I am relieved to learn that the not guilty verdict in the Ben Stokes affray trial has ended what has been widely acknowledged as a period of awkwardness for the England and Wales Cricket Board. “ECB’s embarrassment over after Stokes cleared,” declared Sky News.
Newly unembarrassed – or found not guilty, if you prefer, of being embarrassing – the ECB moved swiftly after the verdict to issue a statement. “Ben Stokes will now join the England squad for the third Specsavers Test against India,” this ran, “which starts at Trent Bridge on Saturday.” There was, however, a small caveat. “Considerable detail has been heard in this week-long court case,” they explained, “and, in due course, there will be a range of matters for the Board to fully consider.”
There will indeed. The Crown Prosecution Service, meanwhile, will have its own range of matters to fully consider, while internet users will have a range of Jeremy Corbyn-inspired “present but not involved” jokes to consider before making their own selection.
As far as the ECB goes, though, it would be nice to think that one of the matters it had to consider “in due course” was its own handling of the saga. By way of a recap of this absolute masterclass of sporting governance: before the police had pressed charges for the street brawl, the ECB decided to suspend Stokes from playing for England. At the same time, they selected him for the Ashes. The thinking – I’m calling it that because you have to call it something – seemed to be that Stokes could be unsuspended and deploy to Australia just the second he wasn’t charged. Many a slip twixt wicketkeeper and lip, and all that, and this cunning plan was duly foiled by the limbo continuing until the Ashes had been over a week. Stokes had missed the entire series – a lot of which had consisted of England players and coach explaining that they weren’t thinking about his absence at all, although they did all agree it would be “a bonus” were he to be cleared to play. Stokes was subsequently named in England’s squad for the one‑day series, in which he was also, obviously, unable to play. Fortunately, he was then charged with a crime, allowing the ECB – on its own malarial logic – to lift his suspension and pick him again.
And now, here we are. It is difficult to conclude that the ECB hasn’t cocked this one up at almost every turn, often in amusingly elaborate ways. The only right decision it has made is calling Stokes up immediately after he has been found not guilty by a jury in a court of law. Anything else would have been just not cricket. But you sense that it is the one decision that thinkers of their calibre are going to struggle hardest to defend, given what emerged at the trial.
This, alas, is where nursing pretensions about picking players on good character gets you. I am always suspicious of the wisdom of claiming that sports stars must be “role models”, and that only those of nebulous good character can represent their country. It so frequently ties governing bodies of various different sports in knots. And as anyone who has been out late in a lively town centre on a Saturday night would attest, there are certain aspects of his country that Ben Stokes faultlessly represents. However, they aren’t perhaps the ones the ECB was on about.
As for others who might have been left by the trial with a range of matters to fully consider in due course, we might include Stokes’s management, who have long sold him as a certain type. His book was called “Firestarter: Me, Cricket and The Heat of the Moment”, and it found the notional author marketed specifically as someone quite … fighty. In a cricketing sense, you understand.
“Some opponents feel threatened by his physical stature and aggressive brand of cricket,” the publicity material explained with satisfaction. “Stokes simply doesn’t back down, smashing the next ball for six, bowling his 90 mph ‘chin music’ …” Mmm. I’m not sure I’ve quite got the point yet. Have you any more of this? “Fiery, combative, gladiatorial … red in tooth and claw …” OK. OK. That’ll do. I’m with ya.
As Australia found earlier this year, in different circumstances, there can be a flipside to lionising certain types of aggression as though they connote the highest form of competitive integrity. “We have a passionate brand”, was the way David Warner put it, about 18 months before being caught up in a business which a former Australian selector described bleakly as “the end point of this culture”.
Anyway, Stokes is now free to play again – certainly until he and Alex Hales are brought before the ECB’s independent disciplinary commission, where they are probably going to face a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, which could lead to another ban. As employers, the ECB is likely to work on a “balance of probabilities” basis as far as Stokes’s guilt on their charges is concerned, rather than the “beyond reasonable doubt” basis which seems to have upset many who took an armchair interest in the court case.
Even so, on the formbook, we can expect at least a couple more embarrassing twists and turns to its handling of the matter. And as usual, it will get away with it. But when you consider the serial ineptitude, cynicism and moral wimpiness, it really is a continuing marvel that the ECB itself has never faced a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.
