https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/23/lord-patel-target-ben-stokes-f-word-blast/
Lord Patel 'was target' of Ben Stokes' F-word blast
Stokes has opened up about his lingering animosity towards ECB officials

By
Nick Hoult,
CHIEF CRICKET CORRESPONDENT
23 August 2022 • 11:47pm
Lord Patel was a board member at the ECB at the time of Ben Stokes' outburst CREDIT: PA

Lord Patel, the Yorkshire chairman, is understood to be the England & Wales Cricket Board official that Ben Stokes told to “f--- off” on the night of the World Cup final in July 2019.

Patel was, at the time, a board member at the ECB and it is claimed Stokes was angered because he thought Patel had taken a hard line against him over his street fight in Bristol.

Stokes reveals in his Amazon documentary, Phoenix from the Ashes, which is released on Friday, his lingering animosity towards some ECB officials over the Bristol affair, particularly those he felt did not stand by him and wanted him banned.

It was reported at the time in 2017 that Patel had been particularly upset by the footage of the Bristol fight and wanted to come down hard on Stokes. After Stokes was acquitted, Patel later denied he had taken a strong line on the issue.

Read more at https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cricket/2022/08/23/lord-patel-target-ben-stokes-f-word-blast/

RH

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 1:02:09 AM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
>After Stokes was acquitted

of criminal charges.

He was never acquitted of brining the game and himself into disrepute.

In message <9ab80745-c115-4ccf-8dce-d733431e54dcn@googlegroups.com>,
jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 1:02:09 AM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>After Stokes was acquitted
>
>of criminal charges.
>
>He was never acquitted of brining the game and himself into disrepute.

Indeed. It sounds as though Stokes still can't accept that he did
anything wrong, which is rather sad.
--
John Hall
"Home is heaven and orgies are vile,
But you *need* an orgy, once in a while."
Ogden Nash (1902-1971)

On Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 9:04:23 PM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 1:02:09 AM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >After Stokes was acquitted
>
> of criminal charges.
>
> He was never acquitted of brining the game and himself into disrepute.

Translation: Stoke defended himself against two assailants one of whom wielded a heft bar which was at least 5 feet long. RH

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 6:12:34 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Translation: Stoke defended himself against two assailants one of whom wielded a heft bar which was at least 5 feet long. RH
Translation: RH and Stokes still don't understand that professional cricketers; public actions are held to a higher standard than Mr Citizen. Not by the law, obviously, but by their employer and sponsors who fund their employer.

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:27:18 AM UTC+1, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 6:12:34 PM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Translation: Stoke defended himself against two assailants one of whom wielded a heft bar which was at least 5 feet long. RH
> Translation: RH and Stokes still don't understand that professional cricketers; public actions are held to a higher standard than Mr Citizen. Not by the law, obviously, but by their employer and sponsors who fund their employer.

Translation: Stoke defended himself against two assailants one of whom wielded a heft bar which was at least 5 feet long. RH

On Thu, 25 Aug 2022 08:19:12 +0100, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <9ab80745-c115-4ccf-8dce-d733431e54dcn@googlegroups.com>,
>jack fredricks <jzfredricks@gmail.com> writes
>>On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 1:02:09 AM UTC+10, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>After Stokes was acquitted
>>
>>of criminal charges.
>>
>>He was never acquitted of brining the game and himself into disrepute.
>
>Indeed. It sounds as though Stokes still can't accept that he did
>anything wrong, which is rather sad.

"Drunk cricketer beats up civilian" is undoubtedly a headline which
brings the cricketer and the game into disrepute. But headline writers
are not known for their fairness or balanced approach to news.

I've always bought Stokes's story about being angered by people
abusing some innocent, so I think he meant well. What he did about it
was wrong, and was undoubtedly unwise, but the trigger seems to have
been a generally laudable attitude to bullying.

As those facts emerged, there was a swell of support for Stokes on
social media, including various cricket writers confessing to having
been over-hasty in their initial comments. For many people, hearing
the background to the incident raised their opinion of Stokes above
where it had been before the incident.

For the older generations, Stokes was a disgraceful yob. For a lot of
people of Stokes's generation and younger, he was standing up against
bullying. It is by no means clear to me that he has, in the end,
brought disrepute upon himself and the game.

As I understand it, Kamlesh Patel was uninterested in the facts and
effectively wanted to prosecute and mete out punishment with the
tabloid headline as the sole evidence on either side, and continued to
push this view in the central conclaves of the ECB.

We've seen with his handling of the restructuring of YCCC that he is
not a subtle man. He makes his mind up what he wants and pursues it
single-mindedly. In some contexts, that is admirable, and it's proven
to be successful in making many people very rich. But it's an approach
which inevitably leads to mistakes and unfairness. In my view,
continuing to pursue Stokes was an instance thereof. (And yes, he has
made a few mistakes swinging the axe and blowing things up at YCCC
while getting a vast amount more right.)

Stokes has expressed sincere regret for the incident and admitted that
he shouldn't have done what he did. That doesn't mean he was wrong to
resent (to put it mildly) Patel's continuing campaign against him. It
doesn't take much to imagine a stray remark at the wrong moment when
Stokes was in a bad mood anyway triggering a furious response.

What's distasteful is the Telegraph digging up internal arguments
between strong characters who don't like working with each other.

Cheers,

Mike

On Thursday, August 25, 2022 at 9:27:09 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> Stokes has expressed sincere regret for the incident and admitted that
> he shouldn't have done what he did.

Did he give reasons for this?
Perhaps that might clarify for you if he's caused any disrepute.