Quote Originally Posted by PiesAreGood View Post
I didn't really follow the trial, but he was found not-guilty yeah. In which case the incidents in question shouldn't be held against him. If the court has decided he didn't break any laws then what he gets up to is his business*.

If he is fit and able to play* and better than alternative available players for his position then he should play.

*Of course getting involved in such incidents could impair his ability to play, he might be a better player if he wasn't up to all hours drinking, but again that's his business whether he wants to live "clean" and (potentially) be better or live "fast" and play as well as he can.
Not guilty is not the same as innocent. It just means the jury were not sure of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As is said by legal representatives, if you think they were probably guilty, that is not enough, if guilt is only felt to be probable, then the verdict should be not guilty.

As to whether cricketers should go out drinking and brawling at all hours ....