• It was then the turn of Christopher Stoner KC to give the closing submission on behalf of Vaughan.
• He said the investigation was "wholly inadequate", adding the only contemporaneous evidence - the Sky footage - is "inconsistent" with what has been alleged.
• Stoner went on to say there was "evidence of actual bias" on behalf of the ECB, before adding: "This was prosecution from the outset."
• He continued to say that Vaughan was denied "due process" because of a "woefully inadequate investigation". He added the whole process was "unfair" and called on the panel to have regard for the evidence it has not heard.
• Stoner frequently reiterated the alleged words were said more than 5,000 days ago, and called it a "red flag" that Rafiq said in his cross-examination that he had been repeatedly pressed into remembering more details.
• Regarding Vaughan's historic tweets, Stoner said they show that Vaughan, when in the wrong, holds his hand up and admits it.
• He concluded by saying the case is "obviously a matter of considerable importance" to Vaughan, who has given evidence of the effect has had on him "health wise". He adds his "life and livelihood are at stake", before clarifiying that Vaughan's life is not under threat, but rather "the shape of his life" and that is why this case "is so critical".
• Panel chair Tim O'Gorman concluded the public proceedings and said the aim is to release the judgements in writing "by the end of the month".

• Tuesday's proceedings then moved on to the closing submissions from both parties in relation to Michael Vaughan's charge.
• Going first, the ECB's lawyer Jane Mulcahy started by saying that Vaughan cannot refute the words allegedly used because he cannot remember what he said. But she says the timing undermines him, as the comment was made only a year or so before Vaughan published tweets he agrees were "completely unacceptable".
• Vaughan's historic tweets were frequently referred to, given their "very similar tone" to the words allegedly said.
• Mulcahy said the tweets show it was "inherently improbable" Vaughan made the alleged comments.
• Among other evidence, Mulcahy pointed out that not a single player from the Yorkshire team that day has been prepared to give evidence in support of Vaughan.
• Mulcahy said evidence given by former Yorkshire head of HR Liz Neto - in which she suggested Adil Rashid had been pressured into corroborating Rafiq's claim - should be "discounted" because there was "no cogent reason advanced" on Vaughan's behalf as to how Rafiq may have pressured him.
• She referred to the "extraordinary amount of bitter and inaccurate correspondence" from Vaughan's side, and highlighted that Vaughan's team did not attempt to interview the Sky cameraman or the umpires, "wholly undermining" their argument that the ECB should have done so.

• Tuesday's proceedings started with the ECB's cases against Andrew Gale and Richard Pyrah, who are both accused of using racist and/or discriminatory language. They both denied the allegations and withdrew from the disciplinary process.
• The hearing heard how Rafiq was "petrified" of Gale, who was charged with using two specific racist slurs towards Rafiq and others.
• In his defence, Gale said he felt those charged were being put forward as "scapegoats".
• Pyrah was charged with using a racial slur towards Rafiq's sister, Amna, referencing her Pakistani heritage, as well as using the phrase "you lot" towards Rafiq and other Asian players at Yorkshire.
• As part of his defence, Pyrah said he would not use such language because he was born "into a culturally diverse area" and had friends from "all sorts of backgrounds".

Panel chair Tim O'Gorman concludes the public proceedings by saying "these are serious matters" and the panel will give them due consideration.

He says that in this case the judgements will not be made public without written reasons.

He says the aim is to release the judgements in writing "by the end of the month".

However, he notes the panel all have "significant other professional commitments" and, while they will try to arrive at a decision "promptly", it will "take time to be done".

There concludes the public sections of the Cricket Discipline Commission hearing into allegations of racism at Yorkshire.

Regarding the commonality of language and timing, Mulcahy says the individual admissions underline the "widespread and repeated use" of a racist word referring to Pakistani heritage. She notes that Blain and Gale have denied using the word.

She refers to the admitted use of other repeated words or phrases, which she says underlines that this language was used at Yorkshire.

She asks the panel to find a breach of ECB Directive 3.3 in respect of each of the five non-attending respondents.

Jane Mulcahy KC lays out the ECB's closing comments concerning the non-attending respondents - John Blain, Tim Bresnan, Andrew Gale, Matthew Hoggard and Richard Pyrah.

