The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[Arthur Crabtree]

But, Vaughan was wrong, hope. That's not helping me change my opinion.

[hopeforthebest]

But, Vaughan was wrong, hope. That's not helping me change my opinion.

Not expecting to AC. Most opinions on here seem to be set in stone.

[sussexpob]

He was also, of course, given the option to deny hed sent them. He says they were provacative yet others say nothing to them. How odd is that?

That’s interesting and not a little disturbing. I never saw or heard it reported that Pietersen was given an ultimatum to confess to something or lose his international career. That is disgraceful. Surely, we must all rally round in support of this much wronged individual.

Before we do, though, can we see the evidence?

On August 13th KP was given 48 hours to apologise and admit the text's or be dropped for the World T:20....

‘The only route back for Kevin is reconciliation,’ said an ECB source. ‘He has to put his hands up and say, “Sorry guys, I sent the texts, but it was in the heat of the moment”. The sanctity of that dressing room is so strong that the apology would have to be made publicly.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... z26FkoWQQw

KP then apologised barely in time under duress, after which the ECB said he would be dropped anyway until "the mutual trust/respect etc could be found to exist to let him back"..... despite KP's admission, which did also say it was banter between friends, Graham Smith a long term KP enemy said it was nothing, the South African management who seen the texts said it was nothing..... Im not sure how such a forced confession is valid.

After which, on 22 August Andy Flower said this.....

"There are a number of outstanding issues to be resolved," said Flower.

"An example of that would be finding out exactly what these text messages contained, if we do really want to move forward either way," the former Zimbabwe batsman added.

"I'm not sure of exactly the best way to investigate it. I think it's always nice to have a large element of up-front honesty."

Even being purposefully obtuse, you cannot deny that this is a clear message from the ECB that (a) he wasnt getting picked without an admission of guilt and (b) he also isnt getting picked until he allowed the ECB to monitor private texts in order to actually find the evidence they needed to prove it.

The truth as I see it is the ECB, probably rightly had to act with a heavy hand to quell the danger of the IPL vs England team commitments, but it seems they jumped full barrel at any opportunity to isolate the player, then used his career as the hangman's noose around his neck to make him jump himself and justify their actions.Its clear to see, whatever you stance, that the bargaining position is with the ECB also.

Thats what pissed me off most about the whole issue, the fact that I believe strongly that the ECB have thrown their weight behind bad or incomplete hearsay evidence and are using a persons career as leverage over the actual truth or resolution... its simply got to the point where the truth doesnt matter anymore, more about being proved right without regard to the team.

This team unity stuff is therefore nonsense.... the ECB had egg on their face after managing the situation poorly, so they just tried to bury the issue away from themselves and hide behind "we need time to sort it out" bs while they actually get their act together.

And everyone else like sheep seems to nod and join the bandwagon.

[hopeforthebest]

He was also, of course, given the option to deny hed sent them. He says they were provacative yet others say nothing to them. How odd is that?

That’s interesting and not a little disturbing. I never saw or heard it reported that Pietersen was given an ultimatum to confess to something or lose his international career. That is disgraceful. Surely, we must all rally round in support of this much wronged individual.

Before we do, though, can we see the evidence?

On August 13th KP was given 48 hours to apologise and admit the text's or be dropped for the World T:20....

‘The only route back for Kevin is reconciliation,’ said an ECB source. ‘He has to put his hands up and say, “Sorry guys, I sent the texts, but it was in the heat of the moment”. The sanctity of that dressing room is so strong that the apology would have to be made publicly.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... z26FkoWQQw

KP then apologised barely in time under duress, after which the ECB said he would be dropped anyway until "the mutual trust/respect etc could be found to exist to let him back"..... despite KP's admission, which did also say it was banter between friends, Graham Smith a long term KP enemy said it was nothing, the South African management who seen the texts said it was nothing..... Im not sure how such a forced confession is valid.

After which, on 22 August Andy Flower said this.....

"There are a number of outstanding issues to be resolved," said Flower.

"An example of that would be finding out exactly what these text messages contained, if we do really want to move forward either way," the former Zimbabwe batsman added.

"I'm not sure of exactly the best way to investigate it. I think it's always nice to have a large element of up-front honesty."

