Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[OldPal]

Stanford apology to England stars

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7694585.stm

Sir Allen Stanford has apologised for his part in an incident that upset the England players during their Super Series win against Middlesex on Sunday.

The series' backer was pictured sitting among the players' partners, with Matt Prior's wife Emily on his lap.

"He understood that the players were not particularly pleased with the incident," said a Stanford spokesman.

"He called both Kevin Pietersen and Matt Prior personally and they have accepted his apology."

The incident, which involved the 58-year-old putting his arms around some of the women, was shown on the big screen at the Stanford Stadium and televised.

A number of England players, in the field at the time, found the episode inappropriate.

Stuart Broad, who was bowling at the time, said: "There were a few gobsmacked faces when it popped up on the big screen. Matt was in state of total shock, especially as his wife is pregnant."

 I have not known a ground where the visibility is as bad

Shaun Udal, Middlesex captain
An England spokesman added: "As far as we are concerned, the matter is now closed."

The series culminates in Saturday night's $20m extravaganza in which England play the Stanford Super Stars - led by West Indies star Chris Gayle.

Each member of the winning side will earn $1m, currently about £640,000 following sterling's recent troubles.

But in a series of warm-up matches, criticisms have been levelled at the slow wicket, lush outfield and poor floodlights.

The result is that instead of seeing big shots and big scores, the crowd have witnessed dropped catches and low totals.

Middlesex lost the second biggest match of the week - the $280,000 Champions Cup against Trinidad and Tobago - on Monday.

 606: DEBATE
Poor Mrs Prior. What do you do when the man who's bankrolling this whole circus gets you to sit on his lap with the cameras on you?

huxleysdad
Their captain, Shaun Udal, complained: "There are very difficult catching conditions out there. I have not known a ground where the visibility is as bad.

"Once the ball has gone above the lights you are just watching an area to see where it comes out of and you have to adjust accordingly."

Sir Allen, 58, a former real estate tycoon from Texas, has dual American and Antiguan citizenship. He now advises affluent investors and institutions on their finances.

He announced the Stanford Super Series in June after a meeting with the England and Wales Cricket Board at Lord's and has a plan to turn cricket into the biggest team sport in the world.

He recently told BBC Radio 5 Live that Twenty20, rather than Test cricket, was the way forward.

"The future of the game is Twenty20. At the end of the day, professional sports is unfortunately all about making money.

"It would be foolish to say that Test cricket is the only thing out there. Twenty20 will drive cricket commercially."

[dextrous]

"There were a few gobsmacked faces when it popped up on the big screen. Matt was in state of total shock, especially as his wife is pregnant."

Whose kid is that Mr. Matt Gilchirst Prior?!

[teamindia]

Shouldn't the players be upset with their wives? I mean if the wives are happily sitting on his lap giggling then why blame the guy. Or are they upset just because it came out on screen and other media?

[teamindia]

[dhruvdeepak]

is she now the prior mrs prior?

naach, r***i naach
everyone loves a nice lapdance.

no one put a gun to her head to sit on the rich man's lap and make a spectacle. her fault and hers alone. stanford has no obligations, the lap lady does.
hahaha she's frikkin pregnant for goshsakes

[cricinfo]

Party falls flat after row 
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH 
A cocktail party due to be hosted Wednesday night by Sir Allen Stanford for the England team was cancelled on Tuesday as the fall-out from the embarrassing incident involving the team’s wives and girlfriends rumbles on.

Stanford was forced into issuing a humiliating apology to the England players on Monday after he was shown on television flirting with their partners. At one stage the 58-year-old divorcee was shown sitting Emily Prior, the wife of wicketkeeper Matt, on his knee before hugging and grabbing other WAGs. This has highlighted their desire to keep their partners out of the limelight.
 
http://telegraphindia.com/1081030/jsp/sports/story_10036347.jsp

[dextrous]

 clearly emily prior is enjoying herself

[LosingNow]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

[teamindia]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

harmless? Imagine what Matt Prior might be going through...

[justforkix]

Well it looks pretty serious now - players have cribbed to ECB and their players' association. The Stanford contract may be terminated now after this game !!

