His action was cleared. Suggesting otherwise is a bit racist.
No. Suggesting he was only allowed to bowl because he was brown and that an English or Australian bowler with the same action would've been banned in a heartbeat would be a bit racist.*
No. Suggesting he was only allowed to bowl because he was brown and that an English or Australian bowler with the same action would've been banned in a heartbeat would be a bit racist.*
*Albeit true, obviously.
I think you could argue that isn't racist either.
Anyway, I think his action was ok. Probably. Possibly.