Vaughan, appearing at a Cricket Disciplinary Commission (CDC) hearing in London, said of the day in question that he had a “very clear mind about 2009” and that he knew he had not said what was alleged. was planted. He added that he would never have gone on the field and said anything to teammates that “could have put them in a bad state of mind” before the game.
“Knowing me in 2009, that’s not the kind of thing I would have said.”
Vaughn was questioned by ECB lead counsel Jane Mulcahy KC for around 90 minutes, during which he argued that some of his historical tweets were “strikingly similar” to the alleged remarks.
Vaughn said the tweets were unacceptable and that he had apologized for them before and would continue to do so. But he disagreed with the suggestion that they were similar in tone. Mulcahy pointed out that both Rafique and Rashid claimed that Vaughan likely made the alleged comment as a “bad joke” and said the tone of the tweet was similar because it was “light-hearted but offensive”.
Asked if he agreed, Vaughan said: “No.”
Vaughn said he was “offended” by the tweets. “I apologized to them. I enrolled myself in an online course, Inclusion. I wanted to learn how to lead in the modern age. Tweets are disgusting, horrible and other words you can use. But most importantly I have apologized and I am learning from them.
He went back to his memory of the day of the game – which he wrote about in his memoir – that he “couldn’t have been more proud. [of] Four Asian players, three of whom came through the system.”
Wan was also questioned about his meeting with Rafiq in November 2021, which he felt was necessary because “the whole situation was spiraling out of control”. Vaughan said he apologized in the meeting with Rafiq because he was “disgusted” by what Rafiq had gone through in Yorkshire but did not accept the alleged comment.
Vaughn said the CDC hearing was a “terrible look” for cricket. “It wasn’t easy for anyone. It’s not fair to deal with comments that are word against word from 14 years ago. Former teammates fighting it out over rumors is a terrible look for the game and a really bad look. How has cricket dealt with this situation?”
Earlier in the morning, scrutiny fell on the scope of the ECB’s investigation into the incident, as well as the rigor of its deployment, with Mina Boutros, its legal and integrity director, facing a three-hour grilling from Christopher Stoner, Vaughn’s lawyer. fell
The line of questioning came in a recent interview with outgoing Yorkshire chair Lord Kamlesh Patel. Eastern Eye. It claimed that the ECB “forced” Lord Patel to “get rid of people” in the county when he took over. Speaking about his role, Patel said: “I was asked by the ECB to meet a standard that most people would have thought there was no way we could deliver, and I did it. Delivered.
“I was asked by the ECB to work with them to create a framework and an environment where we could prove to the world that we want a non-racial institution, and I did all that. . I was asked by the ECB to make certain people. Those who were there from the previous government did not participate in this governance process, that is very clear.”
Stoner suggested that these comments showed that the ECB was “actively involved” in the Yorkshire investigation, in breach of process as outlined in Boutros’s witness statement, that the ECB such In matters independent of action taken by one of its own counties.
Boutros said he could not comment on what Lord Patel had said but insisted that Stoner was “mistaking” the ECB’s regulatory function for involvement in such matters from its other roles. Stoner pointed to Boutros’ witness statement which read: “As a regulator, the ECB must remain independent of the action taken by one of its members, a first-class county club.”
“It didn’t happen, did it?” Stoner asked.
Boutros replied: “That’s what happened.”
Stoner then zeroed in on the day Vaughn is alleged to have made the comments, questioning whether the ECB could and should go further in its investigation of the events. was He confirmed with Boutros that the players the ECB spoke to about the incident were Adil Rashid and Ajmal Shahzad.
Stoner asked why not all Yorkshire players were spoken to on the day. Boutros said the ECB “spoke to individuals where we could” but that “some individuals either did not want to participate or engage”, or that the ECB had contact details for others. Couldn’t get it.
Stoner also asked Boutros why the on-field umpires that day had not been contacted by the ECB for their version of events.
Boutros replied, “There’s no suggestion the umpires were close enough to hear it.” Boutros added that if it was such an important point, Wan’s team could have taken it upon themselves.
The hearing is scheduled to end next Tuesday.
Usman Samiuddin is a senior editor at ESPNcricinfo.
