• Meena Botros, the director of legal and integrity at the ECB, faced cross-examination from Michael Vaughan's lawyer Christopher Stoner KC.
• Stoner repeatedly asked Botros why the ECB's investigation had not gone further with regards to the allegation against Vaughan, such as interviewing the umpires or cameraman.
• Regarding the umpires, Botros said the alleged comment did not take place within the umpires' earshot, while on the subject of the cameraman, he said it was not reasonable or proportionate to do so.
• He added if Vaughan's team thought it was such an important point they could have taken it up themselves.
• Vaughan later gave evidence in which he said the disciplinary hearing into allegations of racism at Yorkshire is a "terrible look" for cricket.
• He continued to deny the allegation against him and that he heard no racist language in his time at Yorkshire. The ECB's lawyer pointed out Yorkshire and team-mate Matthew Hoggard have accepted racist language was used.
• When asked to confirm details about how many years he had played alongside Hoggard for both Yorkshire and England, Vaughan joked: "It's like Question of Sport, this."
• Among the other witnesses present on day three was former player development manager at the PCA Matthew Wood. Discrepancies in his two witness statements were highlighted by the ECB's lawyer Jane Mulcahy KC.
• He backed up a statement in which he had alleged Azeem Rafiq had "used being Asian" as leverage to get on to an ECB coaching course, despite the deadline for entries having passed.

The hearing has now concluded for the day.

Read the BBC Sport news story on the day's events here.

Next, ECB lawyer Mulcahy shows Vaughan's solicitor Lunt Whatsapp messages between himself and Vaughan's agent Neil Fairbrother, and then a message that Fairbrother forwarded to Lunt from cricinfo journalist and close friend of Rafiq, George Dobell.

Lunt then clarifies he has never used Fairbrother to communicate with Dobell.

Mulcahy then asks Lunt if he has ever communicated with the press during these proceedings.

Lunt says he now doesn't answer phone calls from unknown numbers in case it is a journalist. He adds even when sat with journalists during other cases he is involved in, he has not discussed this case with them, even when asked.

That ends the cross-examination of Lunt and he leaves.

Mulcahy asks Lunt about whether he has interacted with posts on social media that relate to these proceedings.

Lunt: "Probably."

Mulcahy: "A lot?"

Lunt: "Not that I can recall."

Mulcahy raises a tweet sent in reply to one sent by Rafiq on 7 February 2023.

Rafiq congratulates Yorkshire and Gary Ballance in it and the respondent says they are looking forward to Michael Vaughan's legal team taking the case on in this hearing.

Lunt liked the reply and Rafiq received a notification, Mulcahy says.

Lunt says he has been "trying to recollect" how that happened and that he did forward a link to the tweet to a colleague.

Mulcahy asks Lunt if he can understand why Rafiq found it "intimidating" after receiving that notification.

Lunt: "Absolutely."

When asked again how it could've happened, Lunt says it is not "unsual" for him to like posts relating to his law firm Brabners.

He admits he "could have clicked on the heart button".

But he adds that it "certainly wouldn't" have crossed his mind that a notification would be sent to Rafiq.

Lunt: "I regret it and do apologise if that was the impact."

Mulcahy takes Lunt through two articles, in the Yorkshire Post, external and Daily Mail, in which Ajmal Shahzad said he had no memory of the alleged Vaughan incident.

Lunt confirms he has read both articles "a long time ago".

He also clarifies that "to the best of his knowledge" Rana Naved ul-Hasan did not give a witness statement to the ECB.

Conversation then turns back to the umpires of the 2009 game.

Mulcahy asks Lunt, referring to the footage from Sky, if the first time the umpires are seen is when they are walking on to the field.

He says yes, "just behind the players", but adds that his "impression of the footage is not relevant".

Mulcahy replies "I'm asking you so it is relevant". She asks him if he contacted the umpires for evidence, which he says he did not.

She the asks him to confirm if a request was made to the ECB's legal team asking for the Sky cameraman to be interviewed.

"I couldn't tell you. I haven't checked."

ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy starts by asking Vaughan's solicitor Paul Lunt how he obtained Liz Neto's witness statement.

Lunt says he started dealing directly with Neto in 2020 or possibly 2021.

After she was sacked by Yorkshire in late 2021, Lunt heard there was a number of claims being brought by the dismissed staff and that it was during this period Neto stopped responding to him.

He was subsequently told by former Yorkshire chairman Robin Smith that this was because Neto had an ongoing claim in an employment tribunal that she didn't want to jeopardise. Lunt subequently heard her settlement with Yorkshire included clauses that prevented her from speaking to him.

Lunt adds that Smith said he was working to make sure Neto was able to comply with providing a witness statement and that Smith provided him with a copy.

