Might Gibbs have appealed at all had his offence not fallen under level three of the code of conduct, which brought race into the equation? Part of this regulation governs "any language or gestures that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the basis of that person's race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethic origin".

Quite how Gibbs and his representatives came to the opinion that calling Pakistani supporters a "fucking bunch of fucking animals" and telling them to "fuck off back to the zoo" was not a violation of the above would surely boggle greater minds than mine.

Richie Benaud saw matters differently to Gibbs and the original charges stuck. Just as importantly, Benaud took pains not to brand Gibbs a racist. Which would seem to mean that it was Gibbs' crime - and not Gibbs himself - that was the target of the action the ICC took.

Semantics? Not if you have, as Benaud would seem to do, an understanding of South Africa's murky race politics. For a start, some South Africans would describe Gibbs as black. Others would call him coloured, which is probably what he calls himself.

Still others will label him a Khoisan, and another bunch will refuse to classify him. The truly weird will refer to Gibbs as a so-called coloured, and make little quotation marks in the air with their index fingers as they do so.

But Gibbs' race is irrelevant in all this. It's the race of the target of his words that matters, and they were plainly Asian or of Asian descent.

In those terms, who can be surprised that Gibbs' epithets pushed all the wrong buttons of the people who heard them when they were broadcast live courtesy of the stump microphones?

Speaking of which, Benaud, of course, has an intimate knowledge of cricketing life on both sides of the mike. "If you do not use the words they do not get to air," was his bulletproof advice. If this needs reinforcement, and it shouldn't, here it is: the stump mike did not say anything, Herschelle Gibbs did.

Take a bow, Mr Benaud. Not forgetting Chris Broad, the match referee whose findings were vindicated. Amazing, isn't it, what a couple of sensible blokes can achieve.

Spot on. Best decision made by the ICC ever, absolutely perfect. The decision to appeal was ridiculous and rightly rejected. Also good of Benaud to use common sense in the mike situation, rather than moan about it being on, why not cut out this type of language in the first place, since it's just plain wrong? This could be a landmark moment, this might have been the first real step in eliminating racism from the sport. Just hope other cricketers and supporters learn something from this.

Yes, without a doubt the decision was correctly upheld. And it restores my confidence in the human race, that there are indeed people in this world who can deliver objective and unbiased jugements in the face of prevailing polarization.

I am a brown skinned Sri Lankan and I support Gibbs.He did not racially abuse the Pak supporters.As they were making monkey sounds he referred to them as animals and that they should go back to the Zoo.He DID NOT address them direct.Cant a man exchange private words with his friends?I think Benaud and Broad are two imbeciles.

This is a load of crap. There was nothing racist about that. I guarantee Gibbs would have said that to australian or english spectators too, if they were behaving in such a repulsive manner

Gibbs got what he deserved.

A pity the ICC and some national cricket bodies are weak when it comes to trying to stamp out such minor issues such match fixing, taking money for 'weather and pitch' reports, drug use, undermining of umpires, Zimbabwe etc.

If the ICC was consistent in its handling of these affairs I would not be so cynical.

I do believe that the right verdict oon Gibbs was passed. Some South African reports are trying to put a positive spin by stating Gibbs was not found to be a racist by Richie Benaud.
The fact is that no one really cares whether Gibbs is racist or not, the issue was that his comments were inappropriate and racist and not acceptable. Rightfully he should and was reprimanded for them.

Furthermore, certain reporters in papers in South Africa and some of Gibbs' team mates quickly came to his defence that he was reacting to comments from the crowd - thats hardly justification for Gibbs' actions. The crowd members who were abusive were handled appropriately by the ground staff - Gibbs you are a big boy and a professional cricketer, there was no need for you to get involved, surely you know that by now!

Although I think Gibbs has had the right punishment, I'm far from convinced he was being racist.

Animal is a derogatory term that can apply to people regardless of race, creed or colour if you think their behaviour is poor. Zoo refers to the animal in this context I believe.

