The Future is Bright, the future is ginger: official Ben Stokes thread

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Originally Posted by geoff_boycotts_grandmother

Money definitely provides a better defence. I expect Stokes' lawyer is spending vastly more time pouring over the details of the case whereas the other two defendants may only have legal aid advice from a legal aid lawyer who's rushed off their feet and only had time to glance at the file and the briefest of interviews with their client.

Unfortunately this government just doesn't value justice and has been unwilling to fund legal aid and the court system.

Many countries don’t have legal aid - these chumps should feel lucky they are allowed to drink, stay out late and have a chance at a fair trial.

[1000yardstare]

‏
@GeorgeDobell1

The trial of Ben Stokes, Ryan Hale and Ryan Ali will start at Bristol Crown Court on August 6. It is expected to last between five and seven days. It means Stokes will miss the Lord’s Test against India.

[Jock McTuffnel v3]

Stokes seems to have employed a decent brief.

https://www.exchangechambers.co.uk/p...ordon-cole-qc/

[1000yardstare]

https://www.ecb.co.uk/england/men/ne...er+Ca mpaigns

http://cricviz.com/2018/09/cricviz-a...d-bat-at-no-3/

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

There's no escaping the long arms of the law when Mr Tickle is on the disciplinary panel.

[Sir Coolerking]

Talk about flogging a dead horse, can't we just move on now?

[Ali TT]

Presumably the ECB want to rest Stokes over the Caribbean tour, while ban Hales long enough to rid themselves of a tricky selection dilemma at the top of the order in the World Cup squad.

[Aidan11]

You can just imagine the press report if they are found guilty....

"Stokes and Hales were told they would be banned from cricket for life or alternatively they could waive the ban if they helped promote The Hundred. They took the life ban".

[1000yardstare]

http://cricviz.com/2018/09/cricviz-a...d-bat-at-no-3/

So no one interested in Stokes batting at 3 then?

'England should be looking to mould Ben Stokes into Jacques Kallis, not into Andrew Flintoff '.

[MRNC4.0]

Originally Posted by 1000yardstare

http://cricviz.com/2018/09/cricviz-a...d-bat-at-no-3/

So no one interested in Stokes batting at 3 then?

'England should be looking to mould Ben Stokes into Jacques Kallis, not into Andrew Flintoff '.

As good as he was, Jacques was the most boring cricketer alive, and even though I watched him through his entire career I can't recall a single shot he played or delivery he bowled. Give me the drunk angry ginger instead please.

[D/L]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

Talk about flogging a dead horse, can't we just move on now?

The "dead horse" is the affray charge (and probably always was).

This is a different matter and is about encouraging good behaviour in current and future players.

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by D/L

The "dead horse" is the affray charge (and probably always was).

This is a different matter and is about encouraging good behaviour in current and future players.

Don't disagree, but wouldn't a ban from an Ashes Tour already cover that?

[Rebelstar]

I think this whole thing is a farce, charging Stokes with bringing the game into disrepute having decided it was ok to use him in the recent India series...…..

Surely normal protocol would suggest suspended from selection until such charges have been answered....?!?!? Not as if England desperately needed him anyway

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by MRNC4.0

As good as he was, Jacques was the most boring cricketer alive, and even though I watched him through his entire career I can't recall a single shot he played or delivery he bowled. Give me the drunk angry ginger instead please.

You are indeed correct as he technically didn't play a shot when ducking into a full toss.

[1000yardstare]

Originally Posted by Rebelstar

I think this whole thing is a farce, charging Stokes with bringing the game into disrepute having decided it was ok to use him in the recent India series...…..

Surely normal protocol would suggest suspended from selection until such charges have been answered....?!?!? Not as if England desperately needed him anyway

Restraint of trade?

[D/L]

No; non-selection on the basis of a disciplinary inquiry could never be construed as restraint of trade.

[Sir Coolerking]

So rough description of the ECB's Actions so far:

Stokes interviewed by Police but not charged - Suspend Stokes from Ashes
Stokes charged with Affray - Select Stokes to play in all series
Stokes cleared of Affray - Charge Stokes with Disciplinary hearing

Any idea what happens next?

[Sir Coolerking]

Originally Posted by D/L

No; non-selection on the basis of a disciplinary inquiry could never be construed as restraint of trade.

What about non-selection when there was no disciplinary inquiry planned?

[geoff_boycotts_grandmother]

Originally Posted by Sir Coolerking

So rough description of the ECB's Actions so far:

Stokes interviewed by Police but not charged - Suspend Stokes from Ashes
Stokes charged with Affray - Select Stokes to play in all series
Stokes cleared of Affray - Charge Stokes with Disciplinary hearing

Any idea what happens next?

A piece in the Telegraph praising Strauss' management?

(he's actually absent on compassionate leave)

[Ali TT]

Presumably the ECB didn't want to (or were unable to) run a disciplinary hearing in parallel or before the criminal investigation, in case the former compromised the latter. Stokes was also not suspended for the Ashes, he was simply not selected.

Bringing the game into disrepute is clearly separate to a criminal charge, and will have a different burden of proof. Perhaps Stokes should have been suspended all year, but otherwise I don't find this action by the ECB particularly surprising or inappropriate.