New Delhi, Nov. 17: N. Srinivasan, who presides over the global cricket establishment, knew of at least one "violation" by a player but did not act, a panel appointed by the Supreme Court has held.

 

The Mudgal panel probing allegations of betting and match-fixing in the IPL has held that Srinivasan's close aide and tournament chief operating officer Sundar Raman knew about but overlooked the betting allegations.

 

It has confirmed the betting charges against Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan and accused Rajasthan Royals co-owner Raj Kundra of betting or at least "standing guarantee for his punter friends".

 

The Royals' continuation in the IPL is at risk now. Clause 11.3(c) of the IPL franchise agreement says the deal can be terminated if any owner acts in a way that adversely affects the reputation or standing of the league, BCCI, team or the game.

 

But the panel has exonerated Srinivasan from involvement in match-fixing or "scuttling the investigations into match-fixing". But these charges had anyway not been brought against him by the Cricket Association of Bihar, the petitioner in the Supreme Court.

 

The Mudgal panel has said "no material is available on record" to show Gurunath was involved in "match-fixing" - the preferred term in the report that makes no mention of "spot-fixing".

 

Twenty-four of the report's 35 pages were given to the four officials, the petitioner and the Indian cricket board today, leaving out the 11 pages that dealt with the investigation against nine players.

 

These 24 pages do not specify the "violation" Srinivasan allegedly knew of, beyond saying it was a transgression of the "Players Code of Conduct" by an unnamed individual.

 

Sources suggested the "violation" referred to betting and passing crucial information to bookies.

 

The three-member panel has rejected a statement to the Supreme Court by Srinivasan that Gurunath was a mere cricket enthusiast.

 

It has said the son-in-law was indeed a "team official" of IPL franchise Chennai Super Kings - associated with India Cements where Srinivasan is managing director - and was, therefore, subject to the IPL's operational rules.

 

Further, it has unanimously concluded that the voice samples in taped conversations with an alleged betting facilitator belonged to Gurunath.

 

Before today, the apex court had referred merely to "some misdemeanour" by the officials and players probed. The player names haven't been revealed yet.

 


 

Today, much of the interest focused on portions of the report that mentioned "individual 2" and "individual 3". "Individual 3" is a player since the report says he violated the players' code. "Individual 2" also appears to be a player unless the report mentions a third group other than players and officials. The next hearing is on November 24.

 

Following are excerpts from what the report describes as "final conclusions of the committee":

 

"(a) Individual 1 (Gurunath): Investigations have confirmed that this individual was a team official of a franchisee. He was frequently meeting individual 2 in his hotel room....

 

"...Due to the scientific evidence of voice matching and the testimony of security personnel... the finding about the betting activities of Individual 1 and the finding that he was a team official stand confirmed.

 

"Individual 11 (Kundra): This individual was in touch with the bookies about betting and thus by not reporting contact with the bookie has violated BCCI/IPL anti-corruption code. The committee also found that the investigation against this individual was abruptly and without reason stopped by the Rajasthan police upon receiving the case papers from Delhi police.

 

"...A friend of individual 11 was a known punter. The said punter has given a Section 164 statement to the effect that he was placing bets on behalf of individual 11. (Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with statements given before a judicial magistrate, which have high value as evidence in court cases.)

 

"Individual 11 has introduced him (punter) to another bookie who dealt with larger stakes. Section 161 statement (before a police officer and not having much value as evidence unless corroborated by other evidence) made by another player confirmed that individual introduced him to a bookie.

 

"Materials on record indicate that individual 11 was placing bets or was, at the minimum, standing guarantee for his punter friends.

 

"Individual 12 (Raman): This individual knew a contact of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in one season. This individual admitted knowing the contact of the bookies but, however, claimed to be unaware of his connection with betting activities.

 

"This individual also accepted that he had received information about individual 1 and individual 11 taking part in betting activities but was informed by the ICC/ACSU (anti-corruption unit) chief that this was not actionable information. This individual also accepted that this information was not conveyed to any other individual.

 

"Individual 13 (Srinivasan): This individual is not involved with match-fixing activity. This individual was not found to be involved in scuttling the investigations into match-fixing.

 

"This individual, along with four other BCCI officials, was aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct by Individual 3, but no action was taken against Individual 3 by any of the aforesaid officials who were aware of this infraction."


No comments:
Post a Comment