The enigma that is Kevin Pietersen

[D/L]

Selvey has already admitted that the ECB runs stories advantageous to itself through a system of unattributed leaks. And that this happened in 2012 during KP's contract negotiations.

Yes, it seems that some insider must be leaking stories to see the reaction first.It could be one person or a group of person or whole ECB management approving such leake methodology.KP should actually sue the author and then things will become clear.The it will be interesting to see if he takes the responsibility of the article on himself or hints there are more people backing it.

Apart from wondering what grounds Pietersen may have for suing, there would be quite a lot of irony in his bringing any action surrounding a leak of information to the media.

[Arthur Crabtree]

.

[Arthur Crabtree]

Yes this is where the leaks are unethical, as Pietersen hasn't anyone to defend himself against.

Maybe Mike Selvey can blame a "disgruntled civil servant"

I think Parliament used to brief in this way, and it was stopped (that was the intention) for being unethical.

[D/L]

Yes this is where the leaks are unethical, as Pietersen hasn't anyone to defend himself against.

That assumes there has been some leaking, which is far from clear. If Pietersen has nobody to defend himself against, i.e. nobody is attacking him, then he has no need for defence, I'd have thought, though I may have misunderstood the second part.

[sussexpob]

Yes this is where the leaks are unethical, as Pietersen hasn't anyone to defend himself against.

That assumes there has been some leaking, which is far from clear. If Pietersen has nobody to defend himself against, i.e. nobody is attacking him, then he has no need for defence, I'd have thought, though I may have misunderstood the second part.

I think that was the point he was making D/L, that there is no identifable person he can counter against

[Arthur Crabtree]

Maybe DL can go back and read Selvey's original article if unsure about the accusations.

[D/L]

Yes this is where the leaks are unethical, as Pietersen hasn't anyone to defend himself against.

Maybe Mike Selvey can blame a "disgruntled civil servant"

I think Parliament used to brief in this way, and it was stopped (that was the intention) for being unethical.

I think it is the government (or the opposition) that leaks rather than parliament, and far from being stopped, it has gathered apace since the days of Campbell and Co..

[D/L]

Yes this is where the leaks are unethical, as Pietersen hasn't anyone to defend himself against.

That assumes there has been some leaking, which is far from clear. If Pietersen has nobody to defend himself against, i.e. nobody is attacking him, then he has no need for defence, I'd have thought, though I may have misunderstood the second part.

I think that was the point he was making D/L, that there is no identifable person he can counter against

Thanks, sp, but person A trying to construct a case about a reported conversation between persons B and C, in which A's name is mentioned, but not in a way that impugns the character of person A, seems a little futile to me.

Any road up, this all seems to be about Pietersen's worshippers being offended over the possibility that Flower may have thought that England's future may be better without Pietersen.

[sussexpob]

Yes this is where the leaks are unethical, as Pietersen hasn't anyone to defend himself against.

That assumes there has been some leaking, which is far from clear. If Pietersen has nobody to defend himself against, i.e. nobody is attacking him, then he has no need for defence, I'd have thought, though I may have misunderstood the second part.

I think that was the point he was making D/L, that there is no identifable person he can counter against

Thanks, sp, but person A trying to construct a case about a reported conversation between persons B and C, in which A's name is mentioned, but not in a way that impugns the character of person A, seems a little futile to me.

Any road up, this all seems to be about Pietersen's worshippers being offended over the possibility that Flower may have thought that England's future may be better without Pietersen.

In a way I would love to see KP v ECB in court, it would be as enjoyable as even the finest KP innings. I would like to see how the ECB would defend forcing him to take a three format contract even though they offer other inferior contracts that limits their formats to others, while threatening him with his career if he declined, and restraining him from taking employment that was very profitable for him, in a competition where the ECB subsequently decided they could not disbar their squad from playing in..... all this while in the most important ODI series in that time, he was rested anyway, and rested in NZ even though they forced him to commit to the tour so the IPL wouldnt get in the way, anyway!!!

All this while the press even admit that his employers leak things to the press that hold him in a very bad light, things that seemingly are only leaked at times when they back up an agenda the squad are taking, or to cover up the England's team most punishing losses (the IPL issue became one after winning one test in a pretty disasterous winter.... the text issue after England had taken 600/2 and bowled out cheaply in the first game of a series that was supposed to underline their no1 status in the world..... the issue now to distract from a 5-0 humping).....

I said this before when the text issue was at a high, but I would love some searching questions for the ECB staff and coaches to answer under oath about some of these issues.... I doubt it would be KP that came across the worst out of that.

[D/L]

Me too. I'm sure that if Pietersen had any sort of case, it would already have been brought (and then laughed out of court).

Properly drawn up contracts are binding on both parties. Only one party seems to have tried to avoid the obligations they place upon them here.

[sussexpob]

Me too. I'm sure that if Pietersen had any sort of case, it would already have been brought (and then laughed out of court).

Properly drawn up contracts are binding on both parties. Only one party seems to have tried to avoid the obligations they place upon them here.

Contracts signed when the supplier has no alternative, and uses leaks to the press to enforce its will under duress, are not worth the paper they are written on, and no longer serve to maintain an obligation from the claimant party.

[D/L]

Me too. I'm sure that if Pietersen had any sort of case, it would already have been brought (and then laughed out of court).

Properly drawn up contracts are binding on both parties. Only one party seems to have tried to avoid the obligations they place upon them here.

Contracts signed when the supplier has no alternative, and uses leaks to the press to enforce its will under duress, are not worth the paper they are written on, and no longer serve to maintain an obligation from the claimant party.

Even assuming that's so, which I doubt, if Pietersen's brief thought it too, there may have been an action. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the validity of the contracts.

[Making_Splinters]

It's well established that information that the ECB would never make a public statement on for one reason or another does flow from the ECB to the handful of "big name" cricket journalists in this country, Selvey has himself admited this was the case in the past, and this drip feeding serves the purposes of the people giving the information out. What of course is never known is the degree of journalistic license take with any information that is put in to print.

[D/L]

It's well established that information that the ECB would never make a public statement on for one reason or another does flow from the ECB to the handful of "big name" cricket journalists in this country, Selvey has himself admited this was the case in the past, and this drip feeding serves the purposes of the people giving the information out. What of course is never known is the degree of journalistic license take with any information that is put in to print.

Fully agree with that, M_S. Other unknowns would be the accuracy of the information leaked and how a situation may change between leak and publication.

[mikesiva]

"Kevin Pietersen has almost certainly played his last Test for England, with the rockiest marriage of convenience in sport now considered beyond repair. In the wake of their 5-0 Ashes defeat, coach Andy Flower and captain Alastair Cook are set to be backed by the incoming managing director of England Cricket, Paul Downton, as they begin the task of regaining the urn in 2015. Unless the positions of Flower, Cook and the team management change drastically, that will mean the end of the nine-year run of an extraordinary soap opera starring the South African-born maverick, whose career has been touched by batting of sheer brilliance but who has polarised opinion like few others in the history of the game."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricke ... r-now.html

KP is no longer "English"...he's "South African-born". That means he's in trouble!