Stokes Arrested

[a massive zebra]

Will be interesting to see what the ECB now do - not seen a central contract, obviously, but I'm assuming there must be provisions in it about bringing the game into disrepute and he's surely guilty of that, on the balance of probabilities (and indeed beyond reasonable doubt as well - international sportsman smoking outside night club after consuming alcohol works for me on that even without any sort of contretemps)

Interesting point. I think it is difficult to predict what will happen.

On the one hand, these days many international sporting authorities seem to place financial considerations and on field performance above integrity and "setting a good example". Given the ECB regard Stokes as one of England's best players, I wouldn't be surprised if they find a loophole to bypass any rules or regulations he may have breached in order to get him back in the side as soon as possible. By the same token, these days there is a social media inspired mob mentality of outrage and character assassinations of law abiding citizens who express perfectly valid and justified opinions that are not politically correct. Where people fall victim to these character assassinations, the authorities often come down hard on the victims in order to appear politically correct and to ensure they do not to fall victim to similar attacks themselves. So we see ludicrous inconsistencies where honorable law abiding citizens are punished for falling victim to the mob mentality while convicted criminals are let off as it is in the authorities best interest to do so.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I wouldn't be surprised to see England maybe put in a suspension till the end of the current series and allow Stokes to make his return "off broadway" as such, as he did previously in NZ where it's not at home or a massively high profile series (e.g. Ashes). So there's a bit of normality to it when he returns again - with England 2-0 up it's doubted that he's needed for the series.

That's taking it from a PR point of view I guess.

 

[Engle]

Don't for a minute think you can throw the 1st blow, then talk your way out. Once the 1st blow is thrown, then everything that follows is self-defense. There is nothing new in this fight scenario.

My 1st post on this matter, page 8. Once the 1st act of violence is committed, everything that follows is self-defense.
You don't stand still to get clobbered, now do you ?

 

[sledger]

My 1st post on this matter, page 8. Once the 1st act of violence is committed, everything that follows is self-defense.
You don't stand still to get clobbered, now do you ?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Self-defence does not entitle you to do whatever you want.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The situation puts me in mind of the John Terry racism debacle.

Terry was found not guilty of calling Anton Ferdinand a black "see you next Tuesday" in a court of law, where the proof burden is "beyond a reasonable doubt", but the FA banned him for the offence afterwards because their own threshold was balance of probability.

Wonder if the ECB will take a similar view?

 

[S.Kennedy]

It was first grade thuggery. Our legal system is a complete joke.

 

[sledger]

It was first grade thuggery. Our legal system is a complete joke.

Explain.

 

[King Pietersen]

The situation puts me in mind of the John Terry racism debacle.

Terry was found not guilty of calling Anton Ferdinand a black "see you next Tuesday" in a court of law, where the proof burden is "beyond a reasonable doubt", but the FA banned him for the offence afterwards because their own threshold was balance of probability.

Wonder if the ECB will take a similar view?

Seems they don’t. Has been added to the squad for the 3rd Test.

 

[wpdavid]

It was a botched prosecution. Affray implies danger to innocent bystanders. As can be seen, the only people present were the six drunks who were basically a danger to only themselves. Also Hales not being on trial undermined prosecution case. Waste of time. Waste of tax. Waste of energy.

If the ECB don't hammer him, the Aussies are going to say, ''hang on, we hammered the Sandpaper cheats for basically cheating at sport'' and they'd have a valid point.

I don't think they would have a valid point at all. Whatever we think of the decision, Stokes has been found not guilty in a court of law. End of, really.
How would the ECB justify suspending a player for something that he's officially not guilty of? Beyond which, the sandpaper situation was completely different as it was an on-field offence against the laws of the game.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I don't think they would have a valid point at all. Whatever we think of the decision, Stokes has been found not guilty in a court of law. End of, really.
How would the ECB justify suspending a player for something that he's officially not guilty of? Beyond which, the sandpaper situation was completely different as it was an on-field offence against the laws of the game.

The ECB will not be judging him on ''affray'' but disreputable behaviour. That Stokes is in a drunken fight, in which he acted aggressively is not in doubt. He lied through his teeth about the homophobic stuff - you can see him mincing around on the cctv! He lied about flicking a cigarette.

But they'll probably not judge him at all because they need England to win games.

 

[S.Kennedy]

I'll pose this question to you. The ECB deem cricket ''too boozy, too male and too white''. They are creating a political correct variant of cricket called the 100 which will aim to attract ''mums and kids'' and ethnic minorities - I suppose homosexuals are included. Now if Ben Stokes (or Alex Hales) is playing for that cricket team there is no way a homosexual could support that cricket team following that CCTV footage.

 

[sledger]

I'll pose this question to you. The ECB deem cricket ''too boozy, too male and too white''. They are creating a political correct variant of cricket called the 100 which will aim to attract ''mums and kids'' and ethnic minorities - I suppose homosexuals are included. Now if Ben Stokes (or Alex Hales) is playing for that cricket team there is no way a homosexual could support that cricket team following that CCTV footage.

Blanket statements like this do not help anyone. This is a very ill-refined and obnoxious way of approaching the issue, and it is deeply troubling.

 

[vic_orthdox]

I wouldn't be surprised to see England maybe put in a suspension till the end of the current series and allow Stokes to make his return "off broadway" as such, as he did previously in NZ where it's not at home or a massively high profile series (e.g. Ashes). So there's a bit of normality to it when he returns again - with England 2-0 up it's doubted that he's needed for the series.

That's taking it from a PR point of view I guess.

Well there goes that - straight back into the squad. I guess there's also the need to fully back in their man - when he's getting such massive dosh from the IPL, they punish him again and they could be at risk of pushing him away.

 

[Starfighter]

This thread could have an interesting dénouement.

 

[91Jmay]

He should get a 6 month ban minimum - ECB disciplinary is not a court of law, doesn't need beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Howe_zat]

There were nervous moments when the verdict came in and the prosecutor signalled for a review.

 

[Engle]

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Self-defence does not entitle you to do whatever you want.

In a perfect world, yes. But I've seen too many fights to know that once the 1st punch is thrown, then all hell breaks loose.
I've seen far worse retaliatory response than a flurry of punches to much less provocation.

It's biological. We're wired that way. Fight or flight. And when the fight starts, there's no Marquess of Queensberry Rules to follow.

 

[sledger]

In a perfect world, yes. But I've seen too many fights to know that once the 1st punch is thrown, then all hell breaks loose.
I've seen far worse retaliatory response than a flurry of punches to much less provocation.

It's biological. We're wired that way. Fight or flight. And when the fight starts, there's no Marquess of Queensberry Rules to follow.

So what? This means nothing. And this "in an ideal world" nonsense is all hokum as well. The standard to which Stokes and all other defendants are held to is very clear - the law does not permit you to just do whatever you like in the name of defending yourself.

 

[vic_orthdox]

It's biological. We're wired that way. Fight or flight. And when the fight starts, there's no Marquess of Queensberry Rules to follow.

Just rule of law.

 

[Engle]

The law and jury just acquitted him.