Match fixing, drunken brawl & molestation. All three issues are pending at various levels. The interesting part is that each of the three issues mentioned appeared in the press in that chronological order. But the issue which is closest to CRICKET is MATCH FIXING, the other issues of SHAH RUKH KHAN making counter allegations of his daughter being treated rudely or the issue of a woman accusing an RCB player LUKE POMERSBACH of misbehaving with her ‘FIANCE” are all issues which are either twice or thrice removed from cricket, but have unfortunately overtaken the important issue.
If we ignore MATCH FIXING, it wouLd be better that we ALLOW the bookies auction the IPL trophy than have the players exhibit their skills.
I like that pouty lil kiddo called SIDDARTH MALLYA telling the media that THE WOMAN WAS ALL OVER HIM AND THAT SHE ASKED HIM FOR HIS BBM PIN, AND THEREFORE WAS BOT BEHAVING IN A MANNER BEFITTING A WOMAN ABOUT TO BECOME A WIFE! If there was any overt offer from any woman, it surely is because of his pedigree and the heirdom that is likely to befall (with all that KINGFISHER debts to settle!) him and not because of his ACHIEVEMENTS AS AN INDIVIDUAL. The POUTY kiddo, no doubt should take up for his “RCB FAMILY MEMBER’, but not by making such derogatory remarks on a woman.
Let us for a minute assume that she did not behave in a way worthy of a woman about to become a wife; yet that episode was between the POUTY KIDDO and HER, does that mean that she would have behaved in a similar way with the RCB player LUKE? Not necessarily. LUKE is definitely no Becker or Tiger Woods! Assuming that the woman invited LUKE POMERSBACH to her room, does LUKE POMERSBACH acquire a vested interest to molest the woman? No not at all.
For a minute i wouldn’t have any reader of my blog believe that i impute great innocence to the woman or Sahil Peerzada! But taking up for a man who beat up an occupant or the occupant’s fiance in his/her own room is unpardonable, especially if there is no justifiable reason for the aggressor. Till now there is no counter allegation from LUKE POMERSBACH.
I like VIJAY MALLAYA’S mature answer that the incident was unfortunate and that they would co-operate with the authorities. Well said, that was all that was needed instead of mouthing nonsense like his brat son. A word of advice for the POUTY BRAT:A MANTLE IS DIFFERENT FROM A MAN! A MAN IS SELF-MADE, WHEREAS WHEN THE MANTLE FALLS ON SOMEONE HE WOULD MERELY BECOME AN INHERITOR, AND NOT A PIONEER! Grow up kiddo- don’t let a few chicks ( giving u the kicks) get to your green tongue.
Now coming back to our Shah Rukh Khan, he sure is a self-made man and deserves to be raptly heard, mostly for all those sober explanations which he mouths the day after the incident. We have sixteen cameras to capture cricket action, i suppose we should perpetually focus a couple of those on celebrities who appear in a choreographed manner with a batch of kindergarten kids to add innocence to their blood-shot drunken looks!
TRUTH surely seems to be a casualty in this episode, the morning after, the guard says nice things about SRK. A raise to the guard by his Security & Detective agency boss cannot be ruled out, nor can a good contract by Karan Johar around his project sites should not be ruled out. BUT BELIEVE YOU ME, THEY ARE UNCONNECTED.
Mr. Shukla says that BCCI’s ruling on SRK’s disqualification from entering Wankhede Stadium would be final (nobody went on appeal on the decision of the Bombay Cricket Assn. at the time of this statement! )- what he means is that : IF I OVER-RULE THAT DISQUALIFICATION, THEN SRK CAN ENTER- SO INFLUENCE ME!
SOMETIME, WE SHOULD STAND FOR THAT WHICH IS TRUE AND FAIR AND CULTURED. LET US SHOW SOME BREEDING AND CLASS.