[teamindia]

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/surfer/archives/2008/10/england_selling.php

England selling soul of the game

Posted 19 hours, 6 minutes ago in Stanford 20/20 for 20

As the media anger over the sight of Allen Stanford with Emily Prior perched on his knees dies down, there is also a growing tide of thinking that the whole 20/20 for 20 venture is looking increasingly tawdry.

There were more than a few raised eyebrows last June when Stanford’s helicopter landed at Lord’s and he was almost treated as a saviour by fawning ECB executives. The unveiling of US$20 million is hard currency inside the indoor school for many signalled that English cricket had sold out.

Now that the eight-day feast of Stanford’s cash-driven Twenty20 is underway, it has proved too rich for many of those watching it.

In today’s Daily Mail, Paul Newman wrote that “English cricket has clearly jumped into a very uncomfortable bed by so eagerly accepting Stanford's millions and now everyone involved with our game has to lie in it. The ECB may have made sure that their players become very wealthy this week but the price being paid is an expensive one. English cricket is selling its soul.”

According to Newman, those comments have registered with the players, one (unnamed) member of the England squad saying: “If that's what people back home are thinking then we can't get out of here quick enough.”

In the Times on Monday, Simon Barnes described the tournament as “pornography”. He added: “It is not, then, the pursuit of excellence. Nor is it the pursuit of money. Rather, it is the pursuit of squirming. It is a billionaire's malicious joke at the expense of people he never could be, even if he had a billion billion. He will make a group of richly gifted international athletes squirm and grovel before the altars of money.”

In the Sunday Times Simon Wilde also showed he is no fan. “What a vision it is: a toytown stadium, black bats, silver stumps, vulgar amounts of money and a contraction of the game’s skills into the time it takes to consume a jumbo burger, a tub of popcorn and a bucket of Pepsi. Bad taste, just another toxic asset the United States has given the world.”

Steve James in the Guardian would not disagree. “The match is a disgrace at almost every level, and not just because its Texas billionaire backer, Sir Allen Stanford, has spent the past week on a dollar-driven ego trip, parading around his private ground, hogging the limelight and cavorting with the England players' wives. November 1 will be the night cricket is turned into reality TV, where some grisly voyeuristic fare is served up for those of a short attention span. Big Brother has finished: roll up instead to watch the nervous antics of the England cricket team. Who will drop a catch to cost his mates half a million quid?”

Perhaps more surprising, given the vast sums poured into the venture, are the facilities. The pitches have been slow and low, exactly what is not needed for high-scoring, big-hitting matches, and the low-level floodlights, necessary because of the proximity of the ground to the airport, has made catching a lottery, with some of the world’s best fielders left looking like club duffers.

“The cricketing reality is the pitch and outfield mean the games will be dull, dull, dull,” wrote John Ethridge in the Sun. “Certainly the loot available is inversely proportional to the quality of the product, although the ground is pretty.”

It is possible to find those still who are prepared to enthuse. Here’s Nasser Hussain on Emilygate. “It was pretty harmless, to be honest, and the wives must remember that their husbands are potentially earning a fortune by being here and they are in a lovely place having a lovely time in the sunshine. If the man who is putting up all the money wants to give them a quick cuddle for the cameras is that really a big problem?”

It should be remembered, however, that Hussain fronted the ECB/Stanford announcement at Lord’s last summer and is also covering the tournament for Sky … and the broadcasters have invested heavily in their coverage of the event.

The motivation behind the Stanford shebang isn't apparent. Sir Sir Allen Stanford's game clearly isn't cricket, not as we know it, so just what is it? Andy Bull can't seem to find an answer in his blog on the Guardian website.

[pzd]

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/surfer/archives/2008/10/england_selling.php

England selling soul of the game

Posted 19 hours, 6 minutes ago in Stanford 20/20 for 20

Well, Well, Well All English authors had a field day when IPL was announced deriding India  for selling the soul of the game by ditching traditional form of the game (test match ckt)... Hmm.
Finally everythings publicity for Stanford and his firm.. whether its fame or notoriety

[prfsr]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

[flute]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

prfsr, I am surprised you said this..
Swadharme nidhanam shreya para dharmo bhayapaha

judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards..

[keep-it-cool]

Hilarious.

Chala Stanford Modi ban-ne!!

