“The ECB wanted to investigate. First they wanted my phone. They said they wanted to take it to a top forensic investigation firm that would download all the software off my phone and search keywords and try to find out if there was anything said since the start of the summer about any of the players and staff”.
This, according to Kevin Pietersen in his autobiography, was how the ECB sought to investigate claims that he had sent derogatory BlackBerry messages about his team-mates to members of the South Africa team in August 2012. They have not denied his account, and he is very unlikely to have made it up.
The ECB were determined to prove him guilty. They wanted him to be guilty. So they acted like a spouse who’s convinced their partner is having an affair – sniffing collars for perfume and trawling through receipts and trouser pockets until they find the evidence they crave.
The custodians of our national game asked Pietersen to hand over private property. This would have enabled them, his employers, to access not only private messages, but every byte of data on his device – which could have included all manner of sensitive information, such as banking details or messages to his wife and family.
What on earth made Hugh Morris (then England MD) feel he was entitled to ask for this, or that Pietersen was obliged to co-operate? How would you feel if your boss made such a request? In the end, the PCA told Lord’s that Pietersen could not be expected to comply.
Reportedly, Andy Flower also stormed into the South African dressing room and beseeched the opposition players to let him inspect their phones. This may not be true, of course.
It is telling that the ECB were prepared to spend the money, and make the effort, to engage a forensic research agency. And that they wished to investigate not only the ‘doos’ messages, but “anything said since the start of the summer”. Mission creep.
Why were the ECB so motivated to ensnare Pietersen with hard evidence? Because they wanted an excuse to nail him? What made them so convinced he had a case to answer?
We’re not privy to private conversations which may have told them more. But in terms of the public domain, they would only have known what the Daily Mail reported, which amounted to little more than a vague rumour – that he had sent “derogatory” messages, content unknown, to players unknown. Neither the ‘doos’ or tactical allegations were relevant at first – they only emerged nine days later.
It was not documented who had seen the texts or how they had reached the public domain. No journalist, either then or since, said they had seen them at first hand. No South African corroborated the story. So the ECB had nothing to go on bar gossip.
Earlier in the summer they’d had a similar issue to deal with – KP Genius. How did their approaches to the twin sets of claims compare?
At the outset, the KP Genius case had two main differences. Firstly, the content (the Tweets) was in the public domain and there was no dispute about what had been said, or that it had been said in public. Secondly, there was evidence credible enough to necessitate an investigation. A former England captain, with no obvious personal interest at stake, said he was told by the account’s creator that three England players were involved (Broad, Swann, and Bresnan). This much was confirmed yesterday, when Alec Stewart spoke to the Daily Telegraph.
“I absolutely stand by what is written in Pietersen’s book,” said Stewart, England’s most capped Test cricketer. “I went and told Hugh Morris and Andy Flower on separate occasions what I had been told by this fella.”
Stewart said that he was approached by Bailey during the first Test against South Africa at the Oval in 2012 three times. “I said to him some of it [the account] was very funny and that he had got some good information. He said, ‘Yes, I do’. He then said, ‘Can you keep a secret?’ I said, ‘It depends’. He went away and then came back and named three players who had access to the account password.
“If that was the case it did not sit well with me. I passed it on to the ECB and it was up to them how they dealt with it. I was doing it for the good of the England team and how the hierarchy dealt with it was up to them but I felt they had to be made aware of it.”
This amounted to pretty strong evidence. It certainly didn’t prove the case – and the three players deny such involvement – but was substantial enough for action to be required. So what did the ECB do?
Their responses have featured in today’s news, but I can’t find an official statement on their website or Twitter feed. So it seems – correct me if wrong – that they haven’t deigned to put out an official statement to the public. Instead, newsrooms have rung the ECB press office and been told a few lines over the phone.
According to the Telegraph:
A spokesman for the ECB confirmed the investigation will not be reopened and that Stewart’s concerns were looked into at the time by Morris.
“There was a very thorough investigation and a very thorough report at the time sent to the ECB board and the players stated categorically both in public and in private that they were not involved.”
How thorough was the investigation? What did it involve and whom did it concern? Did the ECB ask Bresnan, Broad and Swann to hand over their phones to a forensic research firm for data analysis? Or did they just take their word for it?
