Board of Control for Contradictions in India - Is BCCI distorting public opinion?

Justice Mudgal Committee’s report says no action was taken against ‘Individual 3’ (not named) by N Srinivasan and other BCCI officials. Now BCCI has claimed that the player was ‘orally reprimanded’ back then.

BCCI has filed an affadavit in the Supreme Court, refuting the findings of the Justic Mudgal Committee, which said that no action was taken against a particular player (not named and only called ‘Individual 3’ in the report) despite a violation of Code of Conduct.

According to the Mudgal Committee report, “This individual (Srinivasan, referred to as Individual 13 in the report) along with four other BCCI officials was aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct by Individual 3 (unnamed player), but no action was taken against Individual 3 by any of the aforesaid officials who were aware of this infraction.”

However, on Thursday, BCCI claimed in the Supreme Court that the player was “orally reprimanded”.

Who is ‘Individual 3’?

Now what the BCCI could not imagine was the extent of their dichotomy that would be exposed by such actions. The matter, as widely reported by various media organisations, dates back to 2010 when a Team India and Chennai Super Kings player was found in the company of a woman with close links to bookies.

While a lot of water has flown under the bridge since then, this player, referred to as ‘Individual 3’ in the Mudgal Probe Panel report, was allegedly shielded by president-in-exile, N. Srinivasan (who was Board Secretary then) and four other top BCCI officials, as mentioned in the findings. What is equally alarming is how a direct breach of ICC’s laws on anti-corruption never got disclosed and was a big hush up in Indian cricketing circles.

But not anymore, according to highly placed sources who opened up to more than just one newspaper, the player is believed to be someone in the Indian Test squad to Australia. And, this makes me want to go back to a specific episode in 2010, in Sri Lanka, that involved the player and an unknown woman, who was passed off as his agent.

Contradictory claims by BCCI

Apart from this magical coincidence, what stood out in that episode was BCCI’s defence of the player’s misdemenour. Back then, the PTI reported, ‘BCCI trashes report of cricketer accompanying bookie-linked woman’ on 24th October, 2010.

In the report, BCCI Vice President Mr. Rajiv Shukla said, “That (report) is untrue and baseless. It's all rubbish. No complaint had ever come to BCCI from either the ICC or SLC. BCCI had never received any complaint on this matter. Actually, the lady is his agent.”

Buoyed by the absence of hindsight, Shukla went onto add the exact nature of the duo’s meeting – “He was with the lady to sign some papers and complete formalities. She was also agent of some Sri Lankan players. It has nothing to do with any anti-corruption matter or any matter outside cricket,” he said. He also toed the rhetoric of the confusion being caused due to media speculation.

Fast forward to 2014, and ‘Individual 3’ who in all likelihood is indeed the Team India star (the similarities can’t be mere coincidences), has been “reprimanded” by the BCCI in an affadavit submitted to the highest court of the land. So, it brings us to one question, who was the woman? If she indeed was the player’s agent and if he had committed no crime in signing a few papers, then why was he orally reprimanded by the very same BCCI that claimed on record, that nothing was wrong.

Or were there two women? While, this might seem very improbable, the truth is that BCCI is now trying to cover up for its inaction in 2010. When a serious matter like Indian cricketers fraternizing with individuals linked to bookies should’ve been dealt with openly, they chose to brush it under the carpet. And now that the episode has come back to haunt them, they are distorting public opinion and lying brazenly, contradicting themselves.

This reminds me of the board’s first response in alienating the maligned, Gurunath Meiyappan from the affairs of the Chennai franchise, by calling him a mere ‘Cricket enthusiast’ – that backfired and so has this.