|
|
Post by trolleybuss on Oct 14, 2020 22:19:02 GMT
Get rid of the cheat. Was too old slow and past it anyway. Terrible signing. Nice one dizzy.😔
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Oct 15, 2020 8:14:46 GMT
Ball tampering has been a thing for decades, when I was a youngster it was Murray Mints, everyone did it.
Difficult then for me to condemn Claydon without being a hypocrite.
However, the fact that he denied it and had Greenfield and Brown write positive character references in his defence, then after incriminating video footage changed his plea to guilty, tells me all I need to know about the man.
He needs to go and Sussex need to make a formal statement condemning his actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by devonexile on Oct 15, 2020 10:24:14 GMT
The club must consider themselves very lucky the points deduction is not for next season. Seems a meaningless punishment, but one we should not complain about. What would have happened if we had won the competition? Very lucky indeed. If I am reading the Appeal Panel decision correctly, the original sanction against Sussex also included a £10,000 fine suspended for 12 months and a 12 point deduction for the forthcoming 2021 Specsavers County Championship. The grounds for appeal were the alleged failure of a member of the Disciplinary Panel to declare a potential conflict of interest and that the original sanctions were to severe. resources.ecb.co.uk/ecb/document/2020/10/14/7e27202c-d165-41ab-ac49-cc801bdb80c8/Sussex-CCC-Claydon-Appeal-Panel-Decision-30-Sept-2020.pdfIt appears the urgent need to expedite the hearing, together with the Club's swift admonishment of Claydon once his dishonesty over his actions were exposed played into our favour in reducing the original punishment on the Club, although his nine game ban remained. I am not prepared to get drawn into using this episode as some choose as a swipe against the the Club's Management, Jason Gillespie, the Player, his age, ability, quality of his performances or the wisdom of his signing. I do, however, stand by my earlier post that if it is legally possible, given the actions of Mitchell Claydon for the good of the Club his contract should be ripped up and he should never play for Sussex CCC again. It was bad enough he cheated, but to then attempt to deny his action to both the Disciplinary Panel and the Club makes it worse, if that is possible. It is a view I would hold, irrespective of who the Player was, his age, ability or standing within the squad. Hopefully, the Club will do the right thing and make it clear there is no place for this type of conduct at Sussex CCC. |
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Oct 15, 2020 18:44:19 GMT
Well they haven't and it's now mid October. It seems to me that the club tried their best to sweep this under the carpet - they are smack bang in the middle of making it clear that there is a place for this type of conduct at Sussex CCC - which is humiliating frankly. And what of the skipper? This sort of thing is never a one man show. Brown's team had to be in on it, didn't they? And Gillespie's. He'll likely be lucky, like Lehmann.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 16, 2020 7:50:22 GMT
It would have been news. Shockingly poor episode that we, and this cheat Claydon, have got away with big time. Why have we made decisions on numerous long serving, loyal players' futures and not some old cheat who has been at the club for ten minutes. Get him out. 😏 If that's the case, then will the club need to buy him off, in return for signing a Non Disclosure Agreement? Does the plot really become this thick?  |
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Oct 18, 2020 19:21:29 GMT
Is that a joke Flash? I didn't know what JB meant with his post to be honest - If the club is in that position it needs to be exposed. There's an incredible amount of sweeping going on I think. It's horrendous but nobody seems to care.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 19, 2020 11:04:23 GMT
Is that a joke Flash? I didn't know what JB meant with his post to be honest - If the club is in that position it needs to be exposed. There's an incredible amount of sweeping going on I think. It's horrendous but nobody seems to care. Not a joke. Just a question, following up on jonboy’s comment. I don’t know anything, just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by kevininnessupersub on Oct 26, 2020 18:41:19 GMT
Rob Andrew in a Radio Sussex interview, was on at 1/2 time in the Albion v WBA match says the Claydon affair is over and he will play again for the club.
Without going into details RA and the club were not happy how ECB handled the case and mentioned umpires were regularly putting hand sanitizer on the ball as well !
|
|
|
|
Post by trolleybuss on Oct 27, 2020 14:40:50 GMT
Rob no no and no again. Claydon admitted the offence and he was found guilty by the ECB. If you think that's unfair appeal or give the reasons why you think the verdict is unfair rather than sweeping it under the carpet. Personally I don't want Claydon to ever play for us again. He wont be missed will he? Journeyman very average bowler who didn't exactly tear up many trees last season and aged nearly 38. Get rid and spend his salary elsewhere. Am amazed Andrew wants him to play for us again. Incredible and wrong.😔
|
|
|
|
Post by lovelyboy on Oct 27, 2020 17:37:33 GMT
Rob no no and no again. Claydon admitted the offence and he was found guilty by the ECB. If you think that's unfair appeal or give the reasons why you think the verdict is unfair rather than sweeping it under the carpet. Personally I don't want Claydon to ever play for us again. He wont be missed will he? Journeyman very average bowler who didn't exactly tear up many trees last season and aged nearly 38. Get rid and spend his salary elsewhere. Am amazed Andrew wants him to play for us again. Incredible and wrong.😔 Andrew wants to keep him because he’ll be cheap and we can’t attract anyone better. Simple as that |
|
|
|
Post by trolleybuss on Oct 27, 2020 18:14:12 GMT
Yes spot on😂
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 27, 2020 18:15:31 GMT
I don't understand why his usefulness as a player has any bearing on whether he should be sacked for ball tampering. How would you have reacted if one of our top bowlers had been found guilty of the same offence?  |
|
|
|
Post by trolleybuss on Oct 27, 2020 18:51:04 GMT
Point being if Claydon would have been a really good bowler and one for the present and future like GG and Ollie it would have been a big loss letting him go but as he isn't it won't be. I don't want any admitted ball tamperers playing for us. End of.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 27, 2020 19:45:08 GMT
Point being if Claydon would have been a really good bowler and one for the present and future like GG and Ollie it would have been a big loss letting him go but as he isn't it won't be. I don't want any admitted ball tamperers playing for us. End of. OK - that's clear. If one of our star bowlers had been (hypothetically) caught ball-tampering, you would want them sacked? I'm not disagreeing with that approach, but it supports my point that the quality of the player is irrelevant in this situation. |
|
A.S.
2nd XI player
Posts: 60
County club member: Kent
|
Post by A.S. on Oct 28, 2020 12:25:56 GMT
Without in any way wishing to appear to condone ball tampering, I wish someone could explain how, on the one hand, the ecb can provide for hand sanitizing breaks in the BWT, and yet, on the other, a bowler can be penalized for ball tampering when he lawfully has sanitizer on his hands. What is it about Claydon’s case that is exceptional?
There appears to have been no shortage of legal sanitizer available to players at this match!
|
|
