28 November 28, 2021The Sunday Times
Sport
David
Walsh
If part of me feels some
sympathy for Michael
Vaughan over row
prompted by an
alleged comment
made 12 years ago,
another feels that
he hasn’t
helped himself
batsman again, allowing a whizzing
delivery to fly past his head: “The
problem with this situation, Dan, is
that we’ve got too much, ‘He said, he
said, she said, did they say?’ We’ve
got to move on from accusations of
conversations from many years ago.”
At that moment, I wanted Walker
to press Vaughan. No, Michael, this is
actually a case of, “You say and they
say”. How good would it have been if
Walker had reminded Vaughan that
he’d shared a Yorkshire dressing
room with Rashid and Rafiq, and did
he not know them well enough to
know they wouldn’t fabricate so
damaging a comment? The point herewas inescapable: how could Vaughan
be so certain he didn’t say something
that three others remembered?
All of this doesn’t mean Vaughan is
a racist. Monty Panesar wrote a piece
for The Telegraph two days ago that
offered a portrait of the former
England captain as an inclusive and
charismatic leader. Panesar recalled
how Vaughan would ask him about
his background and his faith. Panesar
called Vaughan by his Sikh name,
Mandeep, and says the captain
enjoyed that. “I remember him saying
he needed to know about all religions
because it would make him a better
leader of men — it typified how hisStupid stuff like that
mattered back then
and it matters now. It
is Vaughan who has
left us unsure about
who he really is
O
n November 4, Michael
Vaughan wrote a column
for The Daily Telegraph in
which he addressed the
allegation that he had made
a racist comment to a small
group of players of Asian
heritage during his final
season with Yorkshire. As we all know
by now, his former team-mate Azeem
Rafiq accused Vaughan of saying,
“Too many of you lot, we need to do
something about it.”
Rafiq alleged the comment was
addressed to him, Adil Rashid, Ajmal
Shahzad and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan. It
was Rafiq’s way of saying, “Don’t take
my word for it, ask the others.”
Vaughan was certain he’d never said
what was alleged. “I completely and
categorically deny that I ever said
those words,” he wrote in that
Telegraph column.
Further on, he reiterated the
denial. “I have nothing to hide. The,
‘You lot’ comment never happened.
Anyone trying to recollect words said
ten years ago will be fallible but I am
adamant those words were not used.
If Rafiq believes something was said
at the time to upset him then that is
what he believes.”
Vaughan’s denial was troubling.
How could he not see the
contradiction in the sentence that
said: “Anyone trying to recollect
words said ten years ago will be
fallible but I am adamant those words
were not used.”
Let us, for the sake of argument,
assume the comment was uttered in
an ill-chosen attempt at banter — isn’t
it possible that Vaughan may have
forgotten it while those affected may
have a clear recollection? Vaughan
seems not to have considered thispossibility. Neither did he consider
the significance of Rafiq’s claim that
others heard what was said. No
curiosity from Vaughan about their
recall. Naved and Rashid supported
Rafiq’s recollection. Shahzad had
previously said he had no recollection
of the comment.
Three out of four would hardly
remember the comment if Vaughan
hadn’t made it, although he’s
adamant he didn’t. There is an
inevitability about how these
controversies play out. The BBC
reviews the circumstances and drops
Vaughan from its commentary team.
BT Sport, which will cover the Ashes,
says it is reconsidering a plan to use
the feed from Fox Sports in Australia,
for whom Vaughan will commentate
during the five-Test series.
There is part of me that feels
sympathy for Vaughan: one silly and
perhaps throwaway comment uttered
ten years ago, and now this. Another
part of me thinks he doesn’t help
himself. The Telegraph column was
self-serving and didn’t address
important questions. Then Vaughan
went on BBC Breakfast yesterday
morning and did an interview with
Dan Walker. Not since Lance
Armstrong decided to invite Alastair
Campbell to his home in 2004 has an
interviewer been so carefully chosen.
Campbell’s piece appeared in
The Times and included the
heartwarming detail that Armstrong’s
then girlfriend Sheryl Crow had
admired Campbell’s haircut. How
touching! Though he is no Jeremy
Paxman, Walker did better. When
Vaughan again denied making the
“you lot” comment, the interviewer
asked if his accusers were liars. In
that moment Vaughan became theleadership skills and thinking were
ahead of his time. I recall him saying,
‘It gets boring if we are all the same,’
and that different cultures would
make for a stronger dressing room.”
