The testimony of Geoffrey Boycott, one of the expert witnesses for the defence, proved crucial in clearing Pakistan skipper Inzamam-ul Haq of ball-tampering, British media claimed on Wednesday.

The testimony of the former England [Images] captain, and also that of Channel Five TV analyst Simon Hughes, proved sufficiently convincing for ICC [Images] adjudicator Ranjan Madugalle to arrive at the conclusion that the Pakistan team did not alter the condition of the ball, The Guardian stated.

Also read: Text of ICC's verdict on Inzamam
- Hair will not umpire at Champions Trophy

"Boycott in particular delivered a veritable tour de force. At one point, he took the infamous match ball in his hand, held it up and said: "That's a good ball, not just a playable ball," it said.

Boycott also took exception to the idea that an accusation of cheating should be tolerated.

"If me or any of my friends were ever called a cheat," he told the hearing, the accuser would be "decked with a bunch of fives".

The former England opener "invoked the spirit of the game" with passion, while Hughes, a former county player, gave evidence in support of Boycott's position that the ball had not been tampered with.

Hughes was enlisted as a witness by the Pakistan team's lawyers because of his distinguished expertise on condition of cricket balls.

In spectacular fashion, and to the consternation of many, Hughes produced two other balls bearing remarkably similar traces of wear and tear to the match ball from the fourth Test.

There was nothing about the ball that should excite suspicion, he argued.

He then presented a deliberately tampered ball, replete with scuff marks and abrasions, to demonstrate the distinction.

The report said that although both umpires, Darrell Hair and Billy Doctrove, appeared well rehearsed and furnished rigorous evidence, there were appreciable discrepancies in their accounts, in particular regarding what was said to the England batsmen on the fourth day at the Oval.

Under cross-examination, Hair was asked at length about the procedure he had followed in changing the ball when he suspected it had been altered. The evidence was important in so far as it made plain whether the umpires followed proper protocol.

Trevor Jesty, the fourth umpire and former Hampshire all-rounder, was summoned next and offered brief details on the condition of the ball and what happened on and off the field.

The prosecution concluded its presentation of evidence with Doug Cowie, the ICC umpires and referees manager. Like Jesty, Cowie concentrated on issues surrounding the condition of the ball and events on and off the field.

It was then the turn of the legal team representing the Pakistan Cricket Board from the elite law firm, DLA Piper, to call their expert witnesses.

Shaharyar Khan, the chairman of PCB and former foreign secretary of Pakistan, initiated the evidence for the defence.

Khan was alternately indignant and impassioned, the daily said. He explained why the charge of ball-tampering had aroused anger in Pakistan, and chronicled the team's history of difficulties with Hair.

Inzamam then advanced his version of events. The Pakistan captain appeared confident and spoke through an interpreter.

He was asked probing questions for an extended period of time, during which he conceded a statement of regret for his act of protest.

Bob Woolmer [Images], the Pakistan coach and former England batsman, followed Inzamam.

Under cross-examination by Pushpinder Saini, a barrister at Blackstone Chambers and one of the most esteemed non-QCs in the country, Woolmer reaffirmed his view that ball-tampering

should be allowed in cricket and there should be a change in the present laws, the newspaper claimed.

The Pakistan coach also averred that if a team is accused of cheating, "then someone's got to tell them why".

John Hampshire, an experienced former cricketer and Test umpire, was the final expert witness of the day.

Saini, representing the ICC, proceeded at some length, insisting that there was "overwhelming evidence" that the ball had been tampered with and that existent marks "were not trivial".

Saini also sought to reassure the hearing that umpires Hair and Doctrove had not "got it in for the Pakistan team".

In his closing remarks lawyer Mark Gay, acting for the Pakistan team, argued that the umpires had acted upon a too-literal interpretation of law 42.3, the law relating to ball-tampering.

Madugalle, the chief adjudicator, then withdrew from the hearing and later gave his verdict clearing Inzamam of ball-tampering but penalising him for having brought the game into disrepute.