it Hamish? It's who tells the lie.


23 Apr 2004 23:22:19
Samantha James
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

> If someone is chucking to the naked eye, and the
> technology confirms that it's not OI, it's only then I think intervention
> should be called for.

Naked eye's perception of "murali chucking" is found to
be an optical illusion. The only way he was found to
have chucked is the biotechical analysis.

> If someone is straightening their arm by 5 degrees,
> and it's not visible to the naked eye, and it's not visible on 2D slow-mo
> analysis, then it's not offending the intent of the laws.

Fast bowlers,(perhaps the greates of Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie &
Michael Kasprowicz) straigthen their arms by 10 degrees and it
is not visible to the naked eye or 2D motion analysis.

So, who would argue that the same naked eye or 2D analysis
can find when Murali straightens his arm by 10 degrees ?
:-)) Does his black skin contrast the difference ? ;-))

regards
Sam


24 Apr 2004 06:38:39
Colin Kynoch
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

On 23 Apr 2004 23:22:19 -0700, samantha[email protected] (Samantha
James) parted their butt cheeks and let rip with this:

>> If someone is chucking to the naked eye, and the
>> technology confirms that it's not OI, it's only then I think intervention
>> should be called for.
>
>Naked eye's perception of "murali chucking" is found to
>be an optical illusion. The only way he was found to
>have chucked is the biotechical analysis.

Which was bought about by naked eye perception.


>> If someone is straightening their arm by 5 degrees,
>> and it's not visible to the naked eye, and it's not visible on 2D slow-mo
>> analysis, then it's not offending the intent of the laws.
>
>Fast bowlers,(perhaps the greates of Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie &
>Michael Kasprowicz) straigthen their arms by 10 degrees and it
>is not visible to the naked eye or 2D motion analysis.

Can you please provide links to the studies that show McGrath, Gilles
pie and Kaspa straighten their arms by 10 degrees. You know ones that
name them specifically.

>So, who would argue that the same naked eye or 2D analysis
>can find when Murali straightens his arm by 10 degrees ?

I would suggest that Murali's straightens by more than 10 degrees
under match conditions. In some cases considerably more.

>:-)) Does his black skin contrast the difference ? ;-))

No.

Colin Kynoch


24 Apr 2004 09:38:41
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

alvey wrote:

> Mad Hamish wrote:
>
>> On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>>
>>>>Bullshit Larry,
>>>>You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
>>>
>>>Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
>>>interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
>>>in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
>>>guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
>>>when LARRY does it.
>>
>>
>> Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
>> crusade.
>>
>> Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
>> you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.
>
> Oh FFS Hamish. *Please* don't encourage him as it'll probably just
> mean that he'll inflict another of those piteously nauseous,
> hand-wringing and cringingly embarrassing "my concience is clear"
> genre posts onto this forum. Please stop highlighting his inadequacies
> and just let him slide away.

Actually I don't think SL Laz et al are dishonest. They're just absolutely
fucking desperate.

The effect of a ban on Murali for SL would be about the same as it becoming
law that Aussie bowlers had to bowl underarm.



24 Apr 2004 09:39:29
Paul Robson
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Samantha James wrote:

>> If someone is chucking to the naked eye, and the
>> technology confirms that it's not OI, it's only then I think intervention
>> should be called for.
>
> Naked eye's perception of "murali chucking" is found to
> be an optical illusion. The only way he was found to
> have chucked is the biotechical analysis.
>
>> If someone is straightening their arm by 5 degrees,
>> and it's not visible to the naked eye, and it's not visible on 2D slow-mo
>> analysis, then it's not offending the intent of the laws.
>
> Fast bowlers,(perhaps the greates of Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie &
> Michael Kasprowicz) straigthen their arms by 10 degrees and it
> is not visible to the naked eye or 2D motion analysis.
>
> So, who would argue that the same naked eye or 2D analysis
> can find when Murali straightens his arm by 10 degrees ?
> :-)) Does his black skin contrast the difference ? ;-))
>

Well, I reckon that Andy Caddick bends his arm by 130 degrees but its
not visible. That's because I've just made it up.



25 Apr 2004 00:30:31
The Wog
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

"Samantha James" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> > If someone is chucking to the naked eye, and the
> > technology confirms that it's not OI, it's only then I think
intervention
> > should be called for.
>
> Naked eye's perception of "murali chucking" is found to
> be an optical illusion.