[prfsr]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

prfsr, I am surprised you said this..
Swadharme nidhanam shreya para dharmo bhayapaha

judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards..

Flute
I am surprised you said this.. 

What exactly are you insinuating -- that this was all fine and dandy by western culture and standards? If  so why are the players ashamed and why is making it public a big deal? Do you see this happening at parties you have been to?

PS: did not fully get the sanskrit phrase - please translate.

[flute]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

prfsr, I am surprised you said this..
Swadharme nidhanam shreya para dharmo bhayapaha

judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards..

Flute
I am surprised you said this.. 

What exactly are you insinuating -- that this was all fine and dandy by western culture and standards? If  so why are the players ashamed and why is making it public a big deal? Do you see this happening at parties you have been to?

PS: did not fully get the sanskrit phrase - please translate.

prfsr saab, you keep surprising me again and again..just because you are BNNP chairmen you should be more consistent and agree with me more

nah I have no stand on rights ,wrongs of this issue..we can't get the context, tenor of interaction between wives & stanford from those pics for me to make a call. I also don't like some rather unflatering comments about the pregnant women on this thread.

My comment was more about you asking if WN will tolerate the same or if he will do the same as what Stanford did..

Below is full translation of that sanskrit sloka
performing ones own duty tinged with errors is far far better than performing another prescribed duties
it is better to die performing one's own duty rather than performing another's duty.

I know it sounds way too deep for this topic, but I was only trying to say that WN might have his own mores/values and eng players will have their own. WN was obviously trying to judge them by their standards not his standards. Your question to WN was invalid IMO from that perspective.

[LosingNow]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

Look.. you are missing the point.

As flute mentioned, there is an element of culture here as well as the issue of the incident being public.

Let me give you an example ..

Hugging (the opposite sex) is a very common phenomenon in the west...and it is not at all kosher in our culture.

There is nothing sexual or even flirtatious about hugging ..but to a person of Indian descent this may not appear so.

The context is important.

I hug my Indian friends' wives and they hug my wife too when we meet ...but some times we are careful, if our respective parents or other elders or people we don't know (who can be sensitive) are present...because it would make them uncomfortable or could interpret things wrongly.

Similar situation here.. the ladies and stanford were having harmless (ie non-sexual but somewhat flirtatious) fun. What made the incident bad was that it was captured and aired on TV.

[keep-it-cool]

Well I understand harmless flirting and all ..but does that also include sitting in someone's lap??

Kahan india mein reh gayaa mein yaar!!

[LosingNow]

Well I understand harmless flirting and all ..but does that also include sitting in someone's lap??

Kahan india mein reh gayaa mein yaar!!

he he...

Tu kissi ladki ke lap main aake baith jaane se khush ho jayega?

[prfsr]

Well I understand harmless flirting and all ..but does that also include sitting in someone's lap??

Kahan india mein reh gayaa mein yaar!!

kic and WN

This was my point too. I do understand the differences in culture -- and one thing I learnt was that there are very strong boundaries here as well. Just different boundaries. So I asked the question to you not as an Indian but one who has been Amercanized
(no negative connotations here - I am Americanized too). My overwhelming experience is that what I think is just over the line may be barely acceptable here but what I consider way over the line is usually over the line here as well.

BTW if Stanford was in a bar and the pregnant lady decided to hang out with him, I would not pass any judgment. The situation here was quite different. Stanford was there in the capacity of a sponsor. I think this was more like a person doing it (whatever Stanford did) in the office lounge or at an after hours party, with the wife of a *much* lower ranked employee.

What is sexual harassment in an office may not be that at a nightclub.

[prfsr]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

prfsr, I am surprised you said this..
Swadharme nidhanam shreya para dharmo bhayapaha

judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards..

Flute
I am surprised you said this.. 

What exactly are you insinuating -- that this was all fine and dandy by western culture and standards? If  so why are the players ashamed and why is making it public a big deal? Do you see this happening at parties you have been to?

PS: did not fully get the sanskrit phrase - please translate.

prfsr saab, you keep surprising me again and again..just because you are BNNP chairmen you should be more consistent and agree with me more

nah I have no stand on rights ,wrongs of this issue..we can't get the context, tenor of interaction between wives & stanford from those pics for me to make a call. I also don't like some rather unflatering comments about the pregnant women on this thread.

