MUMBAI: After the roasting delivered to the Committee of Administrators (more specifically CoA chairman Vinod Rai) and the BCCI (more specifically BCCI chief executive and Rai’s point person Rahul Johri) by former Indian cricketer VVS Lakshman over his membership in the defunct Cricket Advisory Committee comes one that carries a whole lot more heft.
Sachin Tendulkar has rejected outright the observation made by the BCCI that his alleged onflict of interest comes under ‘tractable category’. The “god” of Indian cricket has given a 13-point reply to BCCI ombudsman-cum-ethics officer Justice (retd) DK Jain and “requested” him to summon Rai and Johri to “clarify their position”.
All three CAC members – Tendulkar (associated with MI), Sourav Ganguly (associated with DC) and VVS Laxman (associated with SRH) – have been summoned by Jain and have rejected any conflict of interest in their individual responses.
However it is Johri’s letter to Jain (in consultation with Rai), where Tendulkar’s issue has also been termed under the ‘tractable conflict of interest’ category, similar to that of Ganguly, that has angered the cricketing great.
Tendulkar in his 13-point response has given a strong rebuttal in points number 10, 11 and 12.
“Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Noticee submits that it is surprising that the BCCI, being the very authority responsible for the Noticee’s empanelment to the Cricket Advisory Committee (“CAC”), is presently taking a position that the Noticee is exposed to an alleged conflict of interest. It is reiterated that, the Noticee was declared as the Mumbai Indians ‘ICON’ post his retirement in 2013, which was much prior to his appointment to the CAC in 2015,” Tendulkar has stated in his response.
Tendulkar, similar to that of Laxman, has stated that neither the CoA or the CEO has ever clarified the terms of reference with regards to his appointment in CAC.
“The Noticee (Tendulkar) has time and again sought clarification from the BCCI on the scope of his role in the CAC – but has not received a response from BCCI till date. BCCI is aware that the CAC merely performs an advisory / recommendatory role – and therefore, the Noticee’s role as a Mumbai Indians Icon (which in fact has always been in the public domain) cannot, in any practical way, conflict with his involvement in the CAC.
What has also irked Tendulkar is BCCI’s contradictory stand on the issue.
“The Noticee fails to understand how the BCCI (after having appointed him to the CAC) can now maintain its current stand that he is in a position of ‘tractable’ conflict of interest. The BCCI Response does not clarify this variance in its stance and the Noticee requests the Hon’ble Ethics Officer to call upon BCCI Officials, Mr. Rahul Johri and Mr. Vinod Rai to clarify this position.”
Tendulkar also highlighted that questions were being raised against him despite having serving Indian cricket for over 20 years.
“The Noticee has served the Indian cricket team for more than 2 decades and accepted empanelment with the CAC to help and contribute towards the growth of Indian cricket. It is unfortunate that the Noticee has to clarify the questions raised in the Complaint and BCCI Response.
Tendulkar has also pointed out how he had recused himself from recruitment process of the national U-19 selection committee as his son Arjun was a contender in the colts team. “It is critical to note that the Noticee had specifically written to the BCCI in respect of the potential conflict of interest that could have arisen in the aforesaid scenario,” Tendulkar wrote in his letter.
