Seems that this topic is a two-header, meaning, we seem to be mixing oil and water. I see it like this:
1. Results Based, solely.
2. Who was the better ambassador for the game
IMO these are wo different debates.
Just this point: As Probert seems to be the sentimental favorite then the following must be applied: Since most are willing to overlook Probertís indiscretions then equal justice must be applied to Brash. Probertís selfish behavior for whatever reason was a detriment to his team/organization, no question. Same for Brashear, whatever annoying traits he possessed that inhibited him from being the best for his team should be tossed as with Probie. If you want to have the argument who was the better ambassador for the game, well we can have that debate. I really think the focus of this particular debate should be results based.
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the decision that something else is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever, but the cautious do not live at all." Fear always springs from ignorance."
-Ralph Waldo Emerson