My comment was more about you asking if WN will tolerate the same or if he will do the same as what Stanford did..

Below is full translation of that sanskrit sloka
performing ones own duty tinged with errors is far far better than performing another prescribed duties
it is better to die performing one's own duty rather than performing another's duty.

I know it sounds way too deep for this topic, but I was only trying to say that WN might have his own mores/values and eng players will have their own. WN was obviously trying to judge them by their standards not his standards. Your question to WN was invalid IMO from that perspective.

I disagree with your basic premise. I try to not have double standards as much as possible. "Do unto others..." etc, except this is in judging not doing.

If the England players thought it was all fine, I would not call them names and ask "how come they accept this?" OTOH they did not think it was fine. Stanford himself apologized profusely ( ) and the matter is settled. I really do not agree that western standards are so low that this is acceptable. As I mentioned in another post, this type of behavior is prevented by sexual harassment laws in organizations.

[flute]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

prfsr, I am surprised you said this..
Swadharme nidhanam shreya para dharmo bhayapaha

judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards..

Flute
I am surprised you said this.. 

What exactly are you insinuating -- that this was all fine and dandy by western culture and standards? If  so why are the players ashamed and why is making it public a big deal? Do you see this happening at parties you have been to?

PS: did not fully get the sanskrit phrase - please translate.

prfsr saab, you keep surprising me again and again..just because you are BNNP chairmen you should be more consistent and agree with me more

nah I have no stand on rights ,wrongs of this issue..we can't get the context, tenor of interaction between wives & stanford from those pics for me to make a call. I also don't like some rather unflatering comments about the pregnant women on this thread.

My comment was more about you asking if WN will tolerate the same or if he will do the same as what Stanford did..

Below is full translation of that sanskrit sloka
performing ones own duty tinged with errors is far far better than performing another prescribed duties
it is better to die performing one's own duty rather than performing another's duty.

I know it sounds way too deep for this topic, but I was only trying to say that WN might have his own mores/values and eng players will have their own. WN was obviously trying to judge them by their standards not his standards. Your question to WN was invalid IMO from that perspective.

I disagree with your basic premise. I try to not have double standards as much as possible. "Do unto others..." etc, except this is in judging not doing.

If the England players thought it was all fine, I would not call them names and ask "how come they accept this?" OTOH they did not think it was fine. Stanford himself apologized profusely ( ) and the matter is settled. I really do not agree that western standards are so low that this is acceptable. As I mentioned in another post, this type of behavior is prevented by sexual harassment laws in organizations.

you are not disagree with me because I do not have an opinion on this and I care 2 bits about it, way too busy to go into this. Nowhere did I mention that western standards allow it..I am only questionning you about you asking WN about his own reacction if something similar happens in his personal life. My take was, he can very well object to it and still find it not objectionable for Stanford because of cultural differences. Such stand wouldn't reek of double standards.

[dextrous]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

prfsr, I am surprised you said this..
Swadharme nidhanam shreya para dharmo bhayapaha

judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards..

Flute
I am surprised you said this.. 

What exactly are you insinuating -- that this was all fine and dandy by western culture and standards? If  so why are the players ashamed and why is making it public a big deal? Do you see this happening at parties you have been to?

PS: did not fully get the sanskrit phrase - please translate.

prfsr saab, you keep surprising me again and again..just because you are BNNP chairmen you should be more consistent and agree with me more

nah I have no stand on rights ,wrongs of this issue..we can't get the context, tenor of interaction between wives & stanford from those pics for me to make a call. I also don't like some rather unflatering comments about the pregnant women on this thread.

My comment was more about you asking if WN will tolerate the same or if he will do the same as what Stanford did..

Below is full translation of that sanskrit sloka
performing ones own duty tinged with errors is far far better than performing another prescribed duties
it is better to die performing one's own duty rather than performing another's duty.

I know it sounds way too deep for this topic, but I was only trying to say that WN might have his own mores/values and eng players will have their own. WN was obviously trying to judge them by their standards not his standards. Your question to WN was invalid IMO from that perspective.

I disagree with your basic premise. I try to not have double standards as much as possible. "Do unto others..." etc, except this is in judging not doing.

