Yes

just seems a weird ass line to use as it implies 'not satisfied on balance of probabilities [but we think he might have said it]'. Though I think it's just the way the decision was written and now being reported on.

What I do find interesting, amidst the way it's all now being reported, is that the decision seems solely based on whether the ECB could prove he used the precise form of words: "we need to have a word about that" rather than "we need to do something about it".

The decision doesn't hint that they thought he didn't say either of those two statements, nor that he didn't say "there's too many of you lot".

And because it fell at that hurdle, they didn't consider whether they'd have thought it was racist or not.

Cleared, but without being cleared.

Posted By: CWC on March 31st 2023 at 14:01:39

Message Thread

Michael Vaughan not a racist after all (Other Sports) - Old Git, Mar 31, 10:53:26
- *probably not (Other Sports) - CWC, Mar 31, 11:44:09
  - Assuming that the prosecution bore the burden of proof (Other Sports) - Old Git, Mar 31, 12:59:12
    - Yes (Other Sports) - CWC, Mar 31, 14:01:39
- His full statement (definitely written by him and not by lawyers and PR people, oh no) (Other Sports) - Old Git, Mar 31, 10:55:06
  - Not sure what you were expecting? (Other Sports) - usacanary, Mar 31, 12:50:52
    - He deleted those tbf (n/m) (Other Sports) - SCC 28, Mar 31, 14:17:22
  - Time for a bit of no-bigoted compensation by the sound of things (n/m) (Other Sports) - MonkeyPuzzle, Mar 31, 11:30:03
    - *non (n/m) (Other Sports) - MonkeyPuzzle, Mar 31, 11:33:59

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.