Home
Cricket
Essex charged with systematic racism and discrimination during period between 2001 to 2010

Essex charged with systematic racism and discrimination during period between 2001 to 2010

Essex are accused of failing to address systemic instances of racist and/or discriminatory language and behavior between 2001 and 2010.

After an investigation by the new English cricket regulator, Essex has been accused of past instances of racism and discrimination. The regulator, led by interim director Dave Lewis, has accused the club of violating ECB directive 3.3. The accusation comes after it looked into claims of behaviour, actions, or inactions that might harm cricket’s interests or cast the sport in a negative light.

Racist taunts galore at Essex between 2001 and 2010: Report

Essex are accused of failing to address systemic instances of racist and/or discriminatory language and behavior between 2001 and 2010. It was discovered in an indecent report published by Katharine Newton KC last December. The report remarks that race, religion, and ethnicity were regarded as jest at Chelmsford during this time.

The report centered on the statements of three anonymous players, identified as Jahid Ahmed, Maurice Chambers, and Zoheb Sharif. It discussed how players of Asian descent were frequently called “curry munchers,” one was dubbed “Bomber” after the 9/11 attacks, and players of color were made fun of with bananas.

More News

What’s next?

An independent panel of the Cricket Discipline Commission will now be formed to hear the case at an as yet unspecified date.

Notably, after acknowledging four amended charges of Directive 3.3 last year, Yorkshire received a 48-point penalty in the County Championship. Four more points were deducted in the Twenty20 Blast, and they were also fined £400,000.

Follow
Share

Editor's Pick

Sumit Nagal requested Rs 45 lakh pay rise, and AITA agreed before Sweden Davis Cup tie

Top Stories

Share article
Follow us on social media
Google News Whatsapp channel
Tell us why didn’t you like our article so that we can improve on?