She emphasises two key matters of context that apply across all the cases:

- The admissions made by Gary Ballance and Hoggard, and the seriousness of those admissions.

- The commonality of language and timing across the cases.

The hearing will now break until 16:30 GMT before hearing the closing submissions against the other respondents in this case.

After Stoner concludes, ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy makes a few points.

She says it is "simply not true" that the ECB has been "biased" in this case and that it is "inappropriate that that has ever been alleged".

She also says the storyboard presented by Vaughan's team "doesn't take matters any further" and asks the panel to look at the video instead of the storyboard.

In conclusion, Christopher Stoner KC says how Michael Vaughan has never sought to say there is "some clever ruse" around the statement and that he has agreed that if such a comment was said and directed at Asian players, then it is "racist and discriminatory".

He emphasises that the case is whether the ECB directive was breached on the day in question, 22 June 2009, and that "subsequent press coverage can't be relevant to that".

Stoner says the process "has not been fair", that there was a "wholly inadequate investigation" by the ECB and this has been a case of "prosecution from the outset".

Stoner says that it is "inherently improbable" Vaughan made the alleged comment, given the difficulty of recollection, how serious and offensive it is, that it was allegedly said in the "presence of a cameraman" and that it was not spoken about for 11 years after.

Stoner says that for all the reasons of the "inconsistencies and questions" he has run through, the ECB "has not discharged the burden of proof to the required standard".

Stoner concludes that the case is "obviously a matter of considerable importance" to Vaughan, who has given evidence of the effect has had on him "health wise". He adds his "life and livelihood are at stake", before clarifiying that Vaughan's life is not under threat, but rather "the shape of his life" and that is why this case "is so critical".

Stoner adds: "We simply say the evidence does not make up the charge."

Stoner tells the panel that they must consider all of the evidence in the context that the alleged incident took place nearly 14 years ago.

He says that given all of the "red flags", on the balance of probabilities the charge cannot be established.

Regarding the evidence of Adil Rashid, Stoner once again points out the "inherent improbability" of his recollecting, before moving on to the question of whether Rashid was pressured into giving evidence, based on Rafiq's "memory loss" comment, Shahzad's interview, and Liz Neto's evidence.

Neto, the former head of HR at Yorkshire, said Rashid told her he'd said to Rafiq "...I cannot remember hearing [the alleged comment]". This, Stoner says, is "powerful and important evidence" because it suggests Rashid was placed under some sort of pressure, or has changed his position as a minimum.

"The important point is he was clearly saying to Ms Neto that he recalls being told by Mr Rafiq the very specific words."

Stoner says therefore Rashid's evidence cannot be given any "weight".

The other point of corroboration is Rana Naved ul-Hasan's evidence. The first is a press report, which Stoner says cannot be given weight because he has not been cross-examined, has refused to engage in the process and in the press report, is not directly quoted. Stoner also adds ul-Hasan has recalled the "wrong words" in the report and says he will give evidence, which has "proven to be incorrect".

Stoner also refers back to the storyboard, which shows ul-Hasan was not walking on to the field with the other players.

Ul-Hasan's other evidence is an email, which Stoner states is "general and simply not credible" because it gives no positive evidence of ul-Hasan's own and makes no reference to Vaughan.

Regarding Yorkshire's position, Yorkshire has admitted to systemic use of racist language over a prolonged period. Stoner points out that given Vaughan was an England international, he will have been away from Yorkshire for a "substantial" period of the 17 years.

Stoner goes on to say that while "we don't know what has gone on" in order for Yorkshire to change its stance from opposing the allegations to admitting them, it is important to note that they admitted amended charges - those amendments removed reference to individuals, "including my client".

Stoner says that it is "inherently improbable" that Rafiq, "feeling sick and angry", did not mention the alleged comment to anyone else on the day. He acknowledges Rafiq may not have wanted to tell a senior player but it is "inherently improbable" he would not have spoken to Adil Rashid or other players.

Stoner says it is "difficult" to say whether Rafiq spoke to Rashid about it at any time before 2020, but he suggests it is "clear" from Rashid's evidence that Rafiq didn't discuss it with anybody until July or August 2020.

Stoner then highlights the "inconsistencies" in the allegation of what was said.

