Re: Whites NEVER COMPLAIN about CHEATING CHUCKERS Andrew Flilntoff and Brett Lee

CricketLeague

"Mad Hamish" <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote in message
news:tiafl3l9t7m14dltplpemj8hnfm9rji3eo@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 05:50:19 +0530, "Srini" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Nobody knows if he took illegal steroids or not. Because
>>he was caught taking substances which would mask the illegal
>>steroids.
>
> nobody knows whether Murali took steroids or not because he wasn't
> being tested...
>>
>>"Dave -Turner" <no@no.no> wrote in message
>>news:13le2ak1d5ikt61@corp.supernews.com...
>>> And if you knew anything what you were talking about you'd know that
>>> Shane
>>> didn't take "illegal steroids".
>>
> --
> "Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
> Stuart Adamson 1958-2001
>
> Mad Hamish
> Hamish Laws
> newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au



As usual baseless allegations from Murali hating WHITE RACISTS
to COVER UP and JUSTIFY Shane Warne's TAINTED BOWLING
RECORD achieved with ILLEGAL STEROIDS.

If Murali is a white player he would have been acclaimed as the worlds best
spinner by Aussies, English fans, NZ and SA fans.

If Shane Warne is a brown Srilankan he would have been accused
as a druggie a million times by the Aussie/Eng/SA/NZ fans.

Murali is the greatest spin bowler in cricket history. Shane Warne got
all his wickets after taking ILLEGAL STEROIDS.

Shane Warne was caught only once in his career. No one knows
how long he has been taking illegal steroids to get all his wickets.


If baseball players who doesnt need as much stamina,
strength and physical endurance as cricket players
take illegal undetectable steroids then Shane Warne
must be taking illegal steroids all his life and got
caught only once.


Shane Warne is a stocky guy. He wouldnt have
had that much stamina and strength to play cricket
for such a long time without taking illegal steroids.


Shane Warnes bowling record must be purged
from cricket records by ICC.


Muralitharan is the best spin bowler bar none in cricket history.


Even excluding Bangladesh and Zimbabwe wickets, Murali will beat Warnes
record very soon.


Warne is a druggie, he took illegal steroids for all his wickets whereas
only Muralis doosra is debatable.





http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...6527941557.html

Andrew Flintoff and Brett Lee are Blatant CHUCKING CHEATS - Peter Roebuck

Action must be fixed
October 2, 2004

Unless Andrew Flintoff alters his action, he will be thrown into an
avoidable fracas, writes Peter Roebuck.

Andrew Flintoff's bowling action is provoking concern. His action has
deteriorated since he returned from his latest injury and now contains an
unmistakable jerk.

Before long, the roughness of his style is bound to attract the attention of
observers prepared to remove their eyes from a harmless tweaker suspected,
at worst, of reverse-throwing at a mild pace.

It is extraordinary that so much fuss has been made about a spinner at a
time when heads are being clattered and wickets taken by men whose menace
goes beyond an ability to turn the ball at right-angles. The delivery that
felled Brian Lara in Hampshire was the clearest throw since the ball that
removed Marcus Trescothick in Perth not so long ago.

Cricket is trying to find its way through the scientific and legal quagmire
that illegal bowling has become. Not that the issue was any more
satisfactorily dealt with in the past.

Such is the prevailing confusion that the danger arises that bowlers of all
sorts will feel free to send the ball down without taking heed of the
restraints supposedly imposed by the rules of the game.

Every country has strong opinions about all bowlers except their own, a
habit also detected during the outbreak of corruption that bedevilled the
game a few years ago. But then, corruption is not merely a matter of money
and, as usual, the International Cricket Council is left holding the baby -
an overrated activity.

Flintoff's action requires attention. Of course, he might not be conscious
of the roughness that has crept in over the course of a few months during
which his career has caught fire in the manner of an Olympic flame.

The suggestion that bowlers with illegal actions are culprits to be put
alongside hijackers, greedy politicians and men rubbing mint into the ball
is unkind. Still, footage is taken of every over bowled in a match and shown
to players in the evenings, so cricketers are not without information.
Accordingly, it is hard to believe that no one in the England camp is aware
this issue might crop up.

Flintoff is an important member of an emerging England side. Besides his
buffeting batting, he is a "strike" bowler in the sense that he is used in
short bursts and given the task of upsetting an innings.

He bowls fast and with hostility and favours the short-pitched delivery.
Armed with the old ball, he opens his chest even more and tries to cut the
ball away from the bat, the celebrated "reverse" swing of recent discovery.
In short, he is a handful.

Injuries have threatened to curtail his career as a bowler, a circumstance
bound to inhibit a swashbuckling style of batting that has emerged after a
long period underground.

Subsequent to his breakdowns, desperate to retain his menace and anxious to
protect his body without losing pace, the Lancastrian has put greater
emphasis on the use of chest, wrist and arm to hurl the ball down.

Unfortunately, the elbow also has come into play, as is almost inevitable
when wrist and shoulder are pushed to their limits. His raggedness is more
obvious when he moves around the wicket and bends the ball away from
left-handers.

Flintoff may remain within the leeway of 10 per cent that has been permitted
to fast bowlers since slow-motion film revealed that, otherwise, hardly
anyone would pass muster. Alternatively, he may stray outside that range. By
and large, the 10 per cent allowance reflects the capabilities of the naked
eye, which remains the surest guide in these affairs.

Since Flintoff's straightening of the elbow can be seen from a distance, he
might contravene even the amended rules. In that case, the matter must be
drawn forthwith to the attention of responsible officials so that it can be
confronted before it is too late.

At least it is possible nowadays to realise matters of this sort without
feeling that a player's position is thereby put in peril. Flintoff's action
requires the cricketing version of surgery. Otherwise, it will be raised
again by those persuaded that authorities omit to treat every ball upon its
merits.