Is Hair a racist?

Thats what everyone - especially former Pakistani players and fans are saying.

This is what Pakistani newspaper The Dawn had to say

"there is widespread view that Hair is heavily biased ... against subcontinental teams, particularly Pakistan and Sri Lanka."

Imran Khan

"Hair is one of those characters when he wears the white umpires' coat, he metamorphoses into a mini-Hitler."

Rameez Raza

"The players from the sub-continent universally feel that he is biased, even to the extent of being a racist,"

will come to the ball tampering issue later.

First, some things about Hair's past : (Taken from rediff)

1) A year after standing in his first Test, Hair gave Craig McDermott out with a contentious caught behind decision off Courtney Walsh's bowling to give the West Indies a one-run victory in the fourth Test in Adelaide on January 25, 1993. McDermott and Tim May had added 40 for the final wicket when Hair deemed the delivery to have brushed the fast bowler's glove contrary to the evidence of TV footage.

2) Hair no-balls Sri Lankan off-spinner Muttiah Muralitharan for throwing on seven occasions during the Boxing Day test at the Melbourne Cricket Ground in December 1995. Skipper Arjuna Ranatunga led his players off the field in protest only to return and bowl Muralitharan from the other end where umpire Steve Dunne was officiating.

3) Hair describes Muralitharan's action as 'diabolical' in his 1998 autobiography, a charge which prompts the Sri Lankan board to ask the International Cricket Council to charge him with bringing the game into disrepute. He is stood down from a tri-nations series involving England, Australia and Sri Lanka and accuses Sri Lankan Board president Thilange Sumathipala of a 'smear campaign'.

4) In 2004, Hair and fellow umpire Billy Bowden reported Pakistan fast bowler Shabbir Ahmed for a suspect bowling action.

5) Adjudges Inzamam-ul-Haq run out by Steve Harmison in the second Test against England in Faisalabad when the Pakistan captain seemed to be trying to evade the bowler's throw in November last year.

#1 was against Australia.

#2 and #3 was against Sri Lanka and Muralitharan in particular.
Murlitharan doesnt have a clean action. That ICC had to change the bowling rules proved his action wasnt legal. Ok I am being polite. It proved that he used to chuck. We cant call Hair a racist for seeing that almost 10 yrs before than ICC.

#4 Shabbir Ahmed is banned because of his action. So again I see no problems in Hair reporting him for his action.

#5 was a wrong decision. But thats not enough to term him a racist.

That way West Indian umpire Steve Bucknor has been on a mission to give wrong decisions against India since a long time. Too bad we cant call him a racist.

And moreover, Hair isnt the only umpire Pakistan had a problem with. They had problems with most umpires when things werent going their way. Before Hair, they had a problem with David Shepherd as well.

If Hair has a shady past, so do Pakistan.

Its no secret that most of the Pakistani bowlers used to tamper the ball (Not taking anything away from their bowling talents).

Its also no secret that some of their bowlers had / have illegal actions (they chuck)

When England went to Pakistan, Shahid Afridi was caught on camera dancing on the pitch to damage it. He was banned for a few matches because of that.

Inzamam let out a secret when he said he didnt know the rules after getting out obstructing the field and then arguing with the umpires.

Umpire Billy Doctrove agreed with the ball tampering accusation. Why is he not a racist if Hair is?

I am not defending Hair here. Its just that if Hair is a racist based on his past, Pakistanis are ball tamperers too based on their past.

Now, My views on this issue :

1) Did Pakistanis tamper the ball?
No idea. It wasnt shown on TV. So maybe they didnt. But both umpires seemed convinced. I want them to prove it.

2) Did Pakistanis do the right thing by not coming out to play?
Yes. If they thought they didnt tamper they ball, they did the right thing. What is the purpose of going out to play afer being called a cheat? even if they win, it will be said they won by cheating.

3) Should Inzamam be banned?
No. Though he should have been banned for trying to kill a spectator in toronto and then bringing the game into disrepute by obstructing the field first, then arguing with the umpires and later blaming the opposition to play against the spirit of the game, right now he shouldnt be. Definitely not without any proof.

4) What about former asian players calling Hair a racist?
Its stupid and immature. They should demand proof from Hair and then ask ICC to take action on him if he doesnt have any - instead of crying 'that big white Hair guy troubling us lil brown asians'

5) Is Hair a racist?
No. Same way Steve Bucknor isnt.