|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 28, 2020 12:51:26 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! I agree, A.S. I still think some of our number have judged him harshly (without seeing the evidence) because they want him to leave for other reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by trolleybuss on Oct 28, 2020 16:01:10 GMT
Sorry but how is he being treated harshly when he admitted the offence and was found guilty? Surely we have grounds for appeal and to publish our defence but as far as I know we haven't. To my mind that is not being treated harshly. The fact that I thought it was a poor signing is irrelevant. I dont want self confessed cheats playing for us good signing or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by sussexforever on Oct 29, 2020 9:43:14 GMT
I also agree somewhat with AS & flashblade. I made my return to the village cricket field for a game this summer after nearly 10 years and we had a sanitation break every 6 overs with the ball also getting sanitized, so can understand RA's frustration.
However, if Claydon had used that as his defence from the outset it would be easier to forgive him. Seems a bit after the fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by trolleybuss on Oct 29, 2020 9:50:56 GMT
If he is innocent why plead guilty? Sorry it looks like he was caught out after pleading not guilty. As I have said we should appeal if Claydon is innocent but we havnt as far as I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Oct 29, 2020 11:16:21 GMT
If he is innocent why plead guilty? Sorry it looks like he was caught out after pleading not guilty. As I have said we should appeal if Claydon is innocent but we havnt as far as I know. If you'd read the reports thoroughly, you'd have seen that there was an (unsuccessful) appeal. resources.ecb.co.uk/ecb/document/2020/10/14/7e27202c-d165-41ab-ac49-cc801bdb80c8/Sussex-CCC-Claydon-Appeal-Panel-Decision-30-Sept-2020.pdfLooking back at my OP, you were the first to respond; this is what you said: "Not that we needed any excuse to get rid of a slow 38 year old journeyman but another one should bite the dust after dizzy Wells Finch Evans and hopefully Greenfield. This could be a real winter blood bath which is badly needed." You made no reference to the offence - in fact, it looked as if you were hijacking the thread to publicise your ongoing rant against the club's management. |
|
|
|
Post by trolleybuss on Oct 29, 2020 12:20:56 GMT
Just giving my honest opinion. Sorry you disagree but we do need big changes as proved by our terrible red ball performances. If the appeal failed the ECB must have had sufficient evidence to ban Claydon so I don't why some are still defending him. If Sussex have evidence to the contrary publish it.
|
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Oct 31, 2020 15:50:38 GMT
Charged with ball tampering, which is cheating, found guilty of ball tampering, which is still cheating. He's a cheat. When he plays I can't support. Not that that will make buggar all difference to anything of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Apr 12, 2021 12:41:12 GMT
I notice he’s playing in a 2nd XI game today.
|
|
|
|
Post by liquidskin on Apr 12, 2021 21:04:33 GMT
I'd have them investigated.
|
|
