Srinivasan,Raj Kundra named in IPL scandal report

[Cricket_Hacker]

[bowl_out]

FirstpostSports ‏@FirstpostSports 2m2 minutes ago Srinivasan to SC: If there is a conflict of interest for me, then there is a conflict for Shastri, Gavaskar, Ganguly

So what? That cannot be his defence. If he thinks they have a COI, he should file a case against the three of them, and try them in court.... If I murdered somebody, don't punish me... there are three other who are murderers as well? pathetic defence...

[maniac]

I watched Times Now debate about DHoni's C.O.I but they should get better people to debate....That Raman guy is right....how is it a C.O.I for Dhoni if he is capt. of CSK and VP of India cements...yes Rhiti can be considered but then again the technical argument is capt has no say in selections and team combination even if they can prove Dhoni runs Rhiti on a Benaami....Dhoni,Seeni Mama and most of these guys are smart crooks,they will cover as many bases as possible....Unless there is a total witch hunt like it seems to be happening in Mama's case,these guys will get away 9/10 times.

[moniker]

^Captain does have a say in picking the playing xi.

[maniac]

^Captain does have a say in picking the playing xi.

Of Course he does and that is why we have a scare crow called Duncan Fletcher as a coach to take that responsibility when the time comes. I hope we get rid of Dhoni too but the reason why these guys even have a case and have survived this long is this is all pretty well planned

[BeautifulGame]

Srinivasan contests 'conflict of interest' allegations BCCI's sidelined president N Srinivasan told the Supreme Court on Monday that all allegations against him with reference to his "conflict of interest" in the IPL corruption case were unfounded and false. His counsel, Kapil Sibal, told the two-member bench of Justice TS Thakur and Justice FM Kalifullah that Srinivasan had acted "with speed" against his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan after allegations of illegal betting and had stepped aside from the affairs of the BCCI during the investigations into the corruption scandal. Once the litigant, Cricket Association of Bihar, made their final arguments, Srinivasan's defence of his actions covered several aspects. These included the purchase of an IPL team, acting against Gurunath during IPL 2013, distancing himself from the BCCI probe as well as not being responsible for the composition of the BCCI's own two-man probe committee. Sibal said that allegations against Srinivasan, concerning a cover-up of the investigation, were "false" as Srinivasan had acted with speed, lodging a complaint against both Gurunath and Raj Kundra when allegations of betting were made against them. The name of Arun Jaitley, a BCCI vice president and currently Union cabinet minister was taken several times by Sibal to emphasise that the BCCI had set up a commission to look into the corruption case in May 2013 on Jaitley's recommendation. When Jaitley's name was taken a third time, Justice Thakur asked Sibal, "Why are you taking his name?" and enquired whether Jaitley was being "represented" in the case in any manner as his name had not been mentioned in the entire set of Mudgal Commission report documents handed over to the court in February and November 2014. Thakur said it was "not permitted" that the name of "one individual is being dropped." When Sibal argued that the conflict of interest issue had not been part of the terms of reference of the Mudgal committee investigation, Justice Thakur responded by saying: "Either there is a conflict of interest or there is no conflict of interest. There is no third truth." He said the conflict of interest was, "the core issue" and Srinivasan's counsel Sibal had to, "show" the court that there was "no conflict of interest from the facts before the Mudgal report." Sibal told the court that there were, "several people" who held positions in the BCCI and were also involved with the IPL. He said there were "364 names" and cited those of Sunil Gavaskar, Ravi Shastri, Lalchand Rajput, Krishnamachari Srikkanth, Sourav Ganguly, Brijesh Patel, Anil Kumble as well as Vijay Mallya who were part of the IPL in the last seven years. "The IPL may not even take place if the rule is to be interpreted in this manner," Sibal said. The rule being referred to was rule 6.2.4 which that prohibits officials of the BCCI from having any direct or interest commercial interest in the events conducted by the Board, with the exception of the IPL and the Champions League T20. Sibal said the rule applied to, "administrator, official player or umpire." With Sibal stressing that Srinivasan had kept away from the internal developments pertaining to Gurunath and the IPL case, Justice Kalifullah raised questions about the incomplete paper work made available to the court regarding the formation of the BCCI's own probe panel set up in May last year. There were no dates mentioned on the documents made available to the court about the formation of the BCCI probe panel. Justice Kalifullah asked the counsel to inform the court about the time taken to form the BCCI's disciplinary probe panel and the time taken by the panel to arrive at their final conclusions. On May 31, 2013, three days after the BCCI revealed its probe commission, one of the members, Sanjay Jagdale, resigned from his post as BCCI secretary and stated he had specifically asked to be kept away from the committee. On June 2, it was discovered that two members of the eight-man IPL governing council were unaware of when and how the BCCI's inquiry commission was set up. Two other members of the council said their consent had been taken over the phone even though no meeting had been convened over the same. In July 2013, the board's two-member panel found "no evidence of any wrongdoing" against Raj Kundra and India Cements. Sibal argued that Srinivasan's purchase of Chennai Super Kings came about after former IPL chairman Lalit Modi asked him to do so because there were not enough buyers lined up for the city-based franchises. Srinivasan had, therefore, Sibal said, turned to the-then BCCI president Sharad Pawar. Sibal argued that Pawar had "cleared the legalities" for Srinivasan and informed him that as India Cements was a private company, Srinivasan could make a bid for a team. The Supreme Court has asked the BCCI to submit financial details with regards to the functioning of the IPL, the auction, ticket sales, broadcasting rights and purchase of players. When asked whether the IPL case had affected the image of Indian cricket, Srinivasan, who was speaking at an ICC event in Chennai, said: "I don't agree that Indian cricket is taking a hit, I am not able to share your sentiments on that." The next two hearings will be held on December 8 and 9, when Sibal is expected to conclude his arguments. © ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