So is referring to a group of people behaving badly as "fucking animals", racist? I don't think so, as the same could be aimed at any group.

Right punishment but not convicted on racism, for me.

Despite the various articles I've read from both sides of this situation, I'm still a little confused.

Now perhaps I haven't read all of what Herschelle said, but I'm unsure how calling a group of people a "fucking bunch of fucking animals" and telling them to "fuck off back to the zoo" insults them on the basis of their race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethic origin".

That sounds to me more like someone getting very frustrated by the behaviour of that group of people. It could have been said about any group of people on any occasion at any location whose behaviour was deplorable. Where is the reference to that group's race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethic origin.

Although I too deplore racism the word racist seems to come up far too quickly at times. Again, maybe I haven't read the whole story but the comments referred to in your article Telford don't seem to have anything to do with race. Where does racism come into it?

I would totally agree with Mr Richie Benaud whe he said "If you dont use the words they do not get to air" If anything the punishment could have been more severe. Well done all concerned.

Benaud gets the balance right, but consistency flies out the window!

I would imagine that most cricketers have said similar or perhaps even worse comments regarding the oppsing teams fans or sometimes even against their own, calling one of your own fans " a drunken bastard who should go back to his shed" can be interpreted as atacking his heritage, or lack thereof, I guess I could come up with many anologies, my simple message I believe is to turn the mikes off and lets watch cricket rather than all listen intentently for that four letter word which most of us use daily anyway.

I really respect Benaud - great cricketer and admirable man but he got this one wrong. He did make it clear that Gibbs is not a racist but I seriously question whether Gibbs remarks were racist. The remarks were directed at a portion of the crowd, who in Gibbs' opinion were behaving like animals. The racial origin of the miscreants did not come into it. This is political correctness gone mad.

They were behaving in an unseemly fashion and Gibbs commented on what he thought of their behaviour. End of story.

As a further point - why do we have the stump mikes anyway? They do nothing for the game.

Lets take a look at the bigger picture, last year it was Smith who tried to call Australian fans racist and now its Gibbs who is calling people of other nations animals.... is that mean that people from other nation must not go to South Africa and enjoy the game of Cricket because South Africans(I mean cricketers) dont tolerate people from other country oops let me correct myself its Asians becuase there were no "F" words used when South Africa was playing against Australia because they are white... common guys we must discourage these kind of things. If I were in place of Richie Benaud I would have charged Gibbs a racist and gave the entire South African team a warning since they have been trying to instigate these matters ever since they toured Australia last year. ICC must put the foot down to curb this kind of situation before it get out of their hands. Just a piece of advice for South African cricketers please try to focus on the game instead of analysing people in the stand.

Gibbs didn't appeal against the level 1 offence. He knows he shouldn't have said what he said.

Assuming that he didn't say anything other than what this article mentions, if they were behaving like animals (and by all accounts they were) then he has every right to call them so.

Just because an insult is directed at a person of another race, that doesn't mean it's racist. 'It's the race of the target of his words that matters, and they were plainly Asian or of Asian descent.' This is completely wrong. Racism is insulting other people on the basis of them being of another race, not insulting people of another race per se.

If you would say the same thing to a member of your own race who was behaving like that, and I expect Gibbs would have, it isn't racism.

To quote Forrest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does" the ICC allows these mikes because it adds to the television spectacle which indirectly adds to their coffers. When a player makes a stupid comment he is chastised and the ICC do not accept any responsibility on their part, I cannot see how that can be fair.

from when did allusion to animal traits become racist????there is a fine line between enjoying yourself and getting cantankerous if you cross the line rubbing the guys out there in the wrong way,obvious allusions to monkeys do crop up...the only wrong thing i cud possibly figure is Gibbs din do a favor to those arborial creatures by comparing them to those blessed souls......mind u am a tan colored Indian uttering this...any sane individual wud realise that the men out there are playing for their country and they are not some third grade prostitutes doing strip tease before u and recievin ur abuse...thats wat the supporters out there did...if they men enough let them go to sa gym and say whatever they said,i am sure none wud step forward cos i am sure the guys there were actually losers who act like heros since they are in a crowd...whoever you are whatever you do,i condemn the abusal of players in the middle in the strongest terms..agreed gibbs being such a big guy a professional should have known better,thats the only case against him....but i feel its high time security gets beefed up all over the world and immediately eject anyone who abuse players in the middle

Was Gibbs language abusive? Yes.
Was it targeted at a particular group that shared a common race? It appears so.
But (i)if the group was one of mixed races and Gibbs would have reacted with the same turn of phrase or (ii) that particualr turn of phrase can be used equally to any group of any race - then my suggestion is - its NOT racist in nature.
I think Gibbs was reacting abusively to offensive behaviour from the crowds. I'm not convinced it was racist in nature

Indiscreet? - Yes.
Rude? - Yes.
Deplorable? - Yes.
Racist? - No.

In response to C.Ramachandra, the ICC code, as Telford Vice outlines in his commentary, specifically disallows disparaging remarks to be made by PLAYERS towards other players or spectators on the basis of race, culture, ethnicity, etc. For you to suggest that labelling the Pak spectators as 'monkeys' isn't a violation of said code would suggest to me that the imbecile in question is your good self!

Richie Benaud was right in his adjudication. In days gone by, this incident probably wouldn't have been reported and as such, Benaud sensibly reduced the penalty from 3 Tests to 1 and a couple of irrelevant pyjama games - nevertheless, whilst not branding Gibbs a racist (which would have been counter-productive) he did uphold the ICC code, of which it is his prerogative in the role for which he's been nominated!

Your gripe ought to be with the ICC code! Not Benaud or Broad!

Although I agree with the outcome, it gives the fans a tool to dictate the make up of the team in the NEXT match. That has happened in this match. Dipenaar was an easy out for Pakistan and he may fail again in the 2nd Innings since he was thrown in the frey without much preparation. So what sense it makes to dilute one team while the real offenders, the instigators of this incident only has to misbehave ??? Their "RIGHT" to misbehave seem to come from the fact that they paid the price of addmission !!! Is that fair ??? I don't think so.

There is a history behind in South African Cricket, you have to be careful enough by selecting words.Passing remarks and judging the behaviour of crowd is no a player job and I am sure law enforcing people they did their job by removing those people who were not behaving. Be Dean Jones how he admitted and apologized about his remarks.

A very right and obvious decision from Mr. Benaud. It was amazing to see that Gibbs still thought he had a chance to get his sentence reduced. Which either means he doesn't think he did anything to offend anyone or he think the authorities are stupid, and would let him go.

Yes, it is a good decision. However, I feel that the punishment handed to Gibbs should have been a lot more severe, as a reminder to some the other South African cricketers like Andre Nel, Mark Boucher and Kallis. I feel its high time that Andre Nel is hauled up for his intimidating antics. Maybe the match refrees officiating all matches South Africa has played with Andre Nel in the playing eleven should be investigated for incompetence and racial discrimination in treatment of asian teams as compared to non asian teams when it comes to issues of sledging. Take for example the recently concluded seies that India played and the current series that pakistan is playing in South Africa.
But not all players in the South African team are to be blames. What excellent ambassadors have Ntini and Shaun Pollock have been for South Africa. Professionals to the core and thats reflected in the way they go about doing the business that they are on the playing field for.

Gibbs's words were judged in the context as it should be. In Austraia or New Zealand, it might not have been considered racist. However, the punsihment was both morally right and legitimate. He brought he game to disrepute, and such behavior must be nipped in the bud. Hopefully, the punsihment has consequence as a deterrent, and hopefully, he is now enlightened and reformed or face the same conseqnce.

First of all, I'm a Pakistani who has lived in North America for six-odd years and I've heard a lot of racial slurs, but this isn't one of them. How is calling people animals or telling them to go back to the zoo referring in any way to their ethnicity, race, etc? For crying out loud, you hear kindergarten teachers say stuff like that if their class is misbehaving. In any case a lot of cricketers are racist and I think the ICC was just looking for someone to accuse after not having done anything about a number of real racial slurs.

I watched the footage. The quotes you mentioned are not actually racist, just incredibly disparaging. The part that made it racist was "This isn't Pakistan." He said that at the end. Implying that Pakistan is a zoo, and that Pakistanis (in general) in animals, and not that just THOSE Pakistanis (in the stands) are animals. I don't think Gibbs is a racist, and I don't think he was thinking straight when he utterred the words in this manner, but in the end, it was a racist statement.

Continued:
So, the whatever the race of the abusees are, that should never really matter. Calling a white man an animal or a black man an animal, both are insulting comments. If you say it to a black man man, it doesn't make the comment racist (it could depending on tone, but on face value, with not presupposed assumptions). So you fell in to this fallacy in your blog entry. Perhaps those Pakistani fans were acting like animals, and therefore calling them animals is not racist. The key statment is "This isn't Pakistan." Which ties race into all of it, beyond a reason of a doubt.

So in finishing:
I find it insulting and perposterous that any analysis can find only the animal and zoo statement racist, it bring presuppositions of racism to the table, and betrays the fact that the analyzer believes that those 2 comments can belong in a category called "racist comments for asians" which is as presumptious as racism. (it's not racism though). My point is, please analyze properly and then come to the right conclusion, instead of knowing the right conclusio (we all did, mostly) and putting the logic after it.

I've been stupified by the amount of people in support of the ban on Gibbs - seriously, what are you people on? By all accounts the least racist person you could hope to meet, but being sighted for racial abuse?! What he said, which wasn't even said infront of the protagonists, could equally have been said many times by myself about my FELLOW COUNTRYMEN (who are even the same race as me) whilst watching the cricket at my home ground. Since when was calling people 'animals' racist? Seriously, get a grip...

Next someone will be telling me that if i HAD said something, it would have been ME who would be speaking racist remarks!! That, i'm afraid, is BLOODY RICIDULOUS!! What the hell is the world coming to when you can't even voice personal displeasure within a group of mates?!?

For the benefits of those still confused by how the quoted comments breach the code of conduct, I think Gibbs was technically OK for 95% of his on-air rant. To call spectators "F*ing animals" and direct them to the "f*ing zoo" is not racist. His problems started
- when he added his final remark: "F*ing Pakistanis!" and
- noting that if his comments were audible to the stump mikes they were probably audible to the Pakistani batsmen who may (if unaware of the crowd troubles) have incorrectly thought he was referring to them.

In fact, I've got a sneaking suspicion Gibbs deliberately made inflammatory comments to upset the batsmen, hoping (if challenged) to rely on the defence "No, I was talking about the unruly spectators, not you blokes."

In this era sports personell and not much different from politicians. Remember it is the small guy who buys the ticket or airtime and should not be exposed to such profanity, racial or otherwise

the decision was spot on, i dont remember any of the south african players referring to australian supporters as animals despite them being wary of the fans the last time they came to australia. Its nice to see the ICC get something right; i dont think he is a racist although the punishment is fitting and he seems remorseful and that should be the end of that.

I'm inclined to agree with the views of Pete et al. There's no denying what Gibbs said was derogatory and insulting to the group of supporters at whom it was directed, but to label it racist? Preposterous. Perhaps the accusers themselves were insinuating that Gibbs was drawing a connection between zoo animals and the supporters ('victims') in question. Nonetheless, you can't ascertain intended racism on those words alone. It's quite akin to a spinner bowling a full toss, hitting the batsman on the ankle on middle, and being denied the LBW with the umpire's explanation being 'It was going to spin away and miss'.

It is against world wide human rights in terms of privacy of an individual, to charge a cricketer with racist comment when he is having conversation with a third person or a criketer. And I think the verdict that players should be aware that microphone may be live in the period between overs is a ridiculous one to be abosrbed particularly when those microphones are supposed to be off by ICC regulations.

Point 1: Gibbs' comments were inappropriate and he should have been punished but they were not racist as far as I am concerned. Had the same situation occurred when the spectators were English or Australian, we would all be complaining (quite rightly) about spectator behaviour.

Point 2: Onfield microphones are an invasion of privacy - to all those that disagree, I suggest getting one installed in your workplace with the speaker in your bosses office!

You people who are against the ban need to take a good look at the video and carefully listen with your own ears what Gibbs really said. The ban has not been handed because of him calling the crowd section "animals", it is because he said "fucking pakistanis". I believe(and normal brains)that it is a racial slur and being a Pakistani I feel very offended. I dont care what he meant and I dont want to know why he said all that. Get your facts right people

Gibbs should be banned for couple of matches more" and he deserves. if the behaviour shown by Gibbs is real.

I don't agree with double standards. Those people in the stand were behaving like animals. Gibbs was entitled to point that out.

Pretty much par for the course with the ICC, though. Persecute an umpire for enforcing the rules of cricket to favour one cheating nation and persecute a cricketer for being frustrated with animal-like supporters of that self-same nation.

I think the ban on Gibbs should not 've been 3 matches (oneday, test & 2020). It should've been to six tests!

RACISM should not be tolerated in Gentleman's game!

The threshold for what is considered "abuse" and "racist" continues to decline in all aspects of modern society. Punishments for crossing those thresholds continue to increase. We are unarguably moving into higher levels of monitoring and control of public speech, which ultimately constrains thought. It does help keep the peace though, at least in the short term. Look at China - that country is at peace despite its diversity, in large part through very strong state control of speech. Would you like to live there?

If spectators at a cricket match are acting like animals, why can't it be said. How is your skin colour, whether it be white, brown, black, pink or yellow with purple spots make the comment racist? The world has gone mad. I wonder what would happen if a Pakistani cricketer said the same in Urdu?

Too many Australians and Englishment invloved in this process for anything fair or consistent to come out of it.

I agree totally with the decision of Benaud. It always astounds me, as a South African myself, how we seem to be the first to cry out injustice when we are verbally abused, yet defend a man who crossed the boundary of what is acceptable. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Smith's defence that the team was standing up for themselves in the face of this abuse is completely irrelevant - the comments were not made to the said fans, they were made to team-mates. It's one thing to become involved in a verbal slanging match with the abusive spectators. Quite another to express an opinion to team mates away from those fans. And this issue has been clouded by the whole racist or not factor. It was still abusive, and I totally agree that he deserved the punishment. That's not to say he is racist, but those comments could very easily be construed that way, and well done Benaud for doing the right thing

I believe that the decision to suspend Gibbs and the content and slant of the Telford Vice article are both ludicrous. Whilst Gibbs was undoubtedly rude, coarse and perhaps immature, I cannot agree that there can be a racist slant to his comments - he was not attacking a racial group, he was attacking a set of behaviours which he found unacceptable. However, in this obscenely politically correct world - a question needs to be asked: would Gibbs have been suspended if his comments had been made of people within his own racial group? I don't think so, which highlights how ludicrous these values have become. If Benaud does not believe that Gibbs is a racist, then what is the basis for suspending him? In my view I wold take issue with Gibbs' statements only insofar as animals, of a certainty, do not behave as your average human does!!!

Under section 3.3, the comments Gibbs made have to be *both* (one of: offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies) another person *and* on the basis of that person's (one of: race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethic origin).

Richie publicly declared Gibbs to not be racist and I agree with Mark, above, in that I don't think one can say with any certainty that any of the other words apply to the basis of Gibb's remarks.