That version of Michael Vaughan is
what his sport needs right now. If
only it were the only Vaughan. Walker
brought up the tweets.
In October 2010, Vaughan posted a
message on his Twitter account that
said, “Not many English people live in
London. I need to learn a new
language.” This isn’t something that
Mandeep would have said, but
Michael did. Then there was the “yes”
to a question posted by another
Twitter user, which asked if Moeen Ali
should ask Muslim people that he
didn’t know if they were terrorists.
This asinine exchange took place in
the immediate aftermath of the
Manchester bombing in May 2017.
Adil Ray, the writer and actor,
challenged Vaughan on his
endorsement of the original question.
“Michael, what do you want Moeen to
do? In between Tests go around
asking Muslims he doesn’t know if
they’re a terrorist?” This was the
moment for Vaughan to back off and
admit he’d been silly. That’s not how
he saw it. “Adil,” he replied, “If it’s
going to help our kids’ future and
environment become a safer place,
then YES.”
Asked by Walker if he regretted
those tweets, Vaughan said he did,
and many others that he’d posted
during his 12 years on social media.
“Times have moved on,” he said. The
response to Ray was only four years
ago. Stupid stuff like that mattered
back then and it certainly matters
now. It is Vaughan himself who has
left us unsure about who he really is.Frost a pioneer
for change
whatever the
outcome of
bullying inquiry
On Tuesday morning the
protagonists in the Bryony Frost/
Robbie Dunne entanglement will
turn up at the headquarters of the
British Horseracing Authority in
High Holborn, London, for their
long-awaited oral hearing. Frost is a
top-class jump jockey, Dunne is an
experienced journeyman. She has
accused him of bullying and
harassment at their place of work
and the BHA investigators decided
there is a case to answer.
Six days have been set aside for
the hearing; Tuesday, Wednesday
and Thursday this week and the
same days next week. The BHA will
be hoping that all six will not be
needed. If the duration of the
investigation is any guide, they may
struggle to finish in six days. Frost
made her complaint in September
last year and it has taken this long
to get to where we are. If the BHA
were a horse, it wouldn’t win many
races.
For Frost and Dunne, the
prolonged nature of the
investigation has made a difficult
situation worse. The latter stands
accused of threatening behaviour
while Frost has had to deal with no
small amount of disapproval from
colleagues for taking her case to the
authorities. Traditionally the
weighing room was a male preserve
where issues were dealt with in-
house.
Frost broke the de facto omertà
and the sport should applaud her.
Given the seriousness of the charges
that Dunne faces, the hearing has
the potential to be dramatic and
quarrelsome. The worst of the
exchanges between Frost and
Dunne followed races in which they
crossed each other’s paths.
Frost and Dunne each had a view
on what happened, invariably
conflicting, and it was informative
to set their interpretations against
the video evidence.
Though racing people will
lament another round of
reputational damage, there is a
bigger picture. Things needed to
change inside the weighing room;
both the physical layout of the
room and the general attitude
inside it. This case will help the
authorities to improve the facilities
for female jockeys and it should
also encourage senior male jockeys
to improve the culture.Vaughan
denies
racism
in a BBC
interviewWHAT I’M READING
Last Match by Martin Rhys. In these
contentious times, it has been good
to find a novel that transports us
back to the Welsh valleys and into
the world of a rugby hero opposed to
fighting for his country at the
beginning of the Second World War.© TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED, 2021. Published in print and all other derivative formats by Times Newspapers Ltd, 1 London Bridge St, London, SE1 9GF. Printed by: Newsprinters (Broxbourne) Ltd, Great Cambridge Rd, Waltham Cross,EN8 8DY;
Newsprinters (Knowsley) Ltd, Kitling Rd, Prescot, L34 9HN; Newsprinters (Eurocentral) Ltd, Byramsmuir Rd, Holytown, Motherwell, ML1 4WH; KP Services, La Rue Martel, La Rue des Pres Trading Estate, St Saviour, Jersey, JE2 7QR; Webprint, 2023
Bianconi Ave, Citywest Business Campus, Dublin, Ireland. For permission to copy articles or headlines for internal information purposes contact Newspaper Licensing Agency at PO Box 101, Tunbridge Wells, TN1 1WX, tel 01892 525274,
e-mail [email protected]. For all other reproduction and licensing inquiries contact Licensing Department, 1 London Bridge St, London, SE1 9GF, telephone 020 7711 7888, e-mail [email protected]*