[Crookbond]

Of Course he does and that is why we have a scare crow called Duncan Fletcher as a coach to take that responsibility when the time comes. I hope we get rid of Dhoni too but the reason why these guys even have a case and have survived this long is this is all pretty well planned

The presence of Fletcher has no bearing on Dhoni CoI.

[maniac]

The presence of Fletcher has no bearing on Dhoni CoI.

Talking about influencing team selections/combinations & managing the core group of players under Rhiti... I don't know if it is in the job description of a captain to get that power of influencing team selections/combinations,even-though we know that happens,there is no concrete proof there, I think the team combintaion part of the selected X1 is the Coach's job description right?

[Crookbond]

Talking about influencing team selections/combinations & managing the core group of players under Rhiti... I don't know if it is in the job description of a captain to get that power of influencing team selections/combinations,even-though we know that happens,there is no concrete proof there, I think the team combintaion part of the selected X1 is the Coach's job description right?

The captain of a cricket team runs the show on the field (at least). In most cricketing teams, captain selects the final XI. In fact, in some places captain also submits the names for XI. So yes, captain can influence from 16 selection to 11 selection.

[Precambrian]

The captain of a cricket team runs the show on the field (at least). In most cricketing teams' date=' captain selects the final XI. In fact, in some places captain also submits the names for XI. So yes, captain can influence from 16 selection to 11 selection.[/quote'] Yes the sixteen given to the captain are all deemed eligible to make the 11 by selectors. So it doesn't matter who finally makes the 11

[Sachin=GOD]

So when is the next date for the court proceedings against this crook?

[StriKe]

So when is the next date for the court proceedings against this crook?

FirstpostSports ‏@FirstpostSports On December 9, SC has set aside all day to hear the matter #Mudgal #IPLFixing FirstpostSports ‏@FirstpostSports #Mudgal #IPLspotfixing case has been adjourned till December 8 Live

[Sachin=GOD]

^:nice:

[bulbul]

Nothing