Mulcahy: "Do you know how he got a copy?"

Lunt: "No."

Mulcahy: "He gave it to you?"

Lunt: "Yes."

Mulcahy asks if she can infere that after Vaughan found out he was the person Rafiq was accusing of making the alleged comment in December 2020, that was why Lunt was instructed to contact Neto.

Lunt: "I wouldn't want to guess but it's certainly around that time."

Mulcahy asks Lunt about speaking to Ajmal Shahzad and whether there is a note of his conversation.

Lunt: "There isn't one."

Mulcahy: "And he hasn't given a witness statement?"

Lunt: "Not to my knowledge."

Mulcahy notes the phrase "fear or intimidation" in Lunt's witness statement with regards to his conversation with Shahzad and ask whether that is meant to mean intimidation by the ECB.

Lunt: "It's not for me to suggest anything, merely reporting the conversation."

Vaughan's solicitor Paul Lunt is the final witness to be called.

Mulcahy refers Neto to aspects of her witness statement in which she said, as we reported yesterday, that a "distressed" Adil Rashid had telephoned her on numerous occasions and indicated he was being pressured to corroborate Rafiq's claim about Vaughan.

Neto confirms her witness statement is correct.

Mulcahy then refers back to Rashid's evidence yesterday, in which he said he could not recall saying the above to Neto.

Mulcahy asks Neto if she still maintains her evidence? "Yes."

Yesterday, Rashid said Neto was "confused" with the situation and had misunderstood.

Mulcahy asks Neto if she accepts she was misunderstood?

"Absolutely not."

That ends the cross-examination of Neto and she leaves.

Mulcahy notes that Neto worked for Yorkshire for 16 years and in the HR team for 11 years. Neto says he is aware that Yorkshire has admitted to the "systemic" use of racist language at the club from 2004 to 2021.

Mulcahy notes Neto says she feels the accusation is "unfair" in her witness statement and ask if her personal view is different to the club?

Neto: "Yes."

Mulcahy: "Yorkshire admitted they failed to take adequate steps to deal with the whole matter."

Neto: "Yes, I believe that was predominiantly Lord Patel."

Mulcahy asks if Neto knows Matthew Hoggard and that he admitted using racist slurs at Yorkshire. Neto says yes. Mulcahy asks Neto if she considers one of those terms racist.

Neto: "Yes I would. But no-one ever raised it with me and I never heard it."

Neto says she accepts that racist language was used at Yorkshire, given the admissions of Hoggard and Gary Ballance, but denies it was "routinely" used.

ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy is now cross-examining Liz Neto and brings up a witness statement she gave to the intital investigation.

Mulcahy: "How come Mr Vaughan has this witness statement?"

Neto: "I'm not sure, I don't think I gave it to him."

Mulcahy: "Do you know who might have done?"

Neto: "No."

Mulcahy: "You made a witness statment in the Yorkshire case and have no knowlege of how it go into the hands of Mr Vaughan?"

Neto: "No."

Mulcahy points out there is no first-hand evidence of what Vaughan allegedly said on 22 June 2009.

Neto: "Absolutely not."

Before passing over to Jane Mulcahy KC, Vaughan's lawyer Christopher Stoner KC asks ex-Yorkshire HR boss Liz Neto to clarify a couple of things.

He asks her to look at a statement from Adil Rashid that responds to Neto's witness statement, in which he refers to her as a player liaison officer.

Neto confirms to Stoner that she has never been a player liaison officer.

Rashid said in his witness statement that during phone calls, Neto complained to him she was facing disciplinary action at YCCC.

Neto says she has never faced disciplinary action at YCCC, and had she, would not be discussing it with Rashid.

Neto later confirms that Rashid had told her "on more than one occasion" that he "couldn't remember" hearing the alleged comment made by Michael Vaughan.

Next up to face cross-examination is Liz Neto, a former head of human resources at Yorkshire CCC.

We have been handed a copy of her witness statement, which is heavily redacted.

Neto was one of the 16 members of staff who left or were sacked by Yorkshire amid the racism scandal and after Lord Patel took over.

In November 2021, BBC Sport reported that Neto called a supporter "a coward" and accused the fan - and ex-player Azeem Rafiq - of "waging a campaign" against the club on social media.

The panel will now have a quick five-minute break.

Dickson confirms to ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy that he was not present at the match when Vaughan is alleged to have made the comment on 22 June 2009.

Turning to his witness statement, Dickson replies to Mulcahy that he believes the conversation with Vaughan where they discussed the game in question took place in November 2009.

Mulcahy brings up the relevant section in Vaughan's autobiography where he talks about being proud of the four Asian players in the Yorkshire team.

