More people have pulled out of the Yorkshire inquiry saying the
believe they won't get a fair hearing. I think Vaughan and Ballance
are the only ones left attending and Ballance is in Zimbabwe..

Cop out if ever there was one. It's a public inquiry, if it is not
fair it will be seen to be unfair. If anyone makes a serious
allegation about you and you claim it is untrue the best place to be
is in your corner ready to come out fighting, not hiding behind the
belief that the outcome will not be in your favour. The classic case
of 'if you are afraid of it, knobble it'.

max.it

On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 08:52:34 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>
>More people have pulled out of the Yorkshire inquiry saying the
>believe they won't get a fair hearing. I think Vaughan and Ballance
>are the only ones left attending and Ballance is in Zimbabwe..
>
>Cop out if ever there was one. It's a public inquiry, if it is not
>fair it will be seen to be unfair. If anyone makes a serious
>allegation about you and you claim it is untrue the best place to be
>is in your corner ready to come out fighting, not hiding behind the
>belief that the outcome will not be in your favour. The classic case
>of 'if you are afraid of it, knobble it'.

They've all retired from being active players, apart from Ballance.
I'm not at all clear what the point of attempting to determine their
guilt or innocence actually is.

Since this has lawyers crawling all over it, I strongly suspect that
the report is not accurately reporting the precise nature of their
objection and why it entails their non-participation.

For instance, their legal advice might be that to participate in the
hearing effectively accepts the ECB's jurisdiction over them and
renders them liable to any sanctions the ECB may attempt to impose -
which include unlimited fines according to the ECB's rules. While they
might have been prepared to give evidence to a fact-finding inquiry,
they are not prepared to give evidence which would make them
personally liable.

Let's make no bones about this: the ECB under Tom Harrison's
leadership screwed this whole thing up royally and deserve large
quantities of opprobrium at least. That they had no inkling of what
was going on at YCCC or that they did nothing about it while it was
happening make them massively culpable, and I can understand why
players who were involved aren't prepared to be named and shamed while
the ECB pats itself on the back for finally doing what it should have
done years ago.

Cheers,

Mike

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 10:20:29 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 08:52:34 +0000, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
>
> >
> >More people have pulled out of the Yorkshire inquiry saying the
> >believe they won't get a fair hearing. I think Vaughan and Ballance
> >are the only ones left attending and Ballance is in Zimbabwe..
> >
> >Cop out if ever there was one. It's a public inquiry, if it is not
> >fair it will be seen to be unfair. If anyone makes a serious
> >allegation about you and you claim it is untrue the best place to be
> >is in your corner ready to come out fighting, not hiding behind the
> >belief that the outcome will not be in your favour. The classic case
> >of 'if you are afraid of it, knobble it'.
> They've all retired from being active players, apart from Ballance.
> I'm not at all clear what the point of attempting to determine their
> guilt or innocence actually is.
>

It affects their ability to get jobs in cricket such as coaching or broadcasting. DOH!

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/yorkshire-racism-crisis-matthew-hoggard-tim-bresnan-john-blain-withdraw-from-ecb-racism-hearing-1357193

Matthew Hoggard, Tim Bresnan, John Blain withdraw from ECB racism hearing
Trio join former coach Gale in pulling out of delayed hearings, citing a lack of faith in process

Vithushan Ehantharajah
03-Feb-2023 • 18 hrs ago

Three more players have withdrawn from the CDC hearing into racism at Yorkshire&nbsp;&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;&nbsp;PA Photos/Getty Images
Three more players have withdrawn from the CDC hearing into racism at Yorkshire • PA Photos/Getty Images

Matthew Hoggard and Tim Bresnan, the former England fast bowlers, have hit out at the ECB's disciplinary process after confirming that they will not be attending the hearings into historical racism at Yorkshire. Former Scotland international John Blain has also criticised the process and withdrawn his cooperation.

Hoggard, a veteran of England's 2005 Ashes victory, told the BBC that the inquest into allegations of institutional racism made by their former Yorkshire team-mate Azeem Rafiq had "failed everybody", while Bresnan told the Times that they had pulled out because they believed they had "no chance of a fair hearing".

