I don’t agree with the appeals process. And if I were running the BCCI, I won’t either. See my other article and we can continue the argument there.

Remember that Robert Mugabe was a freedom fighter in Rhodesia — power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That’s why we have checks and balances, rights of appeal etc.

The BCCI is entirely recalcitrant when it exercises a right of appeal and then refuses to accept the decision.

I agree that the BCCI ought not to throw its weight around just because it supplies world cricket with 80% of its funds. However, where there is nonsense involved — and clearly the Harbhajan Singh case and the Gautam Gambhir appeal are examples — it must protest in any/every way it can.

I agree that taking the bat and ball and going home is not the solution. However, what we are talking about is not the hiring of charter planes but natural justice to be served.

Happy to discuss/debate with anyone/anytime on this.

You say ‘what if the ICC were a organisationally shallow of morally corrupt organisation?’ I would say that you’re probably right on that matter, but the BCCI constantly throwing its weight around outside the established processes for governing the world of cricket, and I think it makes things definitely worse.

If all countries were able to and did behave like the BCCI there would be no international cricket, as everyone would have taken their bat and ball and gone home.

So you do not accept that the American War of Independence / American Revolution, say (could be seen as an act that “undermined authority”) was necessary or important? What if the ICC were a organisationally shallow of morally corrupt organisation? I am not saying it is… totally, but thee are elements of that. In my view, its governance needs a complete and total overhaul — another topic another day.

I would say that it is not Gambhir that is being recalcitrant, but it is certainly an apt descriptor for the BCCI. They consistently undermine the authority of the ICC*, in a way that may further their short term, nationalistic goals (eg. getting rid of Steve Bucknor, threatening to go home from Australia, refusing to accept an ICC judgement), but can only damage the game in the longer term.

I am not saying that the ICC is a faultless organisation, by any stretch of the imagination, but, in order to have effective governance arrangements, it is important to have an authority that is respected.

You are a joke! Here we have Mohan patiently giving you time of day and proving beyond reasonable doubt that you are a dill. A good response to Mohan would have been “Thank you for the patient education. I did not know. Now I do.”

Instead, you continued your ego-trip! Your words are here for all of us to read. And from it, it is obvious to me that you are a loser, mate!

Takes two to tango. You have made it clear how little you think of me. The irony of course is that you are no better.

Enjoy your hate filled, racially driven, hypocritical life.

Your reproduction above and my post immediately prior are totally consistent.

The AFL Appeals process does not “require” new evidence.

In other words, Appeal Rule 24 suggests, in fact, that any new evidence that is presented to the Appeals board has to pass a stiff test before it is admitted. New evidence has to pass the rigorous test that would stand to convince the Board that this new evidence could not have been obtained prior to the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing. In other words, only after this test has been passed will new evidence be admissible. Further, such new evidence will only be admissible if the appellant is able to prove that such new evidence is of “sufficient value that had it been presented before the Tribunal, the Tribunal would have reached a different decision”.

In other words, the Appeals Tribunal in fact makes it extremely hard for new evidence to be presented!

The most important rules are 13.1.11, 13.1.12 and 13.1.13

Here they are below. The important bits are in bold to make it easier for you:

11. The Appeal Board shall hear and determine an appeal against findings made by the Tribunal by re-hearing the matter and forming its own view of the evidence presented before the Tribunal.
12. Neither the appellant nor AFLQ may produce fresh evidence at the hearing of
the appeal without the permission of the Chairperson. The Chairperson must
not give permission to produce fresh evidence unless:
(a) the evidence could not by reasonable diligence have been obtained by the appellant prior to the conclusion of the hearing before the Tribunal; and
(b) the evidence is of sufficient probative value that, considered with other evidence which was before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may have
reached a different decision.
13. The Appeal Board may have regard to the record of the proceeding before the Tribunal as previously constituted, including a record of any evidence taken in the Tribunal Hearing.

And finally…

JB, I do not need to resort to insults to put you down mate. You are doing a terrific job of it al on your own!

– Mohan