Kevin Pietersen Accepts Settlement from Specsavers over Advert
The batsman was at the centre of a cheating allegation in the summer, when Channel 9 News in Australia accused batsmen of tampering with their bats to avoid detection on the decision review system (DRS). Players from both sides were implicated, though all denied it.
At the time, this writer suggested that Pietersen's angry response was justified:
Horrible journalism yet again! My name brought up in hotspot crisis suggesting I use silicon to prevent nicks showing! Such hurtful lies..👎— Kevin Pietersen (@KP24) August 7, 2013
I am never afraid of getting out! If I nick it, I'll walk.. To suggest I cheat by covering my bat with silicon infuriates me..— Kevin Pietersen (@KP24) August 7, 2013
How stupid would I be to try & hide a nick when it could save me on an LBW appeal, like in 1st innings where hotspot showed I nicked it..
— Kevin Pietersen (@KP24) August 7, 2013
Specsavers, whose "should have gone to Specsavers" strapline has become very popular in the UK over a series of campaigns, took advantage of the controversy over the DRS and the fact that the edges were being missed by technology.
But having already apologised for the ad directly to Pietersen for any implication that the batsman himself was cheating the system via Twitter earlier this month, a legal claim has now been settled:
Sorry Kevin Pietersen for distress caused by our #SHGTS ad which suggested he tampered with his bat in the Ashes. We accept this isn't so.— Specsavers (@Specsavers) October 1, 2013
Pietersen was not present at the hearing at the High Court in London, the BBC report adds.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?