Cricket: match official Mike Procter opens up on 'Monkeygate' saga involving Kiwi judge

ICC match referee Mike Proctor. Photo / Getty Images.

A former New Zealand High Court judge was involved in one of international cricket's most controversial disputes, according to a new autobiography by former South African great Mike Proctor.

His account of the "Monkeygate" saga, in which Sir John Hansen overturned a three-match suspension handed down to an Indian player for racial abuse during the 2008 New Years Test in Sydney, is damning of Cricket Australia's role in the ugly chapter.

Procter, who was match referee, has finally addressed his own role in the controversy in a new autobiography almost 10-years since the 2007-08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy series in Australia threatened to tear the game apart.

Read more: Australia celebrate securing the Ashes
Read more: Backlash at Ashes' 'farcical' stuff up

Procter's own version of events supports former Australian captain Ricky Ponting's own declarations that Cricket Australia folded to appease the Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI) — and hung Andrew Symonds out to dry.

It also supports a claim by former Australian captain Allan Border in his 2014 autobiograpy that Cricket Australia caved on threats by the BCCI to pull out of the series and return home, leaving the Australians to deal with a financial disaster.

And documented as long ago as 2011 was Hansen's assertion that his decision was forced by collusion between the BCCI and Cricket Australia.

The saga began when Ponting famously made an official complaint to Procter during the New Years Test at the SCG in 2008 which resulted in Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh being charged under the ICC code of conduct with racial abuse towards Symonds.

Harbhajan was alleged to have called Symonds a "monkey" while batting with Sachin Tendulkar.

It came after Indian supporters were spotted making monkey gestures and shouting abuse at Symonds during an Australian tour of the Sub-Continent.

Singh is alleged to have joined in with the crowd as they shouted abuse at the Aussie allrounder.

Procter's new revelations about the saga, contained in his book Caught in the Middle, Monkeygate, Politics and Other Hairy Issues; the Autobiography of Mike Procter, claims the entire saga was carried out amid "farcical" administration blunders.

In a disciplinary hearing at the end of the Test, Singh was found guilty by Procter and was hit with a three-match ban.

Procter says his decision was made based on the compelling evidence of Adam Gilchrist and Matthew Hayden that they had heard Singh's alleged racial taunt.

Both on-field umpires and fellow-batsman Tendulkar told the hearing they did not hear Singh's alleged sledge.

There was also no sound on video footage of the incident.

Australian batsman Andrew Symonds in action during the first test against India at the MCG in 2007. Photo / Getty Images.

Singh avoided having to testify because the Indian team successfully argued he was not able to provide evidence because he did not speak English.

"To say that Harbhajan didn't speak English already bordered on the farcical," Procter wrote.

Procter said his decision to find Singh guilty was easy based on the lack of evidence India's team was able to bring to the hearing.

In his book he writes India provided "absolutely nothing in terms of evidence".

The hastily-organised appeal to Procter's verdict is where the farce truly began to break apart.

Procter writes that Cricket Australia leaned on players not to push for further action against Singh.

Ponting wrote in his own book that he felt let down by Cricket Australia.

Procter said the lengths Aussie officials went to appease Indian cricket officials was "mind-boggling".

"Cricket Australia had leant heavily on the players to take the racism allegation away, and instead make it a matter of abuse," Procter wrote.

Tendulkar's flip-flopped testimony at the hearing where he changed his version of events to declare he heard Singh call Symonds an obscene Indian term which included the word "maa ki".

Tendulkar's testimony backflip was enough for Kiwi lawyer Sir John Hansen to downgrade Singh's ICC conviction to a lesser charge of abuse — and the bowler ended up avoiding a one-match suspension he should have served because of previous incidents.

Harbhajan Singh leaves the court building after the appeal hearing against a three-match ban imposed by the ICC in Adelaide in 2008. Photo / Getty Images.

The ugly saga still rankles with many of those involved.

In his 2011 memoir Sticky Wicket, former ICC chief executive Malcolm Speed reproduced a letter from Hansen who was at that time ICC Code of Conduct Commissioner.

"Although both boards would deny it, BCCI and CA were having discussions behind the scenes to resolve matters," Hansen wrote.

"Indeed, they presented me with an agreed statement of facts (signed by Harbhajan, former Australian captain Ricky Ponting, Symonds, Michael Clarke, Matthew Hayden and Sachin Tendulkar) and a consent order that they expected me to rubber-stamp."

"In my view the consequences of such a course of action would have been disastrous for cricket. In any event, their actions undermined the independence of the Code of Conduct Commissioner, were unbecoming, and in my view, contrary to the spirit of cricket," the letter published in Speed's book said.

Nevertheless, Hansen downgraded the racism charge against Harbhajan to one of using general obscene, offensive or insulting language, overturned the suspension and fined him 50 per cent of his match fee.

In his book, Speed said the letter revealed the lengths Cricket Australia went to preserve its relationship with the BCCI and, "the willingness of (India's) administrators to use their financial muscle when national pride is at stake".

For his part, Border - at the time on the Cricket Australia board - felt Symonds has been hung out to dry.

"We were told we'd have a massive financial hole if the Indians went home, and we couldn't afford it," Border wrote.

"Channel Nine as the broadcaster could sue us for not producing the days of cricket specified by the television-rights contract, and then we'd have to countersue India. India are all-powerful now, so we'd have had no chance.

"The realisation at board level was that we couldn't have India go home. But morally and ethically we should have called their bluff and hoped the global community would hold them to order, even though I don't think that would have happened."

Procter admits the saga hurt him personally. He was branded a villain by Indian commentators and sensationally criticised by Sunil Gavaskar in a newspaper column in which the Indian Test legend declared Procter was a "white man taking the white man's word against that of the brown man".

"By accepting the word of the Australian players and not the Indian players, the match referee has exposed himself to the charge of taking a decision based not on facts, but on emotion," Gavaskar wrote.

"Worse still, his decision has incensed millions of Indians, who are quite understandably asking why his decision should not be considered a racist one, considering the charges that were levied on Harbhajan were of a racist remark.

"Millions of Indians want to know if it was a 'white man' taking the 'white man's' word against that of the 'brown man.'

"Quite simply if there was no audio evidence nor did the officials hear anything then the charge did not stand."

What really happened out in the middle looks destined to forever be hidden behind the strikingly contrasting accounts from both teams.