If the England players thought it was all fine, I would not call them names and ask "how come they accept this?" OTOH they did not think it was fine. Stanford himself apologized profusely ( ) and the matter is settled. I really do not agree that western standards are so low that this is acceptable. As I mentioned in another post, this type of behavior is prevented by sexual harassment laws in organizations.

you are not disagree with me because I do not have an opinion on this and I care 2 bits about it, way too busy to go into this. Nowhere did I mention that western standards allow it..I am only questionning you about you asking WN about his own reacction if something similar happens in his personal life. My take was, he can very well object to it and still find it not objectionable for Stanford because of cultural differences. Such stand wouldn't reek of double standards.

"judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards.." hmm?

[flute]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

prfsr, I am surprised you said this..
Swadharme nidhanam shreya para dharmo bhayapaha

judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards..

Flute
I am surprised you said this.. 

What exactly are you insinuating -- that this was all fine and dandy by western culture and standards? If  so why are the players ashamed and why is making it public a big deal? Do you see this happening at parties you have been to?

PS: did not fully get the sanskrit phrase - please translate.

prfsr saab, you keep surprising me again and again..just because you are BNNP chairmen you should be more consistent and agree with me more

nah I have no stand on rights ,wrongs of this issue..we can't get the context, tenor of interaction between wives & stanford from those pics for me to make a call. I also don't like some rather unflatering comments about the pregnant women on this thread.

My comment was more about you asking if WN will tolerate the same or if he will do the same as what Stanford did..

Below is full translation of that sanskrit sloka
performing ones own duty tinged with errors is far far better than performing another prescribed duties
it is better to die performing one's own duty rather than performing another's duty.

I know it sounds way too deep for this topic, but I was only trying to say that WN might have his own mores/values and eng players will have their own. WN was obviously trying to judge them by their standards not his standards. Your question to WN was invalid IMO from that perspective.

I disagree with your basic premise. I try to not have double standards as much as possible. "Do unto others..." etc, except this is in judging not doing.

If the England players thought it was all fine, I would not call them names and ask "how come they accept this?" OTOH they did not think it was fine. Stanford himself apologized profusely ( ) and the matter is settled. I really do not agree that western standards are so low that this is acceptable. As I mentioned in another post, this type of behavior is prevented by sexual harassment laws in organizations.

you are not disagree with me because I do not have an opinion on this and I care 2 bits about it, way too busy to go into this. Nowhere did I mention that western standards allow it..I am only questionning you about you asking WN about his own reacction if something similar happens in his personal life. My take was, he can very well object to it and still find it not objectionable for Stanford because of cultural differences. Such stand wouldn't reek of double standards.

"judge eng players, their wives & their media by their culture and their standards.." hmm?

yeah you go by their standards if you want to judge that particular action, it doesn't mean I think that action was ok.

[dextrous]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

Look.. you are missing the point.

As flute mentioned, there is an element of culture here as well as the issue of the incident being public.

Let me give you an example ..

Hugging (the opposite sex) is a very common phenomenon in the west...and it is not at all kosher in our culture.

There is nothing sexual or even flirtatious about hugging ..but to a person of Indian descent this may not appear so.

The context is important.

I hug my Indian friends' wives and they hug my wife too when we meet ...but some times we are careful, if our respective parents or other elders or people we don't know (who can be sensitive) are present...because it would make them uncomfortable or could interpret things wrongly.

Similar situation here.. the ladies and stanford were having harmless (ie non-sexual but somewhat flirtatious) fun. What made the incident bad was that it was captured and aired on TV.

other than sorority/frat parties/drunk debauchery, it is not a common thing for girls to sit on laps of 50+ year olds in the west either...it is a very sexual position when you add in the age and status of the guy.

[LosingNow]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

Look.. you are missing the point.

As flute mentioned, there is an element of culture here as well as the issue of the incident being public.

Let me give you an example ..

Hugging (the opposite sex) is a very common phenomenon in the west...and it is not at all kosher in our culture.

There is nothing sexual or even flirtatious about hugging ..but to a person of Indian descent this may not appear so.

The context is important.