"It is important," says Stoner, adding that the ECB has "effectively retreated from its primary position" to the alternative of just "there's too many of you lot".

Stoner said there is "no real excuse or explanation for the obvious inconsistences" and says the solicitor was simply noting down the words Rafiq said, where Rafiq had suggested it was a mistake by the solicitor.

Stoner states the ECB themselves have said that "words are important" and have suggested the second half of the alleged phrases "exacerbates" the initial comment. He adds it needs to be proven that "you lot" was directed towards a group because of race because there are "innocent explanations" for those words.

He adds that while Rafiq felt "played" by Vaughan after a meeting in November 2021, subsequent messages were "friendly and constructive".

Michael Vaughan's lawyer Christopher Stoner addresses the panel regarding the legal precedence he has appended to Vaughan's closing submissions, relating to the "frailty" of human recollection.

He notes that Rafiq spoke about this specific allegation against Vaughan in the context of the "considerable and extensive allegations and recollections of his experience of Yorkshire".

He states that just because Rafiq's recollections are "strong and vivid", it doesn't mean they are correct and external information, such as the "totality of all his experiences", can cloud his memory.

Stoner notes that as a civil case, these proceedings do not have the "inherent safeguard" in criminal cases of the standard of proof being "beyond reasonable doubt".

Regarding Vaughan's historic tweets, the panel are reminded that Vaughan has repeatedly apologised for the tweets and did so again during the hearing. Vaughan has posted more than 41,000 tweets and only three have been mentioned. Those tweets, Stoner says, were in a "wholly different and non-cricketing context".

He says the tweets also show that Vaughan, when in the wrong, holds his hand up and admits it. What he cannot do is "admit to something he did not say or has no recollection of saying".

Stoner says it's also relevant to note, and puts those tweets in context, that Shahzad said Vaughan was not that way inclined and Rashid said he was not a racist.

Vaughan's autobiography, published in October 2019, then comes up - Stoner says this is evidence "unaffected by any allegations" and highlights Vaughan's "pride" at having four Asian players in the Yorkshire side.

However, he takes the point that the autobiography doesn't refer to the shaking of hands and such details, but that is "wholly unrealistic - what autobiography is going to go into that detail?".

Stoner says the detailed analysis of the Sky footage - the storyboard - was done because it is the only contemporaneous evidence existing, it is "inconsistent" with the charge and supports his client's position.

Starting on Vaughan's evidence, Stoner reiterates that his client has "consistently" denied making the alleged comment, and has always been clear that he does not recollect what he said on the day in question given it was more than 5,000 days ago. Indeed, Stoner says, it would be "incredible" if he came to the panel and said he had a clear recollection of not saying the alleged words, given the passage of time. Vaughan's continued stance is that he would not have said those "unacceptable" words.

Stoner then refers to Vaughan's "powerful" evidence that he would never have said anything that would have put his team-mates in a position in which they would not be able to perform. He was a senior player who had an "inclusive dressing room without complaint".

Stoner then moves on to highlight Rafiq's "improved" recollection, reminding the panel that Rafiq said in his cross-examination that he had repeatedly been pressed to remember more and more details.

This, Stoner says, is a "red flag".

Stoner points out that Deon Kruis has left the huddle at one stage, suggesting Rafiq's allegation it was loud enough to be heard by all Yorkshire players cannot actually "extend to all the players".

He also notes that Azeem Rafiq couldn't recall where anyone was relevant to anyone else. He draws attention to Rana Naved-ul-Hasan walking behind the umpires at one point and suggests there were potentially only three Asian players in the group at the time the huddle dispersed and most importantly that the comment was possibly not said as all the players walked onto the field, as Rafiq alleges.

Stoner says the cameraman is "clearly in the vicinity of the players when the comment is allegedly made", also pointing out his right ear was not covered by headphones.

Stoner states that the footage shows Rashid is "clearly" not offended by any comment and is "not in the slightest perturbed".

He adds Rashid was "clearly behaving as if nothing untoward had been said" and doubts he "would have an independent recollection of what was said 11 years previously" in 2020.

Vaughan's lawyer Christopher Stoner is now running through a storyboard that breaks down the Sky footage of the alleged incident, which he calls the "only contemporaneous evidence".

