Exactly my point , If England wanted to stay within the spirit of the game and still wanted to hire Farbrace then they could have
1. Offer the job after the series
or
2.Hire him but sit him out of Sri Lanka series to play fair.
I don't think I have to explain how crucial it is for a head coach to jump sides just before an important series like this (it was important series at least for Sri Lankans) .
He knew most of the strengths and weaknesses about current SL players , he was the one SL players trusted to discuss their strengths and weaknesses only two- three weeks ago. So now he is sitting in England dressing room and feeding all that info to the opposition.
He knows about recent inside team tactics which Sri Lankan team use in crunch situations, now he is feeding that information to English players.
Timing was too soon for him to change sides , so it was highly unethical and not within the spirit of the game , but still within rules and that is how things works in professional sports these days.
That was the point I was trying to make.
I appreciate what you are saying BUT...
1) Why hire him after the series when he could be such a valuable asset during it
2) Sitting him out of the series would be ridiculous as he is on the payroll so needs to earn his wage.
I fully agree that a change in head coach is huge but that's just life I guess. People make decisions all over the world in all walks of life linked to their place of work and unfortunately this is just another. With regards to it being 'unethical' and not within the 'spirit of the game' I'm not so sure. It isn't like he is on the field with the players. yes information can be passed over but you still have to be good enough to execute a plan. I see your point but don't think it fits under the umbrella of ethics and spirit of the game.
Finally if yourself or the Sri Lankan team were so concerned about what is ethically right should Senanayake be withdrawn from bowling because there is the possibility he has a 'suspect' action? Ethically if there was a chance it wasn't suitable surely taking the moral high ground and saying sorry but you aren't going to bowl until we can get you tested and cleared......They wouldn't do that and neither would I in their shoes because as with most things, you are innocent until proven guilty.
I don't think much of what is being discussed can be brought under the ethics umbrella in my opinion but without doubt some of what you are saying definitely has an impact and could be deemed unfair but unfortunately that's just timing and perhaps a clever move from the ECB in an attempt to try and find immediate success (Obviously didn't work enough in the ODI's so I wouldn't be too disheartened if I were you)