Really? How? By applying electrodes and taking an ECG of Murali bashers
while they watched tapes of Murali bowling? So we didn't see the chucking
that was really occurring, we imagined the illusory chucking that wasn't
occurring, and happened to get extremely lucky and the computers measured
the chucking that was really occurring (which was simultaneous with the
illusory chucking that wasn't). Great argument.

The converse is that we saw something different to the OI. While bent arms
do create OIs, they are not powerful effects and can be readily overcome. It
takes me 2 balls on the field to figure out that a bent arm bowler or a
hyperextender is bowling legally after the first OI catches my peripheral
vision or a get a word from the other umpire. Genuine chucking is much
quicker and jerkier than the relatively smooth apparently straightening of
OI. What's harder is if you have a bowler with OI who is also chucking. I
had a kid bowling at my end with a hyperextended arm but throwing about half
his deliveries. Took 5 overs to get a handle on it but by the end I was
agreeing about 3 out of 4 chucks with the SEU, signalling to each other.

I've never seen footage of him in the nets that I've thought was a throw.
His arm is still bent, it still exhibits OI. But it doesn't register as a
throw because it's smooth.

> The only way he was found to
> have chucked is the biotechical analysis.

No, he was found to have chucked by Darrell Hair with the naked eye.
Biomechanical analysis merely confirmed it. (HK, 1996 - goniometer)
>
> > If someone is straightening their arm by 5 degrees,
> > and it's not visible to the naked eye, and it's not visible on 2D
slow-mo
> > analysis, then it's not offending the intent of the laws.
>
> Fast bowlers,(perhaps the greates of Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie &
> Michael Kasprowicz)

ROTFL

> straigthen their arms by 10 degrees and it
> is not visible to the naked eye or 2D motion analysis.
>
> So, who would argue that the same naked eye or 2D analysis
> can find when Murali straightens his arm by 10 degrees ?

No-one I'm aware of. Certainly not me. I couldn't find any straightening in
the UWA microchucks I saw on the Foxtel footage. Filmed from roughly fine
leg, they looked completely smooth to me (not surprisingly, given that it
was barely 40 mph). Which is why I fully expected those deliveries to be
cleared.

Conversely, his 30-45 degree straightening in his on-field baseball doosras
were readily visible even at full speed.

> :-)) Does his black skin contrast the difference ? ;-))

2 days in RSC and already you're posting material playing the race card. Not
a good start. And putting smileys on racist material doesn't make it any
more right. Here's something with a smiley on it that I'm sure you'll
recognise:

*plonk* :))




25 Apr 2004 14:07:52
Ian Galbraith
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

On 23 Apr 2004 23:22:19 -0700, [email protected] (Samantha
James) wrote:

>> If someone is chucking to the naked eye, and the
>> technology confirms that it's not OI, it's only then I think intervention
>> should be called for.

>Naked eye's perception of "murali chucking" is found to
>be an optical illusion.

In what match? He was called for chucking using the naked eye.

[snip]

>Fast bowlers,(perhaps the greates of Glenn McGrath, Jason Gillespie &
>Michael Kasprowicz) straigthen their arms by 10 degrees and it
>is not visible to the naked eye or 2D motion analysis.

Cite examples of those specific bowlers?

>So, who would argue that the same naked eye or 2D analysis
>can find when Murali straightens his arm by 10 degrees ?
>:-)) Does his black skin contrast the difference ? ;-))

You realize you lose credibility making statements like that.





25 Apr 2004 04:10:08
Spaceman Spiff
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Ian Galbraith <[email protected] > scratched his armpit and grunted:
> On 23 Apr 2004 23:22:19 -0700, [email protected] (Samantha
> James) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> So, who would argue that the same naked eye or 2D analysis
>> can find when Murali straightens his arm by 10 degrees ?
>> :-)) Does his black skin contrast the difference ? ;-))
>
> You realize you lose credibility making statements like that.

can't lose it if you ain't got it.

--
stay cool,
Spaceman Spiff

No more cryin' and memories find their way back
Tomorrow's waiting let's journey there together
Yesterday is gone but tomorrow is forever




25 Apr 2004 00:11:33
Bob Dubery
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

alvey <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Mad Hamish wrote:
>
> > On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >>
> >>>Bullshit Larry,
> >>>You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
> >>
> >>Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
> >>interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
> >>in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
> >>guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
> >>when LARRY does it.
> >
> >
> > Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
> > crusade.
> >
> > Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
> > you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.
>
> Oh FFS Hamish. *Please* don't encourage him as it'll probably just
> mean that he'll inflict another of those piteously nauseous,
> hand-wringing and cringingly embarrassing "my concience is clear"
> genre posts onto this forum. Please stop highlighting his inadequacies
> and just let him slide away.

