Milliken-Smith tells Mulcahy: "The words you used were slightly messy and I'm trying to tidy them up."

Milliken-Smith remarks that the ECB's primary allegations against Vaughan was the longer version of the wording.

He asks if the ECB are "seeking to turn it the other way round" and just that Vaughan said, "there's too many of you lot"?

He adds that if that is the case, are the ECB asking the panel not to consider the longer alternative any more?

"No," says Mulcahy.

The hearing has resumed and the CDC panel have a question for ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy KC.

Mark Milliken-Smith KC notes that Mulcahy said the panel should find Michael Vaughan did say the alleged comment, "there's too many of you lot". He asks if this was deliberate and Mulcahy nods.

Milliken-Smith notes that the wording of the charge alleges Vaughan said, "there's too many of you lot, we need to have a word about that."

Mulcahy admits it is "slightly messy" because both Azeem Rafiq and Adil Rashid have recalled the comment in different ways, the sub-clause being either "we need to have a word about that" or "we need to do something about it".

Mulcahy says it "doesn't preclude" the panel from finding that Vaughan said "there's too many of you lot".

She adds that the two different sub-clauses are "so close as to not found an argument".

She says that Vaughan's lawyer Christopher Stoner KC's prime argument is that the difference show the two players "don't remember what was said" and "that is why he is making distinctions".

Mulcahy says her "prime point" is that "there is so little between them it doesn't show any incosistency".

She states the "racist element" is identifying the four Asian players as a group and telling them, "there's too many of you lot" and that the ECB does not withdraw the first limb of the charge.

She says that in order to make good their case, the ECB only have to persuade the panel that Vaughan said, "there's too many of you lot".

Mulcahy concludes by saying the panel should find Vaughan said the words alleged, therefore breaching ECB Directive 3.3.

That ends the ECB's closing submission. There will now be a very short break before Christopher Stoner KC gives his closing submissions on Vaughan's behalf.

• Vaughan 'sorry for hurt Rafiq has suffered' but denies allegations

Mulcahy says that it is "frankly objectionable and wrong" of Vaughan's closing submissions to suggest the ECB set out to only accuse Vaughan and deliberately ignored evidence that did not support that outcome.

She insists Vaughan was charged on "credible evidence" from Rafiq, corroborated by Rashid and supported by Naved-ul-Hasan, adding there is "no suggestion they have lied or conspired together". She states that the "highest case" Vaughan's team have is if those three have "misremembered".

"Unfortunately for Mr Vaughan, their memories are aligned," says Mulcahy.

She says that what actually happened is that Vaughan said, "there's too many of you lot" to a group of Asian players "because they were Asian".

Mulcahy emphasises that the charging decision was "properly based" on Adil Rashid and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan corroborating Rafiq's testimony.

She adds that the ECB's belief Tim Bresnan and Andrew Gale would not corroborate the evidence was "unsurprisingly correct".

She says Michael Vaughan was alerted to evidence that did not support the ECB's argument, contrary to an argument from his legal team had he "did not know the full position".

She cites a letter from Brabner's law firm on 22 February 2022, before Vaughan was charged, which sets out Vaughan's case from the Sky footage, but makes no mention of the umpires or cameraman. She states that on that date, Vaughan and his team knew that Ajmal Shahzad did not support Azeem Rafiq's allegation and knew six other players said they had not heard Vaughan say it.

She adds Vaughan's autobiography "add nothing to his case".

Mulcahy draws attention to paragraph 98 of the closing submissions on behalf of Vaughan where his legal team state the ECB should collate "as much information as possible". Mulcahy says this is "preposterous" and the ECB can only do what is reasonable and proportionate.

She also notes paragraph 101 of Vaughan's closing submissions which asks the panel to "have in mind the evidence it has not seen or heard in this case". Mulcahy questions how the panel could possibly do that.

ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy now moves on to the "extraordinary amount of bitter and inaccurate correspondence" from Vaughan's legal team complaining about the disciplinary process.

Regarding their allegations, Mulcahy answers three points shortly.

She points out there is no document existing that exonerates Vaughan, nor has Vaughan's team ever made an application for compulsion of a witness, i.e. the Yorkshire players who say they didn't hear Vaughan's comment, or the disclosure of a document.

Mulcahy also highlights Vaughan's team made no attempt to interview the Sky cameraman or the umpires. She says this "wholly undermines" their argument that the ECB should have done so.

She then momentarily turns away from the written closing submission to make another point. She says the allegations about the Sky cameraman "illustrates the ridiculous length" to which Vaughan is prepared to go to "unfairly throw mud at the ECB".

She accuses Vaughan's team of "cherry-picking" and points out their "mere conjecture" in relation to their allegations about the cameraman.