He points out that Vaughan clearly shakes hands with the four Asian players, which was not recalled by Rafiq and Rashid and says this offers "a window into the difficulties of recollection" of an event that took place "over 5,000 days ago".

Stoner says the footage shows "clearly a good spirit in the team".

He notes that the cameraman "spent a lot of time focusing on Mr Vaughan" and that there was "every possibility it was being used" for broadcast at any given time.

He states that you can, without making out exact heards, hear chatter from the players on the broadcast, meaning there was clearly a microphone in their presence on the camera. Stoner says it is therefore "inherently improbable" that Vaughan "would make such an unacceptable comment when as far as he knew it was being broadcast to the public".

Stoner cites how Mulcahy says it was not possible for the ECB to speak to everyone. He concedes it may not have been possible to speak to all 11 Yorkshire players on that day for one reason or another but "better attempts had to be made".

He says it is a "concerning phrase" that Meena Botros said the ECB investigation was "appropriate." Stoner asks, "appropriate to whom?".

He states that the decision not to pursue the other players, Sky cameraman or the umpires means Vaughan has been put to a "distinct disadvantage".

Stoner continues to say that Vaughan was denied "due process" because of a "woefully inadequate investigation". He adds the whole process was "unfair" and calls on the panel to have regard for the evidence it has not heard.

Stoner says there is a clear window into the type of evidence that could be - namely the transcript of the interview with Shahzad. He adds the effort to get in touch with Rana Naved ul-Hasan was "half-hearted" after he said he was unavailable.

Vaughan's lawyer goes on to point out that the ECB claims jurisdiction over its players, even retired players like Vaughan. Yet, he says, it had "real difficulties" of getting hold of other potential witnesses.

Stoner says if all the other players that day were interviewed and said the same as Shahzad, it would put a "very, very different perspective" on the evidence in the case.

He says "in reality, there was no investigation" and there is concern over the ECB's "biased position".

Stoner says the importance of speaking to everyone is illustrated by Ajmal Shahzad's interview with the ECB and how he is the only player not giving evidence to this tribunal who has been asked about the events of the day in question and said he has no recollection of Vaughan saying the alleged comment.

Stoner draws attention to Shahzad saying in the interview that Vaughan "wasn't that way inclined" to make racist comments, which Stoner arguments is "important" counter evidence to the historical tweets sent by Vaughan which the ECB "puts so much reliance on".

He states that if more people had been interviewed and all said Vaughan was not inclined to make racist comments then that could've been important evidence. He says this is further proof of a "lack of a proper investigation".

Stoner says the ECB's original position was to withhold the transcript of Shahzad's interview in "an affront to fairness". He says that only after the panel intervened were Vaughan's team provided with "an initially redacted version of that interview".

He notes Shahzad's comments weren't in the charge letter or the prosection brief but in Meena Botros' witness statement. He claims they were presented in a "most unacceptable way" and in a way that sought to "undermine" Shahzad's recollection.

He states this is all "evidence of actual bias" on behalf of the ECB.

Regarding the claim that Vaughan and his team should have investigated elements themselves, Stoner says that "does not bear superficial scrutiny", highlighting how the ECB has the power to compel and there is a "clear inequality of arms" between the two sides.

"This was prosecution from the outset," says Stoner.

Christopher Stoner KC, the lawyer for Michael Vaughan, starts his closing submission, though says he will not read it word-for-word. It is very lengthy and all parties have paper copies.

Stoner says his team believes it "inherently improbable" that these "unacceptable words" were said by a senior player just as a game was starting, in the presence of a TV camera, and given that nothing was said about it for 11 years.

He then says they are "very disappointed" that the ECB called upon a current England international - Adil Rashid - between games while he is on tour in Bangladesh.

He says this case is about an assessment of the evidence and whether recollection of the incident is reliable enough, emphasising to the panel that only if they can conclude it was more probable than not that Vaughan said the alleged words can the charge be upheld. If not, it must be dismissed.

Stoner believes the only contemporaneous evidence - the Sky footage - is "inconsistent" with what has been alleged, adding there is too much inconsistency and unreliability.

He says the investigation was "wholly inadequate", and the panel cannot be satisfied that Vaughan has been accorded fairness in the process. He points out that others charged removed themselves from the process because they didn't feel they would have a fair hearing.