The three former Yorkshire cricketers were among seven people due to appear before the Cricket Discipline Commission (CDC) in March, on charges levelled by the ECB in June in the wake of Rafiq's emotional testimony before the DCMS select committee in Westminster in November 2021.

However, Hoggard, Bresnan and Blain have now taken the same approach that their former captain and ex-club coach Andrew Gale took last year, informing the ECB that they have lost confidence in the process and that they will not attempt to defend themselves against the charges.

"The process has failed everybody," Hoggard said. "Every party involved has a problem with the way this process has been dealt with. Azeem has a problem with it, all the respondents have, [former Yorkshire chairman] Lord Patel has, Yorkshire have. There has got to be a better way."

RH

On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 10:20:24 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 08:52:34 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:
>
>>
>>More people have pulled out of the Yorkshire inquiry saying the
>>believe they won't get a fair hearing. I think Vaughan and Ballance
>>are the only ones left attending and Ballance is in Zimbabwe..
>>
>>Cop out if ever there was one. It's a public inquiry, if it is not
>>fair it will be seen to be unfair. If anyone makes a serious
>>allegation about you and you claim it is untrue the best place to be
>>is in your corner ready to come out fighting, not hiding behind the
>>belief that the outcome will not be in your favour. The classic case
>>of 'if you are afraid of it, knobble it'.
>
>They've all retired from being active players, apart from Ballance.
>I'm not at all clear what the point of attempting to determine their
>guilt or innocence actually is.
>
>Since this has lawyers crawling all over it, I strongly suspect that
>the report is not accurately reporting the precise nature of their
>objection and why it entails their non-participation.
>
>For instance, their legal advice might be that to participate in the
>hearing effectively accepts the ECB's jurisdiction over them and
>renders them liable to any sanctions the ECB may attempt to impose -
>which include unlimited fines according to the ECB's rules. While they
>might have been prepared to give evidence to a fact-finding inquiry,
>they are not prepared to give evidence which would make them
>personally liable.
>
>Let's make no bones about this: the ECB under Tom Harrison's
>leadership screwed this whole thing up royally and deserve large
>quantities of opprobrium at least. That they had no inkling of what
>was going on at YCCC or that they did nothing about it while it was
>happening make them massively culpable, and I can understand why
>players who were involved aren't prepared to be named and shamed while
>the ECB pats itself on the back for finally doing what it should have
>done years ago.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Mike

There must be several conflicting advices. Hoggard for example has
already accepted something happened and has made his apologies etc,
but isn't happy because the hearing is about discipline and he says he
isn't aware of all the evidence that will be presented. I'd be with
him on that, but surely ask for the evidence in advance would be the
way to go..
Vaughan denied everything but he is attending.

You're right about it being a money mill; for the past while the ECB
have been too busy rolling in my sweet baby's arms to notice they were
been asleep at the wheel.

max.it

On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 13:09:34 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>On Sat, 04 Feb 2023 10:20:24 +0000, Mike Holmans <spam@jackalope.uk>
>wrote:

>>Since this has lawyers crawling all over it, I strongly suspect that
>>the report is not accurately reporting the precise nature of their
>>objection and why it entails their non-participation.
>>

>
>There must be several conflicting advices. Hoggard for example has
>already accepted something happened and has made his apologies etc,
>but isn't happy because the hearing is about discipline and he says he
>isn't aware of all the evidence that will be presented. I'd be with
>him on that, but surely ask for the evidence in advance would be the
>way to go..
>Vaughan denied everything but he is attending.

There are several expensive lawyers involved no doubt, which
guarantees several conflicting advices.

Whatever was said or done and whoever said or did it to whom, the
damage was done, but since everyone involved has retired, whatever
comes out of this is not going to change any current facts on the
current ground nor is anyone going to have to do anything themselves
as a direct result.

If the ECB were going to get disciplinary about it, they should have
done it 10 years ago. Now, the disciplinary aspects are wildly
irrelevant.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission where people talk honestly about
what happened and resolve to move on, as they had in post-apartheid
South Africa, could, on the other hand, achieve some useful things. (I
know there was talk of something similar following the GFA, but I
don't know if that ever got off the ground.)
>
>You're right about it being a money mill; for the past while the ECB
>have been too busy rolling in my sweet baby's arms to notice they were
>been asleep at the wheel.

Exactly.

Cheers,

Mike