Kevin Pietersen wins libel damages against Specsavers after they implied he was a cheat
ENGLAND batsman and general talented poser, Kevin Pietersen, has accepted a large but undisclosed amount of money for libel damages after a Specsavers advert implied he may have tampered with his bat during this summer’s Ashes series against Australia.
Pietersen took action against the wacky optician over the “serious and defamatory allegation” and the case was taken to the High Court.
During England’s 3-0 Ashes win, Australia’s Channel 9 news claimed the International Cricket Council were going to investigate claims that players were putting tape on their bats in an attempt to trick the Hot Spot technology.
Aussie TV focused on Pietersen’s third Test dismissal, when the England man was given out caught behind, although Hot Spot didn’t show any edge at all.
And so, bat tampering claims started flying around, and subsequently ridiculed, with the England and Wales Cricket board receiving an apology from Channel 9.
Alas, Specsavers made fun of the whole thing and Pietersen’s solicitor Louise Prince told Mr Justice Tugendhat that a “Should’ve gone to Specsavers” advert, published online and in the trad.arr. press saying “‘Bat tampering’ in the #Ashes? Apparently Hot Spot should’ve gone to Specsavers”, and featured a picture of Pietersen, and that isn’t on.
Specsavers Optical Group Ltd accepted that Pietersen did not behave in the manner suggested, said they were sorry and threw a load of money at the problem until it went away.
A Specsavers statement said:
“During the 2013 Ashes series we published a ‘Should’ve Gone to Specsavers’ advert which suggested that Kevin Pietersen may have tampered with his bat in an attempt to prevent Hot Spot technology working. We did not intend to imply this suggestion. We accept that this allegation is untrue and that Kevin Pietersen did not tamper with his bat. We apologise unreservedly for any distress and embarrassment our advert has caused to Kevin Pietersen. We have removed the advert from circulation.”
Specsavers didn’t intend to imply that Pietersen tampered with his bat? What were they implying then? Maybe Specsavers should’ve gone to joke writing school.