Vaughan, showing on the Cricket Discipline Commission (CDC) listening to in London, stated of the day in query that he had “a very clear mind about back in 2009” and that he knew he didn’t say what had been alleged. He added that he would by no means have gone on to the sector and stated one thing to team-mates that would “put them in a bad state of mind” earlier than the sport.
“Knowing me in 2009, that’s not the sort of thing I would’ve said.”
Vaughan was questioned by the ECB’s lead counsel Jane Mulcahy KC for almost 90 minutes, throughout which she argued that some historic tweets of his had been “remarkably similar in tone” to the alleged remarks.
Vaughan stated the tweets had been unacceptable and that he had apologised for them earlier than and would proceed to take action. But he disagreed with the suggestion that they had been comparable in tone. Mulcahy identified that each Rafiq and Rashid claimed Vaughan seemingly made the alleged remark as a “bad joke” and stated the tweet was comparable in tone as a result of it was “lighthearted but offensive”.
Asked if he agreed, Vaughan stated: “No.”
Vaughan stated he was “disgusted” with the tweets. “I apologised for them. I put myself on an online course, Inclusion. I wanted to lead the game in knowing how to lead in modern times. The tweets are disgusting, awful, and other words you could use. But the most important thing is I have said sorry and I am learning from them. As I say, if I get things wrong in my life, I stick my hands up.”
He went again to his recollection of the day of the sport – which he has written about in his memoir – that he “could not have been more proud [of] four Asian players, three of whom had come through the system.”
Vaughan was additionally questioned about his assembly with Rafiq in November 2021 saying he felt the necessity for it as a result of “the whole situation was escalating out of control”. Vaughan stated he was apologetic within the assembly with Rafiq as a result of he was “disgusted” by what Rafiq needed to undergo at Yorkshire however didn’t settle for he made the alleged remark.
Vaughan: ‘Team-mates preventing it out horrible for sport’
Vaughan stated that the CDC listening to was a “terrible look” for cricket. “It’s not been easy for anybody. This is not the right process to deal with word-against-word comments from 14 years ago. Ex-team-mates fighting it out over hearsay is a terrible look for the game and a really bad look on how cricket has dealt with this situation.”
Earlier within the morning, scrutiny fell on the ECB’s scope within the investigation of the incident in addition to the rigour deployed, with Meena Botros, its director of authorized and integrity, dealing with a three-hour grilling from Christopher Stoner, Vaughan’s lawyer.
The line of questioning took in a current interview with Lord Kamlesh Patel, the outgoing Yorkshire chair, in Eastern Eye. In it the declare was made that the ECB had “urged” Lord Patel to “get rid of people” on the county when he took over. Talking about his function, Patel stated: “I was asked by the ECB to meet a set of criteria that most people would have winced at, would have thought there’s no way we can deliver this, and I delivered it.
“I used to be requested by the ECB to work with them to create a framework and an surroundings the place we’d show to the world that we wish a non-racist establishment, and I did all that. I used to be requested by the ECB to make sure some individuals who had been there from the earlier regime didn’t participate in that governance course of, very clear about that.”
Stoner suggested those comments showed that the ECB was “actively concerned” in the Yorkshire investigation, in breach of the process as described in Botros’ witness statement, that the ECB remained independent of action being taken by one of its counties in such matters.
Botros said he couldn’t talk about what Lord Patel had said but insisted that Stoner was “mistaking” the ECB’s regulatory function in getting involved, from its other roles in such cases. Stoner pointed to Botros’s witness statement which read: “In its capability as a regulator, the ECB should stay impartial of motion being taken by one among its member first-class county golf equipment.”
“That’s simply not what occurred, is it?” Stoner requested.
Botros replied: “It is what occurred.”
Stoner then zeroed in on the day Vaughan is alleged to have made the remark, questioning whether the ECB could and should have gone further in its investigations of events. He confirmed with Botros that the only players the ECB had spoken to about the incident were Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad.
Stoner asked why all Yorkshire players that day weren’t spoken to. Botros said the ECB “did communicate to the people the place we had been capable of” but that “sure people both did not need to participate or interact”, or that the ECB “weren’t in a position” to get contact details for others.
Stoner also asked Botros why the on-field umpires that day had not been contacted by the ECB for their version of events.
“There isn’t any suggestion that the umpires had been shut sufficient to listen to it,” Botros replied. Botros added that if it was such an important point, Vaughan’s team could have taken it on themselves.
The listening to is scheduled to finish subsequent Tuesday.
Osman Samiuddin is a senior editor at ESPNcricinfo
Source web site: www.espncricinfo.com
.jpg)