I hug my Indian friends' wives and they hug my wife too when we meet ...but some times we are careful, if our respective parents or other elders or people we don't know (who can be sensitive) are present...because it would make them uncomfortable or could interpret things wrongly.

Similar situation here.. the ladies and stanford were having harmless (ie non-sexual but somewhat flirtatious) fun. What made the incident bad was that it was captured and aired on TV.

other than sorority/frat parties/drunk debauchery, it is not a common thing for girls to sit on laps of 50+ year olds in the west either...it is a very sexual position when you add in the age and status of the guy.

in general..but in this specific instance it is more flirtatious (designed for fun..a bit on the extreme side though) than sexual(designed to arouse each other). Come on the woman is pregnant, he is not trying to bed her.

I think different people would draw the line between flirting and sexual approach differently but the public nature of the incident makes that discussion moot..because it is not what stanford and the women think that matters anymore but what others will make of it.

[pipsqueak]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

Look.. you are missing the point.

As flute mentioned, there is an element of culture here as well as the issue of the incident being public.

Let me give you an example ..

Hugging (the opposite sex) is a very common phenomenon in the west...and it is not at all kosher in our culture.

There is nothing sexual or even flirtatious about hugging ..but to a person of Indian descent this may not appear so.

The context is important.

I hug my Indian friends' wives and they hug my wife too when we meet ...but some times we are careful, if our respective parents or other elders or people we don't know (who can be sensitive) are present...because it would make them uncomfortable or could interpret things wrongly.

Similar situation here.. the ladies and stanford were having harmless (ie non-sexual but somewhat flirtatious) fun. What made the incident bad was that it was captured and aired on TV.

i hate that whole ordeal, this round robin hugging, where every one has to hug every one else, it's not even a hug, but a carefully done half hug - almost as annoying as smiling, nodding head, uttering some inane greetings to random people one comes across in an elevator, all in the name of being friendly!

  

[xiexie]

Im sorry but these pics to me say that Stanford behaved as if he owns the English players and not just that he can pretty much do any shiit that he pleases with their wives as well...

Even Lalit Modi has not yet dared to lay paw on an of the WAGS of Indian or other cricketer's partners...

The reason why I say so is because in spite of Stanford's wealth Modi has more clout in the cricketing world...

[keep-it-cool]

Nasser Hussain on Emilygate. “It was pretty harmless, to be honest, and the wives must remember that their husbands are potentially earning a fortune by being here and they are in a lovely place having a lovely time in the sunshine. If the man who is putting up all the money wants to give them a quick cuddle for the cameras is that really a big problem?”

Wow. So its all right because of all the money that is being put up!!

[LosingNow]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

Look.. you are missing the point.

As flute mentioned, there is an element of culture here as well as the issue of the incident being public.

Let me give you an example ..

Hugging (the opposite sex) is a very common phenomenon in the west...and it is not at all kosher in our culture.

There is nothing sexual or even flirtatious about hugging ..but to a person of Indian descent this may not appear so.

The context is important.

I hug my Indian friends' wives and they hug my wife too when we meet ...but some times we are careful, if our respective parents or other elders or people we don't know (who can be sensitive) are present...because it would make them uncomfortable or could interpret things wrongly.

Similar situation here.. the ladies and stanford were having harmless (ie non-sexual but somewhat flirtatious) fun. What made the incident bad was that it was captured and aired on TV.

i hate that whole ordeal, this round robin hugging, where every one has to hug every one else, it's not even a hug, but a carefully done half hug - almost as annoying as smiling, nodding head, uttering some inane greetings to random people one comes across in an elevator, all in the name of being friendly!

  

You aint seen my hugs yet, no half-measures here

God, you are such a cynic .. how much time did you spend in England

[flute]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

Look.. you are missing the point.

As flute mentioned, there is an element of culture here as well as the issue of the incident being public.

Let me give you an example ..

Hugging (the opposite sex) is a very common phenomenon in the west...and it is not at all kosher in our culture.

There is nothing sexual or even flirtatious about hugging ..but to a person of Indian descent this may not appear so.

The context is important.

I hug my Indian friends' wives and they hug my wife too when we meet ...but some times we are careful, if our respective parents or other elders or people we don't know (who can be sensitive) are present...because it would make them uncomfortable or could interpret things wrongly.

