I wouldn’t bring him back until the whole truth is out
ON THE face of it, the decision made yesterday was full of inconsistencies and will take a lot of explaining to England fans — but I do have sympathy for the ECB. Whatever happened, they were damned if they did and damned if they didn’t.
Fans will be wondering why Ben Stokes was left out of the side when he wasn’t charged with anything, and why he’s been brought back the minute he has been charged. But he had to be left out while that uncertainty was hanging over him — for the good of the player and the good of the game of cricket. He needed to be out of the firing line.
My view is that, having been hit with such a serious charge as affray, he should still be out of the firing line. I don’t think he should be available for selection until the case has been dealt with in a court of law and the whole truth has come out. But with this approach you create a situation in which the lad, who hasn’t actually been found guilty of anything, is prevented from doing his job for half a year — or even longer if he pleads not guilty and contests the charge. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
The ECB have been very fair to Stokes. He’s been on full pay the entire time, they let him fly off to play in New Zealand, they’re going to let him play in the Indian Premier League, they’re going to let him play for Durham, and now they’ve brought him back into the fold to resume his international career. Considering the seriousness of the charge, I don’t think he has been hard done by.
I imagine the ECB presumed the situation would have been cleared up a lot sooner, but even with the benefit of hindsight I don’t think they would have changed their decision to leave Stokes out of the Ashes tour.
Just look at the media storm whipped up by Jonny Bairstow’s silly ‘headbutt’ and how Ben Duckett was hung out to dry for pouring a drink over Jimmy Anderson. Can you imagine how much worse it could have been if Stokes had been there?
And don’t forget, the ECB will have had to negotiate various legal complications throughout the process. They can’t risk prejudicing an ongoing investigation — potentially making him look guilty by banning him from playing — and could also be sued for restraint of trade if he isn’t allowed to do his job.
I would save judgment of the ECB until the court case has been concluded. Once they have the full facts — and there may have been reason for Stokes to do what he is alleged to have done — any decision they make will really be under the microscope.
They have a duty of care to protect Stokes, but also to the game. How the cricket discipline commission deals with England’s poster boy being involved in such a serious incident, and its potential influence on future generations, will be hugely important.
This situation is a complete and utter mess, make no mistake. But that mess was created outside a bar in Bristol last September, not by the ECB’s decision-making.