Even being purposefully obtuse, you cannot deny that this is a clear message from the ECB that (a) he wasnt getting picked without an admission of guilt and (b) he also isnt getting picked until he allowed the ECB to monitor private texts in order to actually find the evidence they needed to prove it.

The truth as I see it is the ECB, probably rightly had to act with a heavy hand to quell the danger of the IPL vs England team commitments, but it seems they jumped full barrel at any opportunity to isolate the player, then used his career as the hangman's noose around his neck to make him jump himself and justify their actions.Its clear to see, whatever you stance, that the bargaining position is with the ECB also.

Thats what pissed me off most about the whole issue, the fact that I believe strongly that the ECB have thrown their weight behind bad or incomplete hearsay evidence and are using a persons career as leverage over the actual truth or resolution... its simply got to the point where the truth doesnt matter anymore, more about being proved right without regard to the team.

This team unity stuff is therefore nonsense.... the ECB had egg on their face after managing the situation poorly, so they just tried to bury the issue away from themselves and hide behind "we need time to sort it out" bs while they actually get their act together.

And everyone else like sheep seems to nod and join the bandwagon.

baaaa

[D/L]

Im not sure why people go on about the texts. Hes apologised for sending provocative texts which Im guessing he wouldnt do if he hadnt sent provocative texts. Also this stuff about proof - its a cricket team not a bleeding court room! He was given time to deny them - he didnt which as it turns out was because he couldnt. End of.

BTW just read the full cricketer article. Nothing contentious there IMo so I dont know what cricinfo were going on about.

He was in essence told his career was over unless him admitted he sent them and apologise...... and, as said before, the people who have seen them who have a bitter relationship with KP over the years have said there is nothing to them.

That’s interesting and not a little disturbing. I never saw or heard it reported that Pietersen was given an ultimatum to confess to something or lose his international career. That is disgraceful. Surely, we must all rally round in support of this much wronged individual.

Before we do, though, can we see the evidence?

Why should one demand evidence when to be honest there has been little to no "evidence" regarding almost anything that has actually happened. Take these text messages -or what ever technical specific they where - for example, it seems no one actually knows what was said aside from the player who sent them and the player who recieved them further more there is now no record of them so no one will ever no yet people feel free to pontificate over their content and importance no end.

I’m glad it’s acknowledged that at least the sender and the recipients were aware of the existence and the content of the text messages.

When Pietersen was asked to deny the nature of the content, he chose not to. Why? The only credible explanation seems to be that he thought their content may be revealed in due course and he would be shown to have been, shall we say, less than frank. The actions, or non-actions, of people at the time is clearly evidence that can inform our opinions as much as would have been the revelation of the content of the messages.

[D/L]

That’s interesting and not a little disturbing. I never saw or heard it reported that Pietersen was given an ultimatum to confess to something or lose his international career. That is disgraceful. Surely, we must all rally round in support of this much wronged individual.

Before we do, though, can we see the evidence?

On August 13th KP was given 48 hours to apologise and admit the text's or be dropped for the World T:20...

Was he? I remember his being asked to admit and apologise, but my memory of the ultimatum is not so clear. Is there, perhaps, any evidence that supports this rather stark view of events?

[D/L]

...Even being purposefully obtuse, you cannot deny that this is a clear message from the ECB that (a) he wasnt getting picked without an admission of guilt...

Is it being claimed then, that had Pietersen admitted to sending texts of an offensive nature to his opponents about his captain, behind his back, that he would have been selected for the T20 World Cup?

I think that really is stretching credibility too far (and it's been stretched quite a long way already).

[Making_Splinters]

Im not sure why people go on about the texts. Hes apologised for sending provocative texts which Im guessing he wouldnt do if he hadnt sent provocative texts. Also this stuff about proof - its a cricket team not a bleeding court room! He was given time to deny them - he didnt which as it turns out was because he couldnt. End of.

BTW just read the full cricketer article. Nothing contentious there IMo so I dont know what cricinfo were going on about.

He was in essence told his career was over unless him admitted he sent them and apologise...... and, as said before, the people who have seen them who have a bitter relationship with KP over the years have said there is nothing to them.

