Disciplinary proceedings against Yorkshire and seven individuals over the Azeem Rafiq racism scandal will be held in public.
Rafiq requested the hearing be held publicly to ensure transparency and try and bring closure to those involved. And the Cricket Disciplinary Commission (CDC) have agreed to make the unprecedented move following a preliminary hearing on October 17 and 18.
Proceedings are set to begin in late November, with Rafiq the chief witness in charges brought by the ECB, who have declined to comment. Former England captain Michael Vaughan is among those who has been charged and the Telegraph , who Vaughan writes a column for, state that he is 'happy for the proceedings to be held in public and will appear in person to defend himself'.
Current England spinner Adil Rashid is set to be a key witness, having corroborated Rafiq's allegation that Vaughan told a group of Asian players at Yorkshire at the time that there were "too many of you lot, we need to do something about it".
In a statement, Rashid said: "I wanted to concentrate as much as possible on my cricket and to avoid distractions to the detriment of the team but I can confirm Azeem Rafiq's recollection of Michael Vaughan's comments to a group of us Asian players."
Former Pakistan bowler Rana Naved-ul-Hasan, who was an overseas player with Yorkshire at the time, has also corroborated the allegation which Vaughan categorically denies. However, there may be issues with Rashid's ability to appear in person, with the 34-year-old set to play in the Abu Dhabi T10 between November 23 and December 4 and then go on holiday with his family.
Former Yorkshire captain and coach Andrew Gale has already refused to engage with the process, stating after he was charged: "I am today informing the ECB that I will not be attending the disciplinary hearing as I have no faith in that process.
"I have cooperated with the previous investigations. In each case the only evidence relied on has been Azeem's. On two occasions, I have been informed that no allegations were upheld against me, and I had no case to answer.
"Bearing in mind that I don't consider the ECB investigation to be anywhere near as thorough as the SPB investigation (particularly based on the fact that I have not been interviewed), in short, I have no faith that a fair and just outcome will be the result if I engage in the process."
