Azeem Rafiq should take a leaf out of Michael Vaughan’s book - Chris Waters comment

The opening paragraph read: “It has been both difficult and upsetting to hear about the painful experiences which Azeem has described over the past three years. The outcome of these CDC proceedings must not be allowed to detract from the core message that there can be no place for racism in the game of cricket, or in society generally.”

Not a word of criticism for Azeem Rafiq, you’ll notice, who had accused him of saying “there are too many of you lot, we need to have a word about it” to a group of Asian players before a Yorkshire match in 2009 - neither in that paragraph nor, indeed, within the rest of the statement.

Not a word of self-pity or recrimination - save for an attack on a process that pitted man against man in a public forum, one in which the CDC ruled that there were “significant inconsistencies” in Rafiq’s evidence against Vaughan and also in the corroboratory testimony of Adil Rashid, the England leg-spinner, amid suggestions from another of the Asian players in that game, Ajmal Shahzad, that Rashid was “pressured” by Rafiq into supporting the charge.

Given the circumstances, and in view of the fact that this was a potentially career-ending allegation, Vaughan’s response could hardly have been more dignified. Granted, the statement no doubt to a greater or lesser extent masked his inner feelings (it would be naive to think otherwise).

But when he could have come out swinging like ‘Bazball’ on amphetamine, when he could have come out firing more bullets than a vengeful mobster, Vaughan followed the path less volatile and tried to pick a compassionate way forward.

Contrast that with the statement by Rafiq after the CDC verdicts, one which made no reference to the sufferings experienced by ‘the other side’ or to seek any common ground.

“Why would a homeowner seek to empathise with the burglars who had ransacked his property?” one can hear the counter-argument, but if Vaughan (acquitted) could extend an olive branch, then why not Rafiq?

“Charges against seven of the eight defendants, including the widespread use of the ‘P’ word, have been upheld by the CDC today,” his statement began defiantly, overlooking that a number of the charges were not upheld, that the investigation that led to them was quite clearly biased, that the player who alleged that the ‘P’ word was widely used, Matthew Hoggard, might conceivably have been trying to diminish his own guilt and who claimed that the Asian players used the word themselves.

Rafiq’s statement went on: “This comes in addition to the other reports, panels and inquiries that found I and others suffered racial harassment and bullying while at Yorkshire.”

Fine... That Rafiq was subject to racist language during his time in the game cannot be disputed - only, as this correspondent has said, the story in the round, one which contains significant discrepancies that one has tried to highlight in defence, first and foremost, of the club that was brought down and those whose lives and careers were damaged as a result. It is not about seeking to discredit, diminish, besmirch or befoul – simply about truth and justice.

Unless one has missed it, and regardless of his own experiences, Rafiq has never adopted the conciliatory tone of Vaughan’s post-CDC statement, while his oft-repeated claim that “this is not about individuals” does not hold water; no one called louder for the heads of Mark Arthur and Martyn Moxon, for example.

Was Rafiq, the self-proclaimed champion of a fairer society, not discomforted by Yorkshire’s decision to sack 14 staff without investigation for signing a letter that questioned him – or did he view it as a case of ‘they got what they deserved’? He has certainly never condemned it.

Did he countenance the possibility that some of those staff signed the letter not to attack him, but out of solidarity with their superiors, as anyone might when presented with the three-line whip? Is he at all concerned at how those staff are doing now, or about John Blain, who spoke recently of suicidal thoughts? If so, one could not tell from a combative, business-as-usual persona on social media devoid of such empathy.

Rafiq’s No 1 cheerleader referred to the sacked staff as a “cancer”. Is that language helpful? Is that the unifying force that he and his supporters want to be?

Better that they take a leaf out of Vaughan’s book if they are serious about ending racism and rebuilding the game.