That’s interesting and not a little disturbing. I never saw or heard it reported that Pietersen was given an ultimatum to confess to something or lose his international career. That is disgraceful. Surely, we must all rally round in support of this much wronged individual.

Before we do, though, can we see the evidence?

Why should one demand evidence when to be honest there has been little to no "evidence" regarding almost anything that has actually happened. Take these text messages -or what ever technical specific they where - for example, it seems no one actually knows what was said aside from the player who sent them and the player who recieved them further more there is now no record of them so no one will ever no yet people feel free to pontificate over their content and importance no end.

I’m glad it’s acknowledged that at least the sender and the recipients were aware of the existence and the content of the text messages.

When Pietersen was asked to deny the nature of the content, he chose not to. Why? The only credible explanation seems to be that he thought their content may be revealed in due course and he would be shown to have been, shall we say, less than frank. The actions, or non-actions, of people at the time is clearly evidence that can inform our opinions as much as would have been the revelation of the content of the messages.

At the end of the day, D/L, the only thing that has been confirmed is the use of a single word. For me the real insight came from the word that the South Africans chose to describe their content, "Banter" or to use a synonym an "in joke". They could have said that there was nothing that could be considered to be offensive but chose not to and the simple reason for that and indeed KPs silence is as we all know humour is highly subjective, what might be funny between two people may be highly offensive to people outside the group. Anyone who's been around any form of club knows that in jokes exist which taken out of context would be things that might not reflect well, after all the entire idea that they were directly designed to be offensive has come from an interpretation of a word.

Until the entire messages are released - something that is never going to happen - then there is no way of knowing what was the actual intent.

[D/L]

He was in essence told his career was over unless him admitted he sent them and apologise...... and, as said before, the people who have seen them who have a bitter relationship with KP over the years have said there is nothing to them.

That’s interesting and not a little disturbing. I never saw or heard it reported that Pietersen was given an ultimatum to confess to something or lose his international career. That is disgraceful. Surely, we must all rally round in support of this much wronged individual.

Before we do, though, can we see the evidence?

Why should one demand evidence when to be honest there has been little to no "evidence" regarding almost anything that has actually happened. Take these text messages -or what ever technical specific they where - for example, it seems no one actually knows what was said aside from the player who sent them and the player who recieved them further more there is now no record of them so no one will ever no yet people feel free to pontificate over their content and importance no end.

I’m glad it’s acknowledged that at least the sender and the recipients were aware of the existence and the content of the text messages.

When Pietersen was asked to deny the nature of the content, he chose not to. Why? The only credible explanation seems to be that he thought their content may be revealed in due course and he would be shown to have been, shall we say, less than frank. The actions, or non-actions, of people at the time is clearly evidence that can inform our opinions as much as would have been the revelation of the content of the messages.

At the end of the day, D/L, the only thing that has been confirmed is the use of a single word. For me the real insight came from the word that the South Africans chose to describe their content, "Banter" or to use a synonym an "in joke". They could have said that there was nothing that could be considered to be offensive but chose not to and the simple reason for that and indeed KPs silence is as we all know humour is highly subjective, what might be funny between two people may be highly offensive to people outside the group. Anyone who's been around any form of club knows that in jokes exist which taken out of context would be things that might not reflect well, after all the entire idea that they were directly designed to be offensive has come from an interpretation of a word.

Until the entire messages are released - something that is never going to happen - then there is no way of knowing what was the actual intent.

Should we also accept what the South Africans said at the same face value that some seemed to accept what Swann said about any decision the ECB made about Pietersen, M_S? A little reading between the lines is often a good idea.

Having made sure the leak of the existence of the texts had damaged our test chances, why would the South Africans not downplay their content? The remark that it was banter between team-mates made by one of their officials was clearly ludicrous, anyway.

Of course, we’ll never know the verbatim content of the texts but what we do know is that Pietersen could not force himself to deny the nature of them as described to him. Also, the one word we seem to know was used is said to be quite an offensive one in the Afrikaans language .

[KipperJohn]

First off, my apologies to braveneutral and AC for failing to recognise an irony - must be a moral there somewhere. Must read and digest more thoroughly perhaps.

As for the texts issue, it really has served to cloud what this thread was originally about.

Personally I think the issues need treating separately.

Kind regards to all.