Mulcahy moves to question three - whether Vaughan's alleged comment is a breach of ECB directive 3.3, which relates to action prejudicial to the game and/or bringing the game into disrepute.

She states that prejudice and/or disrepate may arise by publication or dissemination of the alleged language, whether in cricket or the wider world. She adds the panel may also take into account "intention" when deciding objectively whether the conduct took place.

Now to the second key question for the panel - was it racist and/or discriminatory?

Mulcahy says that Vaughan accepted both alternatives of the charge are racist and discriminatory, and accepted that the words "you lot", if used towards a racial group, would be racist and discriminatory.

She points out that Vaughan also accepted that the words would potentially affect the morale of his team-mates if he used them.

She moves on to say that Rashid said the comment was "bad humour", but this doesn't undermine the objectively discriminatory nature of the words. Even though Rashid was not offended, Rafiq was, especially given Vaughan was his "hero".

Mulcahy concludes that it is an "indictment" on the atmosphere at Yorkshire at the time that Rashid did not find the comment offensive. Such discriminatory language was normalised at the club.

Mulcahy addresses allegations made by former Yorkshire head of HR Liz Neto in her evidence.

Neto asserted that Adil Rashid had told her Azeem Rafiq was pressuring him to corroborate the claim against Michael Vaughan.

Mulcahy questions why Neto gave evidence in these proceedings, given her witness statement was made for the Yorkshire CCC proceedings and not the ECB ones.

Mulcahy notes that Rashid confirmed he did not remember saying he was being pressured by Rafiq to Neto.

Mulcahy turns to the allegation that Rafiq pressured Rashid into corroborating the claim against Vaughan.

She says there was "no cogent reason advanced" on Vaughan's behalf as to how Rafiq may have pressured Rashid. She notes an assertion by Ajmal Shahzad of "a bit of blackmailing" was floated but refuted by Rashid in his witness statement. She notes Shahzad has also not given a witness statement and Vaughan's team did not apply to the panel to compel Shahzad to do so.

Mulcahy adds the attempt to link a fish and chip shop business run by Rafiq and Rashid to the allegation of pressure "went nowhere".

Rafiq also denied needing Rashid to give evidence and denied threatening to report Rashid to the ECB for anything.

In conclusion, Mulcahy says Neto's evidence "should be discounted".

Mulcahy points out that Adil Rashid was prompted to give his statement to The Cricketer by Vaughan naming himself as being the subject of the allegation and his denial. The timing, she says, supports Rashid's position.

In the cross-examination, it was suggested to Rafiq that Rashid had had a "memory failure" but Rafiq explained that was not the case.

Rafiq said the comment made in the Squire Patton Boggs interview was not related to the comment made by Vaughan but was more widely about Rashid and others - at the time - not speaking out about his allegations of racism at Yorkshire generally.

Rashid denied that he had suffered memory loss, and Mulcahy points out that the question put to Rafiq in the SPB interview was not specifically about the 22 June 2009 incident.

Mulcahy now addresses the question of why Rafiq did not raise Vaughan's comment at the time, saying he was "a young cricketer trying to make his way" and that "speaking up means your life and career can be destroyed".

She points to Rafiq discussing the comment with Adil Rashid and possibly his agent Will Quinn over time.

It was put to Rafiq that the allegation the comment was "loud enough" for other Yorkshire players to hear it was added only for the first time in the ECB proceedings. However, Mulcahy notes Rafiq's explanation that as he has been asked more times about the incident, he has remembered more.

She also highlights Rafiq underlining that he said the comment was loud enough to hear by everyone in the initial Squire Patton Boggs invesigation.

Mulcahy now turns to the arguments raised on behalf of Vaughan.

Regarding suggestions that what Rafiq and Rashid's accounts of what Vaughan said have been "inconsistent", Mulcahy states "the opposite is true" and that they have "never wavered" from the key phrase, "there's too many of you lot".

She says there have "only ever been two slightly different versions" of the following sub-clause - "we need to do something about it" or "we need to have a word about that".

She emphasises that Rafiq has made clear "there's too many of you lot" was the discriminatory element.

She says that Rafiq talking of being "under an incredible amount of pressure" explains why the accounts were at times "slightly different".

The other evidence ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy points to is that although former Yorkshire player Rana Naved ul-Hasan didn't give evidence, he confirmed the comment was made.

She also highlights that of the four Asian players, only Ajmal Shahzad said - in his interview with the ECB's solicitors - that he did not hear the comment, but he has not given evidence for Vaughan.

Mulcahy then gives points that are relevant to the panel's determination, including:

- Vaughan's actions on the day were consistent with him saying the words alleged. He is seen on the Sky footage shaking the hands only of the four Asian players, which he accepts. This shows he had identified the four Asian players as a distinct group.

