Did BCCI ignore prior warnings of spot-fixing?
Demonstrators shout slogans as they hold a placard and posters of S Sreesanth during a protest in Ahmedabad.
What was supposed to remain in the realm of speculation and innuendo has now blown up in BCCI's face, with sordid details emerging from the modus operandi of spot fixing and the complicity of players.
Did the T20 League have it coming? Was the tournament's structure vulnerable from the beginning to nefarious elements, who it now appears were allowed to work their charm on susceptible players and systematically go about placing eyes and ears inside a team's inner core? Did BCCI ignore prior warnings of spot-fixing ?
Even as BCCI chief N Srinivasan scrambled to emphasize why the league was not "untenable", questions are being asked whether the arrest of these Rajasthan Royals players is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to performance fixing, if not result-manipulation.
The League has always had a love-hate reputation when it comes to conflict-ofinterest issues but what needs to be recalled is the issues the tournament has had with policing its own house. The bosses had initially ignored concerns from the ICC's Anti-Corruption Unit before allowing them 'entry' to police the tournament for a brief period. Last year the BCCI set up its own anti-corruption unit, roping in Ravi Sawani, a former head of the ACSU, as head. Clearly the body has not done enough, even in spite of handing out bans to certain fringe players following a TV sting in last year's edition.
This season has been abuzz with rumours even about team owners turning a blind eye to spot-fixing.
Whispers and snide remarks about spot fixing have gained ground since the India TV operation, following which MP pacer TP Sudhindra was handed a life ban and UP's Shalabh Srivastava banned for five years. In fact, there were similar rumours during the 2009 edition too.
Goa off-spinner Amit Yadav, MP batsman Mohnish Mishra and HP all-rounder Abhinav Bali were also handed one-year bans for "loose talk and unsubstantiated bragging" but in hindsight, should the BCCI have taken the sting more seriously and made it a police matter?
The one-year bans, after all, were lifted on Wednesday, a day before the Sreesanth story broke.
With Delhi police commissioner Neeraj Kumar on Thursday having to field questions on the implications of the spot-fixing saga and possible involvement of bigwigs, it is interesting to recall what Amit Yadav told India TV reporters last year when asked about the involvement of team owners.
Yadav was asked, "Franchise owner khud hi fix kar dete hai (franchise owners themselves fix matches)?" His reply was: "Kar dete hain (they do)... aapko meine bol diya ki bhai aaj rok kar pyar se khelna hai (suppose I tell you today you have to play a bit slowly)... ek aapko fix kar liya, ek middle order fix kar liya, bas ho gaya (fixing one more batsman is enough to get the job done)."
The sting had also revealed how bookies coerce susceptible players into bowling wides or no-balls, or playing defensively. Sudheendra revealed how he had been "directly" approached by bookies, and suggested how peer pressure plays a part since other players are doing it.
It could be all "loose talk and bragging" but did the BCCI do more harm by not initiating a police probe? The Sreesanth saga, after all, is bound to impact the credibility of the league. The next time you see a bowler overstepping, or a batsman using a towel or a team losing from a winning position, you might not know what to believe.
Did the T20 League have it coming? Was the tournament's structure vulnerable from the beginning to nefarious elements, who it now appears were allowed to work their charm on susceptible players and systematically go about placing eyes and ears inside a team's inner core? Did BCCI ignore prior warnings of spot-fixing ?
Even as BCCI chief N Srinivasan scrambled to emphasize why the league was not "untenable", questions are being asked whether the arrest of these Rajasthan Royals players is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to performance fixing, if not result-manipulation.
The League has always had a love-hate reputation when it comes to conflict-ofinterest issues but what needs to be recalled is the issues the tournament has had with policing its own house. The bosses had initially ignored concerns from the ICC's Anti-Corruption Unit before allowing them 'entry' to police the tournament for a brief period. Last year the BCCI set up its own anti-corruption unit, roping in Ravi Sawani, a former head of the ACSU, as head. Clearly the body has not done enough, even in spite of handing out bans to certain fringe players following a TV sting in last year's edition.
This season has been abuzz with rumours even about team owners turning a blind eye to spot-fixing.
Whispers and snide remarks about spot fixing have gained ground since the India TV operation, following which MP pacer TP Sudhindra was handed a life ban and UP's Shalabh Srivastava banned for five years. In fact, there were similar rumours during the 2009 edition too.
Goa off-spinner Amit Yadav, MP batsman Mohnish Mishra and HP all-rounder Abhinav Bali were also handed one-year bans for "loose talk and unsubstantiated bragging" but in hindsight, should the BCCI have taken the sting more seriously and made it a police matter?
The one-year bans, after all, were lifted on Wednesday, a day before the Sreesanth story broke.
With Delhi police commissioner Neeraj Kumar on Thursday having to field questions on the implications of the spot-fixing saga and possible involvement of bigwigs, it is interesting to recall what Amit Yadav told India TV reporters last year when asked about the involvement of team owners.
Yadav was asked, "Franchise owner khud hi fix kar dete hai (franchise owners themselves fix matches)?" His reply was: "Kar dete hain (they do)... aapko meine bol diya ki bhai aaj rok kar pyar se khelna hai (suppose I tell you today you have to play a bit slowly)... ek aapko fix kar liya, ek middle order fix kar liya, bas ho gaya (fixing one more batsman is enough to get the job done)."
The sting had also revealed how bookies coerce susceptible players into bowling wides or no-balls, or playing defensively. Sudheendra revealed how he had been "directly" approached by bookies, and suggested how peer pressure plays a part since other players are doing it.
It could be all "loose talk and bragging" but did the BCCI do more harm by not initiating a police probe? The Sreesanth saga, after all, is bound to impact the credibility of the league. The next time you see a bowler overstepping, or a batsman using a towel or a team losing from a winning position, you might not know what to believe.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment