The decision to allow Ben Stokes to resume his England career, immediately after he was charged with affray following an alleged incident in Bristol in September, is an appropriately muddled response to an issue that has tied English cricket in knots for the best part of four months.
You can tell from the ECB's statement that this was not a decision that they reached lightly. "A full Board discussion, in which all considerations were taken into account" sounds euphemistically like a bunfight, especially when you take into account the clear divisions in the ranks of the ECB's 13 board members that were reported by The Times on Monday.
On the one hand, there were the pragmatists (most notably, it seems, the top brass of Tom Harrison and Colin Graves) who recognise Stokes' huge and enduring value as both an England match-winner and an ECB "brand leader", and who have been adamant for several months now that his rehabilitation, as far as possible, should be conducted on the field.
On the other hand, those with little or no involvement in the board's day-to-day operations, such as the independent director, Lord Patel of Bradford, appear to have had more leeway to allow their objections to hold sway - and given that their number include, among others, a headteacher and a former deputy police commissioner - it's clear that those concerns will have been given a significant and solemn airing.
However, when push comes to shove in the cold, hard world of sports business, morality tends to play second fiddle to expediency, and it's been self-evident for months now that England have been itching to get their star turn back into the limelight.
After all, he's been named (with obvious caveats) in every England squad since his arrest was confirmed in September - most notably, of course, the Ashes, for which he was even retained as vice-captain until the publication of video purporting to show the incident made his retention for that series too hot an issue to countenance.
From that moment on, irrespective of the video's authenticity, the ECB's desire to ensure that England's best player was available for their biggest series of the year had to be over-ridden by the concerns that his presence, or rather the "circus" surrounding his presence, would have detracted from the main event and brought their sport into disrepute. With that in mind, it is telling that he is not being parachuted straight back into Australia for the start of the T20 triangular, but is being teed up for a lower-key landing in New Zealand later in the tournament.
But even in the midst of his Ashes exile, Stokes seemed to remain a phonecall away from a recall. There he was, hotfooting it to New Zealand on November 27, armed with an ECB no-objection certificate to play club cricket for Canterbury - and at the earliest possible juncture, it soon transpired, given that Avon and Somerset Police announced the conclusion of their investigation just two days later. And now, here he is, at the end of another 48-hour operational lag, being teed up for an international recall.
Perhaps the ECB have been taken aback by just how slowly the wheels of justice have been grinding during the past third of a year, though there was never any reason to believe that Stokes' high profile would be a reason to rush the process - quite the contrary, it could be argued. Nevertheless, their decision to slipstream the legal process by deferring any judgement until the CPS made the first move now leaves them wide open to accusations of hypocrisy.
Perhaps that is an unfair accusation to level at the board. Ultimately, the ECB have fallen back on that basic tenet of British law, that the accused are innocent until proven guilty - and Stokes' own statement on Monday, in which he signalled his intention to plead not guilty by welcoming the concurrent prosecution of two other suspects, Ryan Hale and Ryan Ali, was an open invitation for the bosses to back their man.
It appears that they may also have been swayed by legal advice - now that he has been officially charged, it could have been prejudicial to his trial were the ECB to extend his exile any longer, plus a potential restraint of trade.
But that question of morality still lingers in the background of this story - heightened, of course, by the fact that Stokes' primary employees are country, not club, which (rightly or wrongly) elevates his career from that of an ordinary sportsman to, for want of a better phrase, a national ambassador.
A precedent for this differentiation was set in 2000, when the Leeds United footballers, Jonathan Woodgate and Lee Bowyer, stood trial after being charged with grievous bodily harm and affray. They remained available for their club throughout the legal process, as indeed Stokes has in being cleared for his Canterbury stint and, it appears, for the IPL. However, Woodgate (who was ultimately found guilty of the latter charge) was suspended by England and missed both Euro 2000 and the 2002 World Cup.
But, with that in mind, it should also be recognised how much of a punishment Stokes has already served for a crime that a court of law may yet determine that he did not actually commit. For all of the lip service that can be paid to Test cricket in the modern T20-driven world, there is still little doubt that the Ashes remains the "pinnacle" for all English and Australian cricketers. Not only has Stokes been deselected from a series in which he would surely have played a central role, he has had to watch his team-mates get crushed 4-0 in his absence and, moreover, have their off-field activities subjected to a level of scrutiny that, as he has already acknowledged, would not have been the case but for his actions.
It's a short shelf life at the top for elite sportsmen - even the greatest allrounder in England's history, Ian Botham, was visibly past his prime by the age of 27, which will be Stokes' next birthday. There's no reason to believe he won't be at the very top of his game when England next tour Australia in 2021-22, but this is a winter he will never get back, and will unquestionably regret for the rest of his life.
As the ECB acknowledged, it would not be "fair, reasonable or proportionate for Ben Stokes to remain unavailable for a further indeterminate period". Whatever verdict is delivered by Bristol Magistrates' Court in the near future, few could deny that he's been significantly punished already.