- Vaughan accepted that the 19-second period during which the camera was off the players was long enough to make the comment.

- Although Vaughan says he is a changed character now, Vaughan sent two tweets in 2010 complaining about foreigners, and in 2017, sent further tweets concerning Muslims and potential terrorism.

- Those tweets have a very similar tone to the comment allegedly made on 22 June 2009.

- Yorkshire has admitted systemic racism from 2004 to 2021.

- Matthew Hoggard and Gary Ballance have admitted to using racist and/or discriminatory words and terms.

- Not a single player from the Yorkshire team that day has been prepared to give evidence in support of Vaughan.

- Vaughan was made aware of the allegation against him in December 2020, but only approached Rafiq and asked to meet him after he named himself in November 2021.

- Amid allegations from Vaughan's team that Rafiq was leaking information to the media regarding the disciplinary proceedings, Vaughan was doing just that by speaking to friends in the media.

Mulcahy states that both Azeem Rafiq and Adil Rashid remember Michael Vaughan making the alleged comment and that "their evidence was in no way undermined by cross-examination".

She adds that Rafiq was "clear on the several occasions" when asked what Vaughan had said and that it stuck in his mind because it made him "angry and upset" and that Vaughan was "one of his heroes".

She says that Rashid also repeatedly recalled Vaughan saying "there's too many of you lot" following by words to similar effect, while Vaughan could not remember what he said.

She says it is crucial that it was not put to either Rafiq or Rashid that they were lying.

Mulcahy says that therefore if the panel accept Rafiq and Rashid's recollections then the alleged charge against Vaughan is proved. She adds they will need to make findings that Rafiq and Rashid "are lying" or are "wholly mistaken in their recollections" if they reject the case against Vaughan.

ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy says the key questions for the panel in making its decision are:

- On the balance of probabilities, did the conduct in question occur?

- Viewed objectively, was it racist and/or discriminatory on the basis of a person's membership of a particular racial or ethnic group?

- If so, was the conduct such that it may be prejudicial to the interests of cricket or bring the game into disrepute?

Turning to the written closing submission of the ECB, Mulcahy introduces it with a reminder of the phrase Michael Vaughan allegedly used towards four Asian players before a game at Trent Bridge on 22 June 2009 - "There's too many of you lot."

Azeem Rafiq and Adil Rashid have said in evidence that they remember this being said. Rana Naved ul-Hasan told the press and Rafiq's former solicitor he also remembered it. Will Quinn remembered, when interviewed, Rafiq telling him about a comment along those lines being made.

Mulcahy reminds the panel that Vaughan cannot refute the words used because he cannot remember what he said. Instead, he asserts he would not have used those words. 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 has also accepted the words were racist and discriminatory.

Mulcahy then sets out the charge against Vaughan - a breach of the 2009 ECB Directive 3.3 which said "no person may conduct himself in a manner or do any act or omission which may be prejudicial to the interests of cricket or which may bring the game of cricket or any cricketer or group of cricketers into disrepute".

Mulcahy again references historical tweets that Vaughan has apologised for, including two in 2010 - the "relevant time". Mulcahy say the tweets make up just two of 115 paragraphs in Vaughan's closing submissions but are "central to this case".

She adds they show "quite the opposite" that it was "inherently probable" Vaughan made the alleged comments. She also notes he referred to "many" tweets when only three have been highlighted.

She adds it "makes no difference" regarding Vaughan's argument the tweets were sent in a "non-cricketing context". She says if a person "has a tendency to make racist comments, they have a tendency to make racist comments" and that Vaughan put those tweets out for "all to see", including those he played with.

She also notes that Vaughan's defence does not factor admissions made by Yorkshire, Matthew Hoggard and Gary Ballance, as well as prior incidents involving Andrew Gale such as the offensive tweet Gale sent in 2010 and his abuse of Ashwell Prince.

ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy KC starts by bringing up a "crucial point" in how former England captain Michael Vaughan's legal team will argue his case.

She states that Vaughan's lawyer will assert it is "inherently improbable" that Vaughan made the alleged comment and they will point to him being a "senior player and leader" and that if he makes mistakes he "puts his hand up".

Mulcahy notes that Vaughan "apparently" does not put his hands up until he was held to account over his tweets "a decade later" in an interview with the BBC in 2021.

Mulcahy says there is "clear evidence" that Vaughan would indeed have made the alleged comment, "there's too many of you lot, we need to have a word about that" to Azeem Rafiq and three other Asian players before a match on 22 June 2009. She says "far from it being inherently improbable, it is inherently probable" that Vaughan said it.

The hearing is now resuming.