THE first murmurings started while the investigation was ongoing, a sense of unease at where this was all heading. That discomfort grew even more pronounced after the Changing The Boundaries report was published last summer in all its 52-page glory, as many with a deep, personal history woven into the game found themselves staring at a picture of Scottish cricket being presented to them that they simply didn’t and couldn’t recognise.

The charge of “institutional racism” tainted everyone connected to Cricket Scotland, an organisation without an HR department that had been in dire need of modernisation and structural upheaval for quite some time. There was no doubt that sporadic acts of racist behaviour were still being experienced in certain unenlightened corners and that players of Asian subcontinent descent were being marginalised when it came to filling more senior, administrative positions within the sport. Neither issue was acceptable and needed to change.

It was the excoriating castigation of Scottish cricket as a whole, however, that stuck in the throats of those who had played, coached or officiated over many years. Was the situation as dire as Plan4 Sport, the consultancy that had carried out the investigation at sportscotland’s behest, had made out? That hadn’t been their experience.

Discontent has been kept private until now. Few, if any, of those unhappy have been willing to go on the record with their suspicions that this wasn’t all as clear-cut as the report had suggested. Grumblings about the decimation of Cricket Scotland and the enforced, long route back to restoration never reached the public domain.

Why the silence? A few reasons. When the day before the Changing The Boundaries report was published the entire Cricket Scotland board resigned en masse, it was the look of an organisation that knew it had dropped the ball, who had accepted the findings of the investigation without putting up any kind of public defence or offering up any caveats. That made it harder for anyone else to come out batting on their behalf.

The argument being forwarded now is that the Cricket Scotland directors had been railroaded into the whole thing by sportscotland and knew they could do little to influence the outcome. Their resignations were not an act of a guilty conscience but because they felt the suggested roadmap out of the turbulence was simply not workable.

There are other reasons for the collective silence in a situation where there has been little room for nuance or subtlety over the past 18 months. Criticising the methods being utilised during an anti-racism campaign is nigh impossible without one being labelled a racist in response. And those on the side vindicated by the report have not been slow to utilise social media to attack anyone brave enough to question any aspect of it.

Tony Brian’s decision, then, to put his head above the parapet may alter the discourse. The former chair of Cricket Scotland has, in a lengthy statement, questioned many aspects of Plan4Sport’s suitability for executing a report of this nature, queried their relationship with sportscotland, highlighted the key personnel who weren’t spoken to as part of the investigation, and also the lack of evidence presented so far related to the 448 complaints of a racist nature made in the course of the report.

Anjan Luthra, who succeeded Brian as chair before stepping down after just a few months after deeming the whole situation untenable, was among the first to comment on his predecessor’s observations.

“Tony has raised red flags on the report conduct,” he wrote on Twitter. “Subsequent to that, myself and former board members, also raised concerns around the mishandling of report findings due to potential conflicts.”

It will be instructive now to see if others feel suitably emboldened to make public their own misgivings about the way the investigation was carried out, which in turn would increase the spotlight on sportscotland and how they have handled what has become a sorry mess. There was little doubt that Scottish cricket had to clean up its act when it came to dealing with racism. But that doesn't mean that those in charge of the process shouldn't also deserve some scrutiny of their own.