The Board Of Control For Cricket In India (BCCI)
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
Mudgal report
Srini knew of code breach, IPL COO of betting, both kept mum: Mudgal
TIMES NEWS NETWORK The Times of India
Nov 18 2014
`Kundra Took Player To Bookie; CSK Official Meiyappan Guilty Of Betting' BCCI Battle Hinges On SC's Nov 24 Order
The Supreme Court-appointed Justice Mudgal panel has said ICC chief N Srinivasan was not involved in betting or match fixing in the Indian Premier League and did not attempt to scuttle investigations into match fixing. However, it also said that Srinivasan and four other BCCI officials were aware of violations of the players' code of conduct by an unnamed person identified as `Individual 3', but did nothing about it. The panel has also reiterated that Srinivasan's sonin-law, Gurunath Meiyappan, was involved in betting and was indeed a “team official“ of Chennai Super Kings. Srinivasan, it may be recalled, had said that Meiyappan was only a “cricket enthusiast“ and had no role in the CSK management.
The strongest statements in the panel's report have been reserved for Rajasthan Royals' co-owner Raj Kundra. The report states that Kundra “was in touch with bookies about betting, and by not reporting this has violated the BCCIIPL anti-cor ruption code“. It adds that one of Kundra's friends was a known punter and has given a statement that he placed bets on behalf of Kundra.This punter has also claimed that Kundra introduced him to another bookie who dealt with larger stakes. Further, the report quotes a player as having said that Kundra introduced him to a bookie. IPL chief operating officer Sundar Raman was held guilty of being aware of Meiyappan and Kundra's betting activity but taking no action on it or even informing anybody ostensibly because the chief of the ICC's anticorruption squad told him that the information he had was “not actionable“.
Is Sundar just an IPL numbers whiz or there's more
K ShriniwasRao Sundar Raman is called many things in the world of cricket: a number-crunching wiz, moneymaking machine, marketing genius, proven media consultant and even a wannabe commentator. But one thing he has never been called: a link between the big bettors in the game and illegal bookmakers. On Monday, when the Supreme Court made certain parts of the Mudgal Committee report public, and he was decreed to have been `in touch with a contact of a bookmaker eight times during the last Indian Premier League (IPL) season' everybody assumed the worst.
There was, however, hardly a flutter on his officially accredited Twitter handle, nor did he say anything to defend himself or clear his name.Those who have his ear only said that he was vainly trying to figure out why exactly his face was being flashed on TV screens along with words like `betting' and `fixing'.
“What does the (Mudgal) report say about him,' asked one of Sundar's associates. “Does it say that he was in touch with bookmakers? No.“
The report says (verbatim): `This individual (Raman) knew of a contact of a bookie and had contacted him eight times in one season. This individual admitted knowing the con tact 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 Individ ual 1 (Gurunath Meiyappan) and In dividual 11 (Raj Kundra) taking part in betting activities but was informed by the ICC-ACSU chief by the ICC-ACSU chief that this was not actionable information.' That contact is TV actor and former reality show contestant Vindoo Dara Singh who has been investigated by the Mumbai crime branch for his alleged role in spot-fixing.
Those who know Sundar's style of working say “meeting all kinds of peo ple“ is his job. “He has to be in touch with cricketers, administrators, ground staff, hotel staff, VIP guests, match officials, sponsors, advertisers and many more. That's his job.But he can't keep a personal tab on everyone he meets,“ they say .
Vindoo would arrive at IPL matches in elite company where the possibility of him and Sundar meeting socially was always a possibility . “Does that mean he revealed information to bookmakers? “ they ask.
As the Supreme Court further hears the matter, Sundar's friends say his lawyers will study the report and file their reply.
Those who've tracked IPL's progress during its most feverish phase between 2008 to 2010, when it changed the very complexion of the game worlrwide -will know of a swanky 36th floor makeshift office in a five-star luxury hotel in Mumbai from where Sundar and Lalit Modi operated. Those were days when the perception was that the two league-runners were each other's closest confidantes.
How Sundar survived in the aftermath of BCCI suspending Modi, and how he went on to become Modi's arch-rival N Srinivasan's closest colleague in cricket administration is still something outsiders cannot fathom. But neither Modi nor Srini vasan would deny the ability of the man boss of the 3 billion dollar league for all practical purposes to make money and infuse fresh en ergy into the game. Sundar has been called many things by his adver saries: arrogant, prejudiced, op portunistic and maybe more. No body dared call him corrupt, though, until the Mudgal report mentioned his name last week. Time will tell if even that is actually a case of the media jumping to the wrong con clusion or if there's more.
KUNDRA STRICTURE ADDS TO ROYALS' TROUBLES
It used to be among IPL spot-fixing scandal's juiciest gossips how and why Rajasthan police stopped investigating Rajasthan Royals co owner Raj Kundra in June last year after Delhi police had grilled him for close to 11 hours and the Mudgal Committee had mentioned him in its investigations.
More than a year later, the string of “gossips“ find a serious mention in the report submitted by the Mudgal panel to the Supreme Court, which was made public on Monday. Kundra and his wife, actor Shilpa Shetty, co-own 11.7% stake in Rajasthan Royals, which they bought in 2009. They were invited by the franchise to add glamour to the side. However, if their acrimony with the BCCI in the following years owing to Lalit Modi's association with one of the franchise's co-owners wasn't enough, Kundra's name being dragged into the betting scandal has made life difficult for the Jaipur-based team.
The year Royals enjoyed their biggest high in the IPL, 2008, was the only time Kundra and Shetty weren't around. Their marriage and buying of the RR stake both happened in 2009. His work profile at present lists his interests in real-estate, mild-steel production, stock-broking and interests in a sports and media company.
IT COULD GET TOUGHER FOR MEIYAPPAN
Gurunath Meiyappan's most popularly tweeted picture in recent times would have to be the one in which he's seen enjoying a day off with his friend on a private yacht somewhere in the seas down south. They're enjoying a drink and the picture is a postcard of serenity.
Back on land though, life hasn't been so easy for BCCI chief N Srinivasan's son-in law who's been clean bowled by the Mudgal Committee report. Coming from a family n of notable repute -the AVM production house -Guru's production house -Guru's enthusiasm to be associated with his father-in-law's cricket franchise has brought him and his family a great deal of trouble.
“If he's guilty, action will be taken,“ Srinivasan had said when preliminary investigations had revealed Guru's interests in betting on the game.There was an effort to hide his identity as Chennai Super Kings' Team Principal, a fact that has been brought to light once again in the Mudgal report.
None of the other names from the Mudgal report that were released on Monday has gone through any forensic investigation either, barring Guru. His yacht picture is a far cry from that frenzied evening at the crime branch in Mumbai, where he was first questioned about the IPL spot-fixing scandal. Since then, Guru has stayed far away from the spotlight.
The findings about Srinivasan could provide ammunition to both his supporters and detractors in the jostling for power within the BCCI. While the supporters would be keen to pounce on the “clean chit“ given on his involvement in betting or fixing, the detractors may point out that he has been held guilty of not acting against a corrupt player and his claim about Meiyappan not being a CSK team official has been proved wrong.
Regarding Kundra, the Mudgal report adds that investigation against Kundra was “abruptly and without reason stopped by Rajasthan Police upon receiving the case papers from Delhi Police.“ If the charges against Kundra are upheld by the Supreme Court, Rajasthan Royals could face severe action, including a possible ban, under IPL rules.
Responding to the report, Kundra told journalists, “Let's wait till the 24th (November, when the Supreme Court is scheduled to de clare its verdict in the case), everything will be clear. You will be happy , don't worry. It's sub judice. Let's wait. Let the court take their calculated decisions after I put forward my facts.“
About Meiyappan, the report states, “Investigations have confirmed that he was a team official of a franchisee. He was frequently meeting `Individual 2' (an identity that the report doesn't disclose) in his hotel room.“ It adds, “...the finding about his betting activities and the finding that he was a team official stand confirmed.“ However, it gives Meiyappan a clean chit with regard to match fixing, saying there is no material available on record to show that he was involved in manipulating matches.
As directed by the apex court, the portions of the report made public on Monday do not contain the names of any players. The reference to Srinivasan along with four other BCCI officials being “aware of the violation of the Players Code of Conduct by Individual 3“ but not acting on it makes it seem likely that `Individual 3' is a player, though what his violation was is not spelt out.
The code of conduct is a sprawling set of rules that cover everything from breach of clothing regulations to match fixing and any activity that brings the game into disrepute.
