D/L wrote:Dilbert wrote:So the point that Anderson should have been fined or ECB should have taken action on him based on his own admission that he swore and pushed is speculation?
No. Your ability to comprehend seems to have failed you yet again. What was described as speculation quite clearly referred to what people were saying happened in the corridor.
So what Anderson admitted is speculation? What people referred to was admitted by Anderson. Get that into your head, if possible.
D/L wrote:Dilbert wrote:And your assumption that Aussies didnt think there were any mitigating circumstances when they easily could have done what Eng did - get team mates to lie, accuse Root of instigating etc. isnt speculation?...
It's quite reasonable to assume that the Aussies, had there been any mitigating circumstances, would not have banned Warner almost immediately. Why would the Aussies have concocted a defence when no credible one was available to them and when the risk of it unravelling would be too great to take, particularly as this was a far more serious incident than the spat between Anderson and Jadeja? By the same token, it's reasonable to assume that Anderson did have a credible defence and the ECB were willing to put it to the test.
This really does feel like
However, feel free to continue to misunderstand and employ strange logic in your apparent blindness to the possibility that both players in the handbags in the corridor incident were equally, or almost equally guilty.
Maybe, just maybe, Aussies have a moral compass and they felt the need to take action on their player for crossing the line. Whereas ECB, even when they know what Anderson did, take a stand that he was correct in doing what he did and should continue doing it. When Anderson admitted his actions were “against the spirit of the game” to put it mildly.
I know “logic” has always sounded strange to you, but give it a try, it’s a wonderful thing.