Hugh Morris: you weren’t sending those Tweets, were you, Stu?
Stuart Broad: nah.
Hugh Morris: thought not.
What did the public statements of non-involvement amount to? On the ECB’s press site, I can only find a statement relating to Stuart Broad.Its tone and scope are instructive.
The ECB today issued the following statement on behalf of Stuart Broad in relation to the setting up of a parody Twitter account for Kevin Pietersen by a member of the public.
Broad said: “Following last night’s statement by Mr Richard Bailey that he was responsible for creating a parody Twitter account in Kevin Pietersen’s name, I would like to confirm that I had no involvement in this whatsoever.
“I met with the Managing Director – England Cricket, Hugh Morris this morning and assured him that I did not play any role in the creation of this account or provide Mr Bailey with any information regarding Kevin Pietersen or the England team.
“As has been widely reported Mr Bailey is a friend of mine, but we had no conversations regarding this issue at all and I am pleased that he has now decided to close the parody account down. “
ECB Managing Director Hugh Morris added: “Having discussed this matter with Stuart, I am fully satisfied that he acted in a professional manner at all times and did not breach any confidences regarding fellow England players.
“ECB also accepts the apology Mr Bailey offered last night to the England team via his Twitter account and his reassurances that no professional cricketers were involved in the creation of this site.”
Is it me, or does Morris sound relieved and pleased that Broad is off the hook? Does the wording linger rather on the issue of ‘creation’ of the account. Does it absolutely rule out any kind of participation?
Compare the tone of that press release to this one, from 15th August 2012, in the wake of the first text claims.
The England and Wales Cricket Board has received an apology from Kevin Pietersen and an admission that he did send ‘provocative’ text messages to members of the South African team.
Kevin Pietersen has said in his apology: “I did send what you might call provocative texts to my close friends in the SA team.
“The texts were meant as banter between close friends. I need to rein myself in sometimes.
“I apologise to Straussy and the team for the inappropriate remarks at the press conference and for the texts. I truly didn’t mean to cause upset or tension particularly with important games at stake.”
England Managing Director Hugh Morris said: “We are in receipt of Kevin’s apology, but further discussions need to take place to establish whether it is possible to regain the trust and mutual respect required to ensure all parties are able to focus on playing cricket and to maintain the unity of purpose that has served us so well in recent years.
“Critically, those discussions should take place behind closed doors, rather than in the media spotlight.
“A successful conclusion to this process is in everyone’s best interests and is required for Kevin Pietersen’s potential selection in all forms of the game to be considered.
“At the moment we have an important Investec Test match to focus on and therefore ECB will make no further comment until such time as is appropriate.”
In this statement Pietersen admits wrongdoing and apologises unequivocally. Morris’s response is grudging, cold, and non-committal. He doesn’t welcome Pietersen’s apology, he is just ‘in receipt’ of it.
On 3rd October 2012, the ECB issued this statement about Pietersen’s return to the team.
ECB and Kevin Pietersen confirm that agreement has been reached concerning a process for his re-integration into the England Team during the remainder of 2012. Upon completion of the programme, the England Selectors will consider Kevin for future matches.
Kevin Pietersen has apologised to Andrew Strauss and wishes to express to all those who support England his regrets at the impact the recent controversies have had on the England Team. He now wishes to put the events of the summer behind him and to focus on regaining his place in the England Team.
With regards the issue of the BBM messages, due to the fact that Kevin had not retained the BBM messages, this matter has been successfully concluded through a binding assurance provided to ECB by Kevin. Kevin conceded that the messages exchanged were provocative. ECB is satisfied, following receipt of this binding assurance, that to the best of his recollection, Kevin did not convey any messages which were derogatory about the England Captain, the England Team Director, the ECB or employees of the ECB. Furthermore, there was no tactical information whatsoever provided to members of the South African Touring Party.
In other words, this meant: ‘there is no evidence he did either of the two mains things which were claimed, and he denies them, so I suppose we’ll have to put it with it, and let him play again after a ‘process’ is ‘completed”.
The ECB desperately wanted Pietersen to be guilty and were annoyed and disappointed when they couldn’t prove it, despite their best efforts. The ECB desperately hoped Stuart Broad wasn’t guilty, and were delighted when he told them he wasn’t.