[hopeforthebest]

What troubles me is not the content of the texts but why was he texting members of the opposing team in the middle of a crucial test match and why in secret.

[sussexpob]

D/L,

Could you please tell me your interpretation of the two below statements in reference to the light they are in(by the way, the media stories you find these in universally pick up my understanding):

1. ‘The only route back for Kevin is reconciliation,’ said an ECB source. ‘He has to put his hands up and say, “Sorry guys, I sent the texts, but it was in the heat of the moment”. The sanctity of that dressing room is so strong that the apology would have to be made publicly.’

Just as a note, this statement was leaked to the press within 48 hours of the T20 squad being picked, and Flower and KP had already scheduled to meet on the Saturday the squad was selected to talk through the text issues.... clearly a call for KP to admit and be considered, or face a continued dropping.

2."There are a number of outstanding issues to be resolved," said Flower.


They quite clear say in the first, you will remain dropped until an admission is made, and in the second, until you admit the exact nature the situation "will not move forward", or in simple language, you remain dropped.

"An example of that would be finding out exactly what these text messages contained, if we do really want to move forward either way," the former Zimbabwe batsman added.

"I'm not sure of exactly the best way to investigate it. I think it's always nice to have a large element of up-front honesty."

[Making_Splinters]

Should we also accept what the South Africans said at the same face value that some seemed to accept what Swann said about any decision the ECB made about Pietersen, M_S? A little reading between the lines is often a good idea.

Having made sure the leak of the existence of the texts had damaged our test chances, why would the South Africans not downplay their content? The remark that it was banter between team-mates made by one of their officials was clearly ludicrous, anyway.

Of course, we’ll never know the verbatim content of the texts but what we do know is that Pietersen could not force himself to deny the nature of them as described to him. Also, the one word we seem to know was used is said to be quite an offensive one in the Afrikaans language .

Again, D/L, in abstraction of context the definition of a word is somewhat meaningless. I'm sure we can all think of examples of words which have drastically different significances when used in different contexts and as the old saying goes if you pick and chose your start and end points you can make any correlation you want to.

Personally I found the description the South Africans chose to use very illuminating as it basically made the point that the content was something that could be seen as very offensive outside a certain circle and having been involved in Rugby and Cricket clubs for the best part of half a century I'm well aware of what "banter" actually means.

[D/L]

D/L,

Could you please tell me your interpretation of the two below statements in reference to the light they are in(by the way, the media stories you find these in universally pick up my understanding):

1. ‘The only route back for Kevin is reconciliation,’ said an ECB source. ‘He has to put his hands up and say, “Sorry guys, I sent the texts, but it was in the heat of the moment”. The sanctity of that dressing room is so strong that the apology would have to be made publicly.’

I doubt very much that the statement from the "ECB source" was intended to conveyed the meaning that a quick confession would be rewarded by a more or less immediate selection for the World T20 (or any other format).

It seems a rather strange interpretation that anyone confessing to a very serious breach of trust would, in effect, have suffered no sanction whatsoever.

[D/L]

Should we also accept what the South Africans said at the same face value that some seemed to accept what Swann said about any decision the ECB made about Pietersen, M_S? A little reading between the lines is often a good idea.

Having made sure the leak of the existence of the texts had damaged our test chances, why would the South Africans not downplay their content? The remark that it was banter between team-mates made by one of their officials was clearly ludicrous, anyway.

Of course, we’ll never know the verbatim content of the texts but what we do know is that Pietersen could not force himself to deny the nature of them as described to him. Also, the one word we seem to know was used is said to be quite an offensive one in the Afrikaans language .

Again, D/L, in abstraction of context the definition of a word is somewhat meaningless. I'm sure we can all think of examples of words which have drastically different significances when used in different contexts and as the old saying goes if you pick and chose your start and end points you can make any correlation you want to.

Personally I found the description the South Africans chose to use very illuminating as it basically made the point that the content was something that could be seen as very offensive outside a certain circle and having been involved in Rugby and Cricket clubs for the best part of half a century I'm well aware of what "banter" actually means.

Yes, context is the key, M_S, but the choice of words issue is far less significant than Pietersen being unable to force himself to deny the nature of the communication as described to him at the time and for which he was asked to apologise.