Keep it up long enough and I might plumb the depths of killfiling
those that got up my nose but continuing to insult them anyway.

THAT would really make my inadequacies and my gutlessness apparent.

Don't you think?


25 Apr 2004 19:25:04
Larry de Silva
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Bob Dubery" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> alvey <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected] >...
> > Mad Hamish wrote:
> >
> > > On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected] >...
> > >>
> > >>>Bullshit Larry,
> > >>>You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
> > >>
> > >>Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
> > >>interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
> > >>in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
> > >>guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
> > >>when LARRY does it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
> > > crusade.
> > >
> > > Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
> > > you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.
> >
> > Oh FFS Hamish. *Please* don't encourage him as it'll probably just
> > mean that he'll inflict another of those piteously nauseous,
> > hand-wringing and cringingly embarrassing "my concience is clear"
> > genre posts onto this forum. Please stop highlighting his inadequacies
> > and just let him slide away.
>
> Keep it up long enough and I might plumb the depths of killfiling
> those that got up my nose but continuing to insult them anyway.
>
> THAT would really make my inadequacies and my gutlessness apparent.
>
> Don't you think?


Brilliant

:-)

Laz




25 Apr 2004 09:52:54
Cicero
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking


"Larry de Silva" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "Bob Dubery" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > alvey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > Mad Hamish wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > > >>
> > > >>>Bullshit Larry,
> > > >>>You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe
it
> > > >>
> > > >>Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
> > > >>interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling
lies
> > > >>in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
> > > >>guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's
wrong
> > > >>when LARRY does it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
> > > > crusade.
> > > >
> > > > Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
> > > > you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.
> > >
> > > Oh FFS Hamish. *Please* don't encourage him as it'll probably just
> > > mean that he'll inflict another of those piteously nauseous,
> > > hand-wringing and cringingly embarrassing "my concience is clear"
> > > genre posts onto this forum. Please stop highlighting his inadequacies
> > > and just let him slide away.
> >
> > Keep it up long enough and I might plumb the depths of killfiling
> > those that got up my nose but continuing to insult them anyway.
> >
> > THAT would really make my inadequacies and my gutlessness apparent.
> >
> > Don't you think?

There's no need for you to make them apparent to any readers.




27 Apr 2004 21:28:50
kenhiggs8
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

Mad Hamish <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> wrote:
>
> >"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Bullshit Larry,
> >> You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
> >Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
> >interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
> >in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
> >guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
> >when LARRY does it.
>
> Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
> crusade.
>
> Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
> you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.

So you agree that Larry is a black cunt, do you, Hamish?

Are you really sure you want to add racism to your long list of rsc prejudices?

H


27 Apr 2004 21:34:40
kenhiggs8
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

[email protected] (Bob Dubery) wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
> alvey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Mad Hamish wrote:
> >
> > > On 23 Apr 2004 07:07:51 -0700, [email protected] (Bob Dubery)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"bigbadja" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > >>
> > >>>Bullshit Larry,
> > >>>You keep telling a lie long enough so you hope people will believe it
> > >>
> > >>Here we go again... it's not rules or fairplay that anybody's
> > >>interested in. There are plenty of other posters who are telling lies
> > >>in, one must assume, the hope that if they stick to their mendacious
> > >>guns long enough the lie will be accepted as the truth. Yet it's wrong
> > >>when LARRY does it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh, Lookie Bob's back on his "Larry's no worse than anybody else"
> > > crusade.
> > >
> > > Have a look at Larry's postings recently Bob and ask yourself why
> > > you're standing up for the dishonest tosser.
> >
> > Oh FFS Hamish. *Please* don't encourage him as it'll probably just
> > mean that he'll inflict another of those piteously nauseous,
> > hand-wringing and cringingly embarrassing "my concience is clear"
> > genre posts onto this forum. Please stop highlighting his inadequacies
> > and just let him slide away.
>
> Keep it up long enough and I might plumb the depths of killfiling
> those that got up my nose but continuing to insult them anyway.
>
> THAT would really make my inadequacies and my gutlessness apparent.
>
> Don't you think?


Touche, Bob, touche.

Just a shame Alvey has a killfile and wont see this gem of a put down
unless someone not in his killfile (a diminishing band, I
know,-perhaps Sam-an-tha could oblige!).