If that is the case, then clause 3.3 cannot be used to charge Gibbs. Its that simple. The ICC must be very clear so as not to leave any room for subjectivity in the interpretation of the laws. Otherwise who's word do you take and why? Even an ICC adjudicator would have to take Gibb's at his word as to the basis of what he said.

I am a Trinidadian African and a professional in a profession that has an acute understanding of the English Language and its nuances. I cannot in my wildest imagination see how the words used by Gibbs can be deemed to be racial. If Amla had commented that the Pakistani supporters were behavin as animals, would that be deemed racist? If a caucasian Englishman refers to his fellow Caucasion football hooligans as animals, would this be considered racist? Gibbs' comments were obscene and abusive, nothing more. Mr. Beneaud's decision is starved of logic.

I cannot see that Gibb's comments were addressed to a race. No race was mentioned. He commentwed on their actions.

I must admit I am heartened by the number of correspondents who, like me, can't see anything racist in Gibbs' comments. What are we missing?

Having now read the full, uncensored version of his comments, perhaps what Gibbs needs even more than a ban is a Thesaurus.

I am surprised that none of the posters seem to have picked up on Mr. Vice's sarcasm. I suspect that few of the perfectionists who lambast Herschelle's fruity vocabulary have played much competitive sport. The notion that this was a racist incident - any more than any competitive banter in aninternational competition could be consideredd racist is absolutely laughable.

I agree that there's no need for onfield microphones... to pick up nicks etc maybe, but not in between overs and certainly not to listen in on the players. More and more the game is just becoming entertainment for the fans and the players are just actors. Just like a school cricket game it should always be about players first. Taping their every move is just rude and unnecessary.

"It's the race of the target of his words that matters, and they were plainly Asian or of Asian descent."
I hope this was sarcasm.
The race of the recipient has nothing to do with whether a comment is racist. The only determinant is whether the statement was *about* their race.
Unless there were more comments made that haven't been included in Telford's article, this is *yet another* case of "racism" being quickly and falsely overused.

Dear Ali Qadri ,
All elephants are grey, my car is grey, ,so my car must be an elephant. No ? Why ?
It uses the same logic as your argument - in that it misses the entire point. You stated ..

"Gibbs who is calling people of other nations animals.... is that mean that people from other nation must not go to South Africa and enjoy the game of Cricket "

The point is he was calling them animals REGARDLESS of race. And as they were making monkey noises (by encyclopedia tells me that monkeys are in fact animals) - quite an apt analogy isn't it.
Stop being so precious - Abusive behaviour doesn't need to be attached to racism all the time, It's going to end up that people of different races are scared to talk to one another if this carries on.

Please.... stop being so presumptive and precious.

I believe that Gibbs was reacting to the actions of the members of the crowd, not the colour of their skin or their country of origin. If the microphone hadn't been there, no-one other than the South African players would have known what was said and life would have gone on as usual. Instead, Gibbs gets banned because of the intusiveness of the media!

Level 3 deals with racist comments. Benaud made it clear that Gibbs was not a racist. Therefore I cannot understand how a Level 3 punishment could be upheld. Punish him, yes, but under the correct level, which in this case should be Level 2.

Richie Benaud is the best argument for human cloning I've heard. Please make some more, and along with sport, send them into politics, business, education etc, anywhere that judgement, restraint and wisdom is required. Well done Richie!

First of all.. to all those who are opposing for onfield microphones then let me tell you that one of major reasons of installing stump microphones were sledging. This is not the first time a person is caught abusing through stump microphones. A good decision made by Richi Benaud but i think the ban should be imposed on any one particular form of the game. I think there should have been 4 to 8 ODI's ban instead of bannin a test a ODI and a twenty twenty. Anyways it was good to see action taken on the guilt.

First of all.. to all those who are opposing for onfield microphones then let me tell you that one of major reasons of installing stump microphones were sledging. This is not the first time a person is caught abusing through stump microphones. A good decision made by Richi Benaud but i think the ban should be imposed on any one particular form of the game. I think there should have been 4 to 8 ODI's ban instead of bannin a test a ODI and a twenty twenty. Anyways it was good to see action taken against the guilt.

