ECB chair Richard Thompson described it as "the most complex and thorough regulatory investigation and disciplinary process" English cricket has ever seen. As such, when it came to the most high-profile component of the Cricket Disciplinary Committee (CDC) hearings over racism at Yorkshire, the grey areas were simply too grey.

The first reason for that was because full, exact phrase could not be ascertained. It was noted within the final report produced by the CDC panel -consisting of Tim O'Gorman as chair, Mark Milliken-Smith KC and Dr Seema Patel - that while the beginning of the alleged comment Vaughan made to Rafiq and three other Asian players (Adil Rashid, Ajmal Shahzad and Rana Naved-ul-Hasan) had been consistent in Rafiq's accounts leading up to the disciplinary hearing - "There's too many of you lot" - the end varied from either "we need to have a word about that" or "we need to do something about it".

It was noted the final ECB charge went with "we need to have a word about that", whereas a letter sent to Vaughan in February 2022 notifying him of the investigations went with "we need to do something about it". During cross-examination, Rashid, a key witness, ended up using both versions which, in the eyes of the panel, made his testimony obsolete: "in respect of an allegation in which the words alleged are particular and important, this clearly has an adverse impact on the reliability and accuracy of the ADR's evidence".

When questioned by Milliken-Smith, the ECB lawyer Jane Mulcahy KC acknowledged the "slightly messy" nature of the different versions but argued the subclauses did not change the meaning behind the sentence. The panel acknowledged as much, as well as that the incident occurred almost 14 years ago and so might not lend itself to clear recollection. This caveat they afforded to both sides.

In their opinion, the consistency in the allegations and recollections of the first part of that sentence - "There's too many of you lot" - constituted a 'second limb' to Vaughan's charge. That moved the process along, allowing other evidence to the table, which, ultimately, brought down the ECB's case against Vaughan.

The key figure in Vaughan's case was Jacques Rudolph, whose story in this incident has several layers. Rudolph was captain on the day, and as per the inconclusive Sky footage from the match, was stood between Vaughan and the four Asian players in the huddle. It is a position he was reasonably assumed to have remained in during a 19-second period when the broadcast cuts away from the huddle, in which time the comment was alleged to have been made.

Moreover, Rafiq's witness statement in the case against Rich Pyrah mentioned that Rudolph was also referred to as "one of us" or "one of you lot" - an Asian player - because of his darker complexion compared to the white members of the squad. Thus, the panel reasoned, he would have been more sensitive to what was supposedly said. In an email to Brabners - Vaughan's solicitors - in October 2021, Rudolph stated "categorically" that he "did not hear any comment made in that regard".

Evidently, offering himself up for cross-examination also worked in Vaughan's favour. That is expressly clear in the summation of the cases against Pyrah, Andrew Gale, Tim Bresnan and John Blain. The panel drew "reasonable inference" that their failure to attend the disciplinary hearings was because they did not have "an answer to the ECB's case which would sensibly stand up to cross-examination". The same point was made about Matthew Hoggard, who admitted using terms like "Rafa the K*****", P*** and "TBM" or "token black man". Hoggard's qualified admissions and that of Gary Ballance and Yorkshire were used as vital components against those four.

In a statement, Vaughan criticised the "adversarial" nature of the CDC investigation. While there are legitimate questions to be asked about how all this has been conducted, especially how English cricket arrived at a point where this was rightly deemed a necessity, the process of squaring one man's word against another, whether held in an Arbitration Centre or the high courts, is necessarily adversarial. Of course, the portrayal in parts of the media as all this being solely about Vaughan and Rafiq didn't help. Though unavoidable, perhaps, given former England captain was the only one of the six charged to attend the hearings.

Their conclusion: "It was not".