I'm sure Sad Hamish isn't about to help out....

H


27 Apr 2004 21:42:50
kenhiggs8
Re: Make no mistake: Murali was found guilty of chucking

witt <[email protected] > wrote in message news:<230420042002533706%[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<220420042239577964%[email protected]>...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:<210420042047225189%[email protected]>...
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>, kenhiggs8
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > witt <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:<200420042158387376%[email protected]>...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > snip
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What part dont you understand? SL sent him to Perth and the tests
> > > > > > > show
> > > > > > > his action is illegal by up to 100% under the current rules...Chris
> > > > > > > Broad has been proven correct...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're the one that asked would we abide by the judgment of any
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > not too long ago...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do you guys have to resort to lying through your teeth all the
> > > > > > time?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Larry was TOLD by the various factions here that he had to abide by
> > > > > > the results of the tests.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When he then asked if anyone would abide by the reults of the tests if
> > > > > > they proved Murali innocent, no-one answered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > H
> > > > >
> > > > > Read this thread...ICC and chucking 5/4/04 12.33AM
> > > >
> > > > What of it?
> > > >
> > > > Larry is asking Col if he'll accept the decision WHICHEVER way it goes
> > > > (you can tell by the question mark at the end).
> > > >
> > > > See if Col answers him or not.
> > > >
> > > > H
> > >
> > > You said I was lying thru my teeth...I was just giving you an example
> > > that Laz asked the question to prove I wasn't lying...
> >
> > But it's a misrepresentation.
>
> But I'm not lying thru my teeth...you claimed that of me...
>

So you plead guilty to deliberate misrepresentation, but not to lying
through your teeth?

Let me guess, you're Australian, right?

> >
> > When Broad reported Murali, a whole host of posters here said if
> > Murali was found to chuck, Larry would have to accept the verdict.
> > I think Larry is pretty brave, he said he would accept it.
> > This, of course, didn't stop several people saying Larry was a liar
> > and he wouldn't accept a negative result.
>
> When Broad reported him Larry said he had a source that claimed the
> international cricket community was conspiring to get rid of MM...a
> "set up"...he named India as one of the countries involved...he also
> said this source was never wrong...
>

So what of it?

Everyone has a 'source' here, everyone knows someone who told them
something.
Ask Wog.

And despite the accusations of lying, Larry genuinely has met and
broken bread with a large number of the SL team, unlike most of the
dishonest tossers here.


> I'm sorry but statements like that makes one think twice about other
> things that may be said from him IMHO....

Bully for you.

What about statements like thiose saying the 99% figures were simply
made up?

Then when it turned out they weren't, they started to question the
validity of them?

These people are 'believable', are they?

> >
> > Then the posters who'd made the same demand of Larry were asked (both
> > by me and by larry) if they would accept the verdict, no matter what
> > the outcome.
> > Not one single one was game to say they would.
> >
> > As in nobody.
> >
> > And a week or so ago it looked as if the tests were going to find
> > Murali didn't chuck, so these posters suddenly started to speculate
> > how the tests were flawed, there was a conspiracy, Murali was a cheat
> > etc etc.
>
> I had no doubt about what the testings would show based on what Elliot
> said before & after...he claimed it was antomically impossible to bowl
> the doosra with his action without breaking current rules...immediately
> after testing he said he couldn't comment until SL did cuz he had to
> remain unbiased until SL had his report...
>

I don't think he said that at all.

> Larry still wont accept that the current reportings indicating that he
> bends his arm over the 5% threshold even tho Elliot has now confirmed
> this...he'll only accept it from the ICC...pity the SL's wont pass the
> report on to the ICC and instead want to persure a change in the law &
> to speculate on some plot about Broad having a drink with the
> Australians...
>

Yet no-one else on this group was prepared to accept the finding of
the report except under their own very peculiar conditions and then
embarked on a slur campaign about the abilities of Elliott.

> Currently SL are in Zimbabwee and will soon play the test series...SL
> appear to be delaying the reporting & pondering on what they'll do
> next...

That simply isn't true.

> >
> > I think Larry has behaved with some dignity, as opposed to the
> > multitude of Murali bashers and Larry baiters who have, in my opinion,
> > totally misrepresented what he said and have made up lies about him.
> >
> > H
>
> I'm basing my opinions on what I understand and havn't posted any lies
> about him...

I think you have.

You've already admitted to deliberate misrepresentation.

H