• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Stokes and Hales charged by ECB

Status
Not open for further replies.
chunkylover53 said:
Given they will have written in their contracts rules about bringing the game into disrepute, you’ve lost that argument
Click to expand...

No he hasn't, he has already missed an Ashes tour.

If this isn't included in his suspension then he can sue them for loss of earnings.

chunkylover53 said:
Let’s be clear on a couple of things.

- he hasn’t already been punished. He was suspended awaiting trial. Punishment is not the same

- the court ruling has absolutely zero to do with his standing in the game. A not guilty verdict in a criminal trial does not equal no wrongdoing

People can argue about the ECB, they are generally right that the ECB are incompetent. But the ECB are not to blame for Ben Stokes getting pissed up and getting in a fight. Ben Stokes is at fault for that.

He’s a quality cricketer. He isn’t a saint. And his quality as a cricketer doesn’t absolve him of other responsibilities
Click to expand...

Yes he has. And he will contest this at any trial. He will quite rightly look at loss of earnings for this tour.

The ECB are absolutely to blame for letting this farce go on. An absolute shambles of an organisation.
 
Last edited:

The Rat said:
No he hasn't, he has already missed an Ashes tour.

If this isn't included in his suspension then he can sue them for loss of earnings.



Yes he has. And he will contest this at any trial. He will quite rightly look at loss of earnings for this tour.

The ECB are absolutely to blame for letting this farce go on. An absolute shambles of an organisation.
Click to expand...
You’re a lawyer now?
 
It's all very unsatisfactory.

Maybe the best thing is for Stokes' lawyer to have a quiet word with England and say …. let's knock all of this on the head … we'll release an agreed statement expressing regret and as something concrete Stokes will do some coaching sessions at a couple of local clubs.

There's really no need to set up a kangaroo court and for the flawed ECB/England cricket hierarchy to go and get up on their high horse.
 
ECB were not able to act as they had to await the outcome of the criminal trial. The intervening time between the not guilty verdict and the announcement by the ECb will be to allow there HR/Legal team to pour over the judgement from the criminal trial before coming to the conclusion.

The fact it is a year since it happened before ECB make a judgement is irrelevant. They would always await the criminal case decision first. They have also stated the hearing will be between the Sri Lanka & west Indies tours to not impact too much on cricket sort of gives you the direction of travel the ECB are likely to take with a verdict

His not guily verdict is in no way connected to the charge of bringing the game into disrepute. This will be purely an employement matter and given the threshold for employemtn matters is lower than criminal means they could act accordingly for alleged breach of contract.

i think the hatred of ECB due to their treatment of Durham has clouded the common sense of a large proportion of posters. This process is exactly the same as a lot of professions which hold disciplinary/misconduct hearings after the conclusion of a trial. The difference being that most people would be suspended for the entire period pending the outcome whereas Stokes/Hales havent been
 
pavarotti1980 said:
ECB were not able to act as they had to await the outcome of the criminal trial. The intervening time between the not guilty verdict and the announcement by the ECb will be to allow there HR/Legal team to pour over the judgement from the criminal trial before coming to the conclusion.

The fact it is a year since it happened before ECB make a judgement is irrelevant. They would always await the criminal case decision first. They have also stated the hearing will be between the Sri Lanka & west Indies tours to not impact too much on cricket sort of gives you the direction of travel the ECB are likely to take with a verdict

His not guily verdict is in no way connected to the charge of bringing the game into disrepute. This will be purely an employement matter and given the threshold for employemtn matters is lower than criminal means they could act accordingly for alleged breach of contract.

i think the hatred of ECB due to their treatment of Durham has clouded the common sense of a large proportion of posters. This process is exactly the same as a lot of professions which hold disciplinary/misconduct hearings after the conclusion of a trial. The difference being that most people would be suspended for the entire period pending the outcome whereas Stokes/Hales havent been
Click to expand...

Its not, they are slow, backwards, behind the times

There is absolutely no reason this can't be dealt with internally 24 hours after he was found not gulity

They are doing this massively publicly for no reason. Its embarrassing
 
The Rat said:
Its not, they are slow, backwards, behind the times

There is absolutely no reason this can't be dealt with internally 24 hours after he was found not gulity

They are doing this massively publicly for no reason. Its embarrassing
Click to expand...
No they need to do it accordance with employment law and not be left open to challenges and appeals hence it taking a bit longer. Can you think of an example of other professions when a not guilty verdict has then been followed by a "disciplinary/misconduct" hearing within 24 hours?

If he was found guilty then the process would be quicker.
 
pavarotti1980 said:
No they need to do it accordance with employment law and not be left open to challenges and appeals hence it taking a bit longer. Can you think of an example of other professions when a not guilty verdict has then been followed by a "disciplinary/misconduct" hearing within 24 hours?

If he was found guilty then the process would be quicker.
Click to expand...

On whose behalf are they doing this? the public? the england team? its absolute nonsense.
 
The Rat said:
On whose behalf are they doing this? the public? the england team? its absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...
Themselves and Stokes and Hales. Given the ECB are the employer and the employee has signed a contract of employment and they may have been in breach of that contract.

is it nonsense for doctors or coppers to go through the same process after a criminal trial? because essentially it is exactly the same process or because they are sportsmen does that mean they are not required to do so?
 
pavarotti1980 said:
Themselves and Stokes and Hales. Given the ECB are the employer and the employee has signed a contract of employment and they may have been in breach of that contract.

is it nonsense for doctors or coppers to go through the same process after a criminal trial? because essentially it is exactly the same process or because they are sportsmen does that mean they are not required to do so?
Click to expand...

Genuine question, why on earth should a cricketer be held to the same standards as doctors and coppers?
 
The Rat said:
Genuine question, why on earth should a cricketer be held to the same standards as doctors and coppers?
Click to expand...
They arent. they are held to the standards expected of them within their contract of employment. Those standards differ but the principles remain the same
 
pavarotti1980 said:
They arent. they are held to the standards expected of them within their contract of employment. Those standards differ but the principles remain the same
Click to expand...

I can't move past the point that he missed the Ashes

There should be common sense involved and they should have a quiet arrangement without a massive hearing like this

its outdated nonsense.
 
The Rat said:
I can't move past the point that he missed the Ashes

There should be common sense involved and they should have a quiet arrangement without a massive hearing like this

its outdated nonsense.
Click to expand...
How is it outdated?

He should have been suspended pending the outcome of criminal trial.
 
chunkylover53 said:
Given they will have written in their contracts rules about bringing the game into disrepute, you’ve lost that argument
Click to expand...

You’re arguing a different point.

You stated that suspension/punishment is two seperate things - I’m telling you that in employment law, it isn’t.
 
Well. All I can say is 'hatred' of the ECB is not clouding my judgement. I have always disliked the 'bringing the game into disrepute' business in any sport. It seems to me the 'disrepute' you bring is related to the number adverse newspaper headlines - which means a top player is automatically more guilty than a lower level player.

There's also a feeling that Stokes is being tried twice (or three times if you include newspapers) which to me offends my sense of fair play.

And also, what Rat has alluded to is right. The ECB/Cricket England could have dealt with this immediately after the Court case ended but they didn't because it wasn't convenient against the upcoming schedule of games. That's not right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top