Mulcahy: "There is nothing in there about shaking the hands of the Asian players?"

Dickson: "No."

Mulcahy: "Or congratulating them?"

Dickson: "No."

Mulcahy: "Or what he might have said to them as he walked away?"

Dickson: "No."

Mulcahy has no further questions and he is free to go.

There are no further questions for Matthew Wood and he is free to go.

In a change to the scheduled order, Daily Mail journalist Mike Dickson is up next - because he needs to leave in time to go to the airport.

Dickson was the ghost writer of Matthew Vaughan's autobiography 'Time to Declare'.

Mulcahy points out that in 2021, Wood was asked by the PCA to ask Yorkshire players if they had experienced any racism in the game.

Among those players was Adil Rashid, who told Wood "he hadn't seen or experienced any racism during his time in cricket and that he wasn't able to contribute anything in that respect".

In his witness statement, Wood said he told Rashid it was a "confidential discussion and a safe space".

Mulcahy says "that wasn't true was it? It wasn't a safe space and not confidential because you have breached that confidence in order to give evidence on behalf of Mr Vaughan?"

Wood denies this.

"The hardest thing for me is that I was sat on information", pointing out that he had "excellent relationships" with Rafiq, Rashid, Yorkshire and other players.

"I've seen it play out in the media, I know information about the case and I just think, from my point of view and my unique angle, I was basically in the middle and I knew a lot of the back stories and subplots.

He adds: "I've come in as a guy who knows information and wanted to help the situation. I'm not on anyone's side."

Asked if he accepts he broken Rafiq's trust, Wood replies: "We had a good relationship and I had his trust. This has been extremely difficult as lives have got turned upside down, careers ruined..."

Mulcahy interrupts to ask the question again.

"I told what I know."

She asks Wood why he left the PCA in 2021.

"I wanted to pursue a career in coaching."

Mulcahy now turns to a witness statement from Wood that the ECB received on Monday.

She suggests that Wood is "at pains" to support Vaughan in these proceedings "no matter what".

Wood: "I disagree with that."

Mulcahy asks about Wood's claim in his witness statement that Rafiq has one said "someone had to pay for this" to him.

Wood said he asked Rafiq if he was OK and that Rafiq said the investigation had "got too big" and that Rafiq then burst into tears. He added that he didn't "get the sense" that Rafiq wanted cash.

Mulcahy says Rafiq doesn't remember crying on that call but remembers "being broken".

Wood again states Rafiq was crying for around 20 minutes of the 40-minute or so phone call.

Mulcahy now asks Wood why he "went behind" Rafiq's back and told the Squire Patton Boggs-led initial Yorkshire racism investigation that Rafiq had said he was prepared to use the "race card" for personal gain.

Mulcahy: "Did the PCA know that you as Rafiq's representative went behind his back to tell Squire Patton Boggs information, which we say is untrue?"

Wood: "They knew. I wasn't on anybody's side. I had information and I answered the question asked."

Mulcahy refers Wood to his witness statement in which he sets out how Rafiq enquired with him about getting on to the ECB's level 4 cricket coaching course in 2019.

In the statement, Wood said: "The ECB would have been keen to have new South Asian coaches on board and Azeem would have been alive to that."

Wood informed Rafiq the deadline for the course had passed, but says Rafiq asked for relevant contact details.

He says in the statement: "[Rafiq] told me he'd sort it out because he felt that the ECB wouldn't say no to him (i.e a person of Asian descent)."

The statement continues to say Rafiq called him back 20 minutes later to relay he had been accepted on to the course, adding Rafiq said "I'd told you I'd sort it".

Wood says in the statement: "I got the impression from Azeem that he had used being Asian as leverage in order to bypass the fact that he had missed the deadline and get accepted on the course."

Mulcahy asks Wood to clarify that he thinks Rafiq used being Asian to get on the course.

"I remember the phone call, yes," Wood says.

Mulcahy advises that Rafiq has said in statement that it is an "odd thing to claim" and "really strange" from Wood.

Mulcahy asks Wood if he accepts he was mistaken. "No, I'm quite clear."

He added both he and Rafiq were "delighted" he had got on to the course.

Mulcahy puts it to Wood that he is "very aware" of concerns Rafiq had about racism at Yorkshire in late 2018.

"No, I wasn't very well aware," says Wood, adding he remembers the meeting being a "more general" one to see where Rafiq was at.

Mulcahy: "But he raised allegations of racism."

Wood: "He raised ideas that they 'treated us different'".

Mulcahy: "So you knew he was referring to Asian players?"

Wood: "That's how I took it. The actual phrase he used was, 'You lot don't know how to treat us'."

Mulcahy: "You seem to remember that very clearly Mr Wood when you don't remember other things."