Pressure on BBC to reverse Vaughan axe
⮞panesar blasts broadcaster for ‘unethical’ Ashes decision ⮞rafiq says ‘you lot’ furore has been blown out of proportion
The BBC was last night under mounting pressure to reverse its decision to suspend Michael Vaughan after Azeem Rafiq said the “you lot” furore had been blown out of proportion.
Speaking 48 hours after the corporation axed Vaughan from its Ashes team, the man who accused him insisted “I don’t hold a grudge” against the 2005 Ashes-winning captain. Meanwhile, former England spinner Monty Panesar became the latest figure in the sport to criticise the BBC, accusing it of presiding over “a distortion of natural justice”. Rafiq suggested yesterday the alleged 2009 comment – which Vaughan vehemently denies – had been “made bigger” than necessary.
The 30-year-old, who met a Holocaust survivor as part of efforts to make amends over his anti-semitic messages, added: “I’m nobody to be forgiving someone.”
Vaughan, who first revealed in his Daily Telegraph column how he had been accused, has given a BBC interview which is expected to be broadcast this morning.
He has already issued two strenuous denials of the allegation he said “too many of you lot, we need to do something about it” within earshot of Rafiq, Adil Rashid, Rana Navedul-hasan and Ajmal Shahzad.
Naved-ul-hasan and Rashid backed Rafiq’s claim, but Vaughan claims the other seven players present in the pre-match huddle at Trent Bridge had “no recollection” of the comment.
Panesar, writing in a new column for The Telegraph, said the BBC had made a mistake in dropping him. “This feels deeply unethical – a classic case of someone being tried and convicted without any form of due process being undertaken,” he added. After his appearance before MPS last week, Rafiq had appeared to call for the BBC to take action against Vaughan, who had already been temporarily stood down from his Radio 5 Live show.
“People who apologise should be given a second chance, but people in denial, I think it’s important that employers send a message out to the public whether they’re going to be [given a] green light,” he had told ITV. However, during a meeting with Holocaust survivor Lily Ebert, Rafiq appeared to have softened his stance. “Throughout the process, I
have said it’s not about individuals. It never has been in my eyes. Obviously, that issue [Vaughan] has been made bigger.”
Rafiq added that the alleged comment “will always stick with me, but I don’t hold a grudge”.
“I’ve said all along anyway, accepting an apology was all I was looking for,” he added.
“And even if I don’t get that, it’s not a big deal. I’m nobody to be forgiving someone or deciding what should happen with someone’s future. I just feel like, from my point of view, I owned up to what I did, I regret it.
“How people want to decide how they want to move forward is completely their choice, and it’s up to them. I’m in no position to decide what they do or don’t do.”
Innocent until proven guilty. It is a notion that underpins justice in every civilised society and yet, in certain cases, it seems to be overlooked.
Take Michael Vaughan, for example. He has been the subject of allegations by Azeem Rafiq that he made a racially offensive comment to him and other Asian players at Yorkshire, in 2009.
Three players, including Rafiq, have testified that he said it; Vaughan has emphatically denied it, and another player – Ajmal Shahzad – went on record earlier this year to say he never heard him make that comment.
The upshot is that the BBC has dropped Vaughan from its coverage of the Ashes this winter, and BT Sport is exploring ways of making sure his commentary – via Fox Sports in Australia – does not end up on British screens.
This feels deeply unethical. It is a classic case of someone being tried and convicted without any form of due process being undertaken.
Nobody disputes the gravity of the allegations made by Rafiq, even if the ones about Vaughan are at the lower end of the scale, and they need to be properly investigated.
Equally, the fact that this alleged incident took place 12 years ago means that it must be unlikely Rafiq’s claims will ever be proven.
I have already said that I absolutely do not believe Michael Vaughan is racist. He was my captain when I played for England and I experienced only positive things with him.
When I first attended an England training session, Vaughan told the media and fellow colleagues: “Monty is a breath of fresh air in this England dressing room.” He enjoyed how I approached the game, and celebrated wickets – in fact, he actively wanted me to do it. My energy and passion for playing for England resonated with him.
He always got the best out of me and several other cricketers from different backgrounds, and would make the point that he only ever wanted the best possible England team, regardless of race or religion.
That is not to say he was not interested in my background – he was, but only in a positive way. He was keen to know about my Sikh beliefs and how they had shaped my values and upbringing.
I remember him saying he needed to know about all religions because it would make him a better leader of men – it typified how his leadership skills and thinking were ahead of his time.
On another occasion, I recall him saying, “It gets boring if we are all the same”, and that different cultures would make for a stronger dressing room. We would discuss it regularly, and I used to call him by his Sikh name “Mandeep”. He loved that and when he got runs he would say to me: “The Sikh gods must be happy with me today.” This is what dressing-room culture should be about – brotherhood, unity, humour and respect.
I cannot reconcile the man I know with the one who has been the subject of these allegations, and it is striking to me that no other players – either from Yorkshire or England – have come forward to make claims about his behaviour.
If he was a racist, surely we would have heard from other players?
I am not saying Rafiq is a liar or that there were no deep-rooted problems at Yorkshire during his time at the club.
I know Vaughan would be the first to admit he could have done more as a senior player and adviser to Yorkshire to clamp down on that culture, but that does not make him a racist, and does not mean he deserves to see his career and reputation torn apart.
It feels like the BBC and BT have taken the easy option by blocking him from broadcasting this winter. The BBC says it does not want him commenting on a story in which he features, but that should not stop him analysing the Ashes.
Cricket has serious issues to confront in terms of endemic racism, many of which have been highlighted by Rafiq’s evidence provided to the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
But to blacklist one of the best England captains we have produced on the basis of historic and still unproven allegations feels wrong, and a distortion of natural justice.
He wanted to know all about our religions and said different cultures made the team stronger