Gibbs is the victim of "reverse racism", IMO, which means political correctness so out of whack that the moment that anyone of a different race is involved, then the messengers get punished for calling it how they see it, rather than the persons who committed the crimes in the first place (being the extreme physical and verbal abuse of the players).

This is most easily measured by asking the simple questions: "Under similar circumstances would a Pakistani player never have said that same thing about the crowd's behavior?", and, "Would charges of racism have been applied in that instance?". If you cannot answer "Yes" confidently to both questions, then the statements were not racially motivated.

This whole episode is a farce. Gibbs is a victim of "racial sensitivity" so far out of whack that the true problem makers can walk away feeling justified in their deplorable behavior of abusing people of a different race to their own.

Heaven forbid that you ever make a comment about them though if they're of a different race to you.

"But Gibbs' race is irrelevant in all this. It's the race of the target of his words that matters, and they were plainly Asian or of Asian descent."

This is plain silly. By this logic, any insult - no matter what its basis - is automatically racist if levelled at a brown person. Of *course* the supporters he insulted were of asian descent; they're Pakistani supporters. Is Gibbs racist because there weren't any Belgians supporting Pakistan? Is there anything Gibbs could have said that *wouldn't* have been racist?

Yes, calling someone an animal can be a racist comment. Yes, if you're racially abusing a group, it is a necessary condition that that group be of a roughly homogeneous racial make-up. But neither of those are *sufficient* to prove racism, which requires determining intent on the part of Gibbs. Consider me resolutely un-boggled that Gibbs doesn't feel he violated the rule quoted. Unless, that is, abusing your opponents' supporters is intrinsically in violation of that rule, in which case it seems strange that the distinction is made at all. By the logic applied in this article, it would be completely impossible to be guilty of a level two offence:

"Using language that is obscene, offensive or of a seriously insulting nature to another Player,
umpire, Referee, Team Official or spectator."

How can you seriously offend a spectator without it being racist? After all, it's only their race/nationality that matters, right? Right? If I call a black person a name, I must be a racist. It's obvious, innit? He's black.

But Benaud was at pains to stress that he did not believe there was any evidence that Gibbs' comments were in any way racial motivated. "I certainly do not consider Herschelle to be a racist and I take great exception to the suggestion, in the same way I believe Chris Broad would object [to suggestions his finding would do the same]."

Gibbs was found guilty of a Level 3 offence, clause 3.3 of the Code which prohibits using "...any language or gestures that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person ON THE BASIS of that person's race, religion, colour, descent or national or ethic origin." (capitals ours)

Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus lists "basis" and "motivation" as both being synomyns for the word "cause". So Richie says, they weren't racially MOTIVATED, but race was the BASIS of the remarks (by finding him guilty).

(Quotes are taken from Cricinfo's news pages on the issue)

I don't profess to be in full knowledge of all the facts so I'm not going post an ill concieved opinion. I will ask this question based on what I have read. Does simply being of another race make any comment or gesture toward you a racist one?

Gibbs was rightly punished for abusing a bunch of disripectful, rude spectators. As a pro he should have known better. I see no racisim in his comments. Do the players have no protection from fan hooliganism?

I'm not aware about the affair above... but know one thing for sure... or atleast - thats my opinion... that in all the cricket matches I've watched and heard the commentry about, I've always noticed one clear, distinct and unmistakeable difference between other commentators and the racist Richie Benaud. It's so very clear! I'm well aware that in any commenting team some go for the home side and the others for the visitors... but just check the track record of racist richie... its very clear the ol' fish-eye is a clear Racist. The bright side is this though... that todays kids are more influenced by the much better side of multi culturism they experience in real life and disregard the voice of their elders. What a blessing! Shame on u Racist richie - ur beliefs will not be followed!