Similar situation here.. the ladies and stanford were having harmless (ie non-sexual but somewhat flirtatious) fun. What made the incident bad was that it was captured and aired on TV.

i hate that whole ordeal, this round robin hugging, where every one has to hug every one else, it's not even a hug, but a carefully done half hug - almost as annoying as smiling, nodding head, uttering some inane greetings to random people one comes across in an elevator, all in the name of being friendly!

  

You aint seen my hugs yet, no half-measures here
God, you are such a cynic .. how much time did you spend in England

maaan..my dear DG members, never invite WN home 

[natty]

I didnt see the video.. Was it a bush like grab? or did the woman sit on his lap?   

I view hugging as a net-net positive.  And use it liberally with men and women who I feel close to (grin). No wimpy hugs for me.

[OldPal]

I guess Stanford is not browsing the DG.  I should change the title of thread. Don't think anybody else would mind.
edit: Title changed to Stanford's lap dance.

[Cover Point]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

Look.. you are missing the point.

As flute mentioned, there is an element of culture here as well as the issue of the incident being public.

Let me give you an example ..

Hugging (the opposite sex) is a very common phenomenon in the west...and it is not at all kosher in our culture.

There is nothing sexual or even flirtatious about hugging ..but to a person of Indian descent this may not appear so.

The context is important.

I hug my Indian friends' wives and they hug my wife too when we meet ...but some times we are careful, if our respective parents or other elders or people we don't know (who can be sensitive) are present...because it would make them uncomfortable or could interpret things wrongly.

Similar situation here.. the ladies and stanford were having harmless (ie non-sexual but somewhat flirtatious) fun. What made the incident bad was that it was captured and aired on TV.

i hate that whole ordeal, this round robin hugging, where every one has to hug every one else, it's not even a hug, but a carefully done half hug - almost as annoying as smiling, nodding head, uttering some inane greetings to random people one comes across in an elevator, all in the name of being friendly!

  

You aint seen my hugs yet, no half-measures here
God, you are such a cynic .. how much time did you spend in England

maaan..my dear DG members, never invite WN home 

I never got a hug from WN!! Hrmph!!!

WN if you need to continue with the full hugs... you may need to improve your diet (and build) .... Hugs are 'breakable'

[kban1]

Let's cut out the hypocrisy

Fazeer Mohammed

October 31, 2008
   

Let me get this straight. Even as they pursue the richest prize ever in the history of the game, England's cricketers and officials are still boldfaced enough to complain, overtly or covertly, about being used and abused during the Stanford Super Series.

Kevin Pietersen has been griping about the pitch being too slow, the lights at the Stanford Cricket Ground being too low and just can't wait for the week to be over, especially in the wake of a stomach bug that is making its way through his team. And let's not forget the little issue of Allen Stanford being caught on camera during England's opening match against Middlesex on Sunday amongst the visiting players' wives and partners, with one of them perched on his lap.

For an organisation (the ECB) and a team (they have as many support staff as the England football squad, probably more) noted for a very high level of preparation ahead of any undertaking, the notion now being floated around that they must rethink the five-year deal with Stanford merely confirms that everyone concerned from the other side of the Atlantic just washed their feet and jumped in at the sight of the US$20 million, with no real consideration for the consequences or the circumstances in which they were putting themselves.

In this sense, they are no different from most of us who were sold hook, line and sinker a long time ago on the Stanford concept, more because of the glitz, glamour and stacks of money than for any altruistic motives related to the resuscitation of West Indies cricket in the foreseeable future.

It's just that it's so very hypocritical of the English to be tut-tutting and ho-humming about being used as stage props in what is really a grandiose exercise for the marketing of the Stanford brand, especially as none of the officials or allegedly outraged players will even entertain the thought of pulling out of tomorrow's big-money bash under the same low lights and on the same slow pitch at the Stanford Cricket Ground.

Their words of protest ring very hollow, especially as it seems that all of this collective backing-back from an event that they were happy to dive headlong into has more to do with the relentless licks that they and the event are getting from their own media than the sudden pricking of their cricketing consciences over the past few days.

And just on the topic of what has been described in some quarters as Stanford flirting with cricketers' partners while they were on the field, the image I saw of the event didn't show them as uncomfortable or embarrassed by having the gregarious gentleman in such close proximity. It certainly didn't appear that he had to drag one of them kicking and screaming onto his lap.

Anyone who is pretending to have realised that the whole thing has very little to do with cricket is being disingenuous. It's just that they hoped they could join the free-for-all and take the money and run, with their presumptuous reputations for propriety and upstanding conduct - at least in matters related to the game - intact.

In case you interpret this column as railing against the perceived evils of Twenty20 cricket and it's apparently increasing threat to the survival of the pure and sanctified experience that is Test cricket, please disabuse yourself of that notion.

Anyone proclaiming himself or herself as a purist, because of their unyielding preference for the traditional version of the game over the relatively new fast-food variety, better spend more time poring over cricket history. They will realise that the survival of the five-day version (it wasn't always five days by the way) over the last 131 years has as much to do with compromise, corruption and jiggery-pokery as any of its proclaimed virtues relating to discipline, dedication, character and unfolding drama.

If more and more fans are gravitating towards Twenty20, so what? They aren't committing a sin. We may want to interpret deeper issues related to the rush towards Twenty20 at the expense of the longer game as some sort of metaphor for the changing face of society, especially in our Caribbean context. But sometimes you can go too far with all of that.

It's only a game. It's just a matter of like and dislike. I like Test cricket and will therefore be biased towards what I consider to be its superior qualities over other forms of the game.

Someone else will be hooked on to Twenty20 for whatever reason (it could be a matter of pure entertainment, or an appreciation of the concentrated skills levels) and should have no qualms about saying so.

Who is better, someone like me who likes tomato choka, or a connoisseur of cordon bleu cuisine? You get the point. It's the hypocrisy that we could do without.

Fazeer Mohammed is a writer and broadcaster in Port-of-Spain, Trinidad

© Trinidad & Tobago Express
http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/stanfordtwenty20/content/current/story/376315.html

[dextrous]

It is also true that for a million apiece, most people would have sex (forget lap and hug) with anyone...

[Cover Point]

It is also true that for a million apiece, most people would have sex (forget lap and hug) with anyone...

really? Would they?

[flute]

It is also true that for a million apiece, most people would have sex (forget lap and hug) with anyone...

most people? how do you know? do you know anyone who told you they will do it ? I might be interetsed in getting their details..

[pipsqueak]

I am sorry..looks like harmless playful stuff to me. of course, they should not have done this in the public eye. The players will be embarrassed by it

Would you like to be Matt Prior? Or is it bad for you but reasonable for him?
 

Look.. you are missing the point.

As flute mentioned, there is an element of culture here as well as the issue of the incident being public.

Let me give you an example ..

Hugging (the opposite sex) is a very common phenomenon in the west...and it is not at all kosher in our culture.

There is nothing sexual or even flirtatious about hugging ..but to a person of Indian descent this may not appear so.

The context is important.

I hug my Indian friends' wives and they hug my wife too when we meet ...but some times we are careful, if our respective parents or other elders or people we don't know (who can be sensitive) are present...because it would make them uncomfortable or could interpret things wrongly.

Similar situation here.. the ladies and stanford were having harmless (ie non-sexual but somewhat flirtatious) fun. What made the incident bad was that it was captured and aired on TV.

i hate that whole ordeal, this round robin hugging, where every one has to hug every one else, it's not even a hug, but a carefully done half hug - almost as annoying as smiling, nodding head, uttering some inane greetings to random people one comes across in an elevator, all in the name of being friendly!

  

You aint seen my hugs yet, no half-measures here

God, you are such a cynic .. how much time did you spend in England

only three kinds of hugs have meaning in my book.

(1) hugging babies/children
(2) romantic hugs
(3) comfort hugs to some one close who is in deep distress(again, i am uncomfy doing this but can see its value)

all these hello/good-bye hugs, peck on the cheek etc. are all unnecessary and silly. why would grownups of various shapes and sizes want to hug each other? beats me! invariably, some one would wear an irksome perfume/cologne and that will rub off on my clothes, giving me a head ache for the rest of the evening.

in fact, if there are more than 4, i suggest a group huddle  - it is far more efficient.

oh, you are one of those "tight huggers"?