The England seamer was cleared of any wrong-doing last week by a judicial commission and the ICC have now confirmed they won’t push the case further
PASteaming in: Anderson is now free to take his place on his home ground next week
The ICC have confirmed they will not appeal against James Anderson’s not guilty ruling.
Judicial commissioner Gordon Lewis last week found no reason to take action against the England seamer after allegations he pushed India’s Ravindra Jadeja during the first Test.
That left the Lancastrian free to play in the fourth Test at Old Trafford later this week pending an appeal by the ICC.
But the governing body’s chief executive Dave Richardson has decided that they will not push the case any further.
“This outcome is the result of two exhaustive and thorough disciplinary processes and, after considering the written decision, the ICC is satisfied with the manner in which the decisions have been reached,” he said.
Anderson could have faced a ban of as many as four Tests if found guilty.
But Lewis’ ruling had focused on the lack of decisive CCTV evidence and the conflicting nature of testimony from the opposing sides.
Stu ForsterJumping for joy: Anderson could have faced a four Test ban but escaped without punishment
As such Richardson, a trained lawyer himself, saw no benefit to a challenge.
“It was a complicated and sensitive matter relating to charges brought against two players at different levels of the ICC Code of Conduct,” Richardson noted.
“There appears to have been vastly conflicting evidence on both sides, with a total of 13 witnesses who gave testimony.
“After carefully considering the decision by Gordon Lewis, whose vast experience was invaluable to the process over recent weeks, we believe that no further purpose would be served by prolonging the process through further appeal proceedings.
“The disciplinary procedures were robust and transparent and all parties had ample opportunity to ask questions, test the evidence and make submissions.
“We have determined that there is no merit in an appeal and that it would not be in the best interest of the sport to take such action.”