NEW DELHI: Sachin Tendulkar has rejected BCCI's remark that his alleged Conflict of Interest falls beneath "tractable category", terming the mother or father body "responsible for the current situation" coming up because of his role as a member of the Cricket Advisory Committee and an 'Icon' of Mumbai Indians.
In fact, Tendulkar in his 13-point response to BCCI Ethics Officer DK Jain has asked him to name Committee of Administrators (CoA) chief Vinod Rai and CEO Rahul Johri to "clarify their position".
According to the BCCI's constitution clause 38 (3) (a): "Tractable conflicts are those that are resolvable or permissible or excusable through recusal of the individual concerned and - or - with full disclosure of the interest involved".
All 3 CAC individuals -- Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman + -- have been served notices by the Ombudsman cum Ethics officer DK Jain and all 3 have rejected any conflict of pastime in their initial affidavits.
However what seems to have angered the mythical cricketer is BCCI CEO Johri's letter (in session with CoA) to Jain the place identical to Ganguly, Tendulkar's issue has additionally been termed as a case of "tractable Conflict of Interest", a rivalry that the iconic cricketer firmly rejected.
The maximum pertinent issues the place Tendulkar has given a robust rebuttal are issues 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 mentioned in his response.
Just like Laxman, Tendulkar additionally reiterated that neither the CEO nor the CoA had ever clarified the phrases of reference in terms of his appointment in CAC.
"The Noticee (Tendulkar) has over and over sought clarification from the BCCI on the scope of his role within the CAC - however has no longer gained a response from BCCI till date. BCCI is aware that the CAC merely plays an advisory / recommendatory role - and therefore, the Noticee's role as a Mumbai Indians Icon (which actually has always been within the public area) can not, in any practical means, conflict along with his involvement within the CAC.
What has perhaps irked Tendulkar is BCCI's contradictory stand which he has specified in point No 12.
"The Noticee fails to know how the BCCI (after having appointed him to the CAC) can now deal with its current stand that he's in a position of 'tractable' conflict of pastime. The BCCI Response does no longer explain this variance in its stance and the Noticee requests the Hon'ble Ethics Officer to name upon BCCI Officials, Mr. Rahul Johri and Mr. Vinod Rai to explain this position."
Tendulkar additionally identified how he had recused himself from recruitment strategy of the national U-19 variety committee as his son Arjun was a contender within the colts workforce.
"It is critical to note that the Noticee had specifically written to the BCCI in appreciate of the possible conflict of pastime that may have arisen within the aforesaid situation," he wrote referring to that individual situation.
What has harm Tendulkar is the truth that he's being asked questions regardless of serving Indian cricket for 20 years.
"The Noticee has served the Indian cricket workforce for more than 2 decades and accepted empanelment with the CAC to help and give a contribution in opposition to the growth of Indian cricket. It is unfortunate that the Noticee has to explain the questions raised within the Complaint and BCCI Response.
"The Noticee repeats that BCCI is responsible for the situation created in terms of the Noticee's honorary empanelment to the CAC even though he was a Mumbai Indians Icon at the relevant time. The BCCI shall be called upon to clarify the issue," Tendulkar additionally mentioned in his response.
In fact, Tendulkar in his 13-point response to BCCI Ethics Officer DK Jain has asked him to name Committee of Administrators (CoA) chief Vinod Rai and CEO Rahul Johri to "clarify their position".
According to the BCCI's constitution clause 38 (3) (a): "Tractable conflicts are those that are resolvable or permissible or excusable through recusal of the individual concerned and - or - with full disclosure of the interest involved".
All 3 CAC individuals -- Tendulkar, Sourav Ganguly and VVS Laxman + -- have been served notices by the Ombudsman cum Ethics officer DK Jain and all 3 have rejected any conflict of pastime in their initial affidavits.
However what seems to have angered the mythical cricketer is BCCI CEO Johri's letter (in session with CoA) to Jain the place identical to Ganguly, Tendulkar's issue has additionally been termed as a case of "tractable Conflict of Interest", a rivalry that the iconic cricketer firmly rejected.
The maximum pertinent issues the place Tendulkar has given a robust rebuttal are issues 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 mentioned in his response.
Just like Laxman, Tendulkar additionally reiterated that neither the CEO nor the CoA had ever clarified the phrases of reference in terms of his appointment in CAC.
"The Noticee (Tendulkar) has over and over sought clarification from the BCCI on the scope of his role within the CAC - however has no longer gained a response from BCCI till date. BCCI is aware that the CAC merely plays an advisory / recommendatory role - and therefore, the Noticee's role as a Mumbai Indians Icon (which actually has always been within the public area) can not, in any practical means, conflict along with his involvement within the CAC.
What has perhaps irked Tendulkar is BCCI's contradictory stand which he has specified in point No 12.
"The Noticee fails to know how the BCCI (after having appointed him to the CAC) can now deal with its current stand that he's in a position of 'tractable' conflict of pastime. The BCCI Response does no longer explain this variance in its stance and the Noticee requests the Hon'ble Ethics Officer to name upon BCCI Officials, Mr. Rahul Johri and Mr. Vinod Rai to explain this position."
Tendulkar additionally identified how he had recused himself from recruitment strategy of the national U-19 variety committee as his son Arjun was a contender within the colts workforce.
"It is critical to note that the Noticee had specifically written to the BCCI in appreciate of the possible conflict of pastime that may have arisen within the aforesaid situation," he wrote referring to that individual situation.
What has harm Tendulkar is the truth that he's being asked questions regardless of serving Indian cricket for 20 years.
"The Noticee has served the Indian cricket workforce for more than 2 decades and accepted empanelment with the CAC to help and give a contribution in opposition to the growth of Indian cricket. It is unfortunate that the Noticee has to explain the questions raised within the Complaint and BCCI Response.
"The Noticee repeats that BCCI is responsible for the situation created in terms of the Noticee's honorary empanelment to the CAC even though he was a Mumbai Indians Icon at the relevant time. The BCCI shall be called upon to clarify the issue," Tendulkar additionally mentioned in his response.
Conflict of Interest: Sachin says BCCI responsible for this situation
![Conflict of Interest: Sachin says BCCI responsible for this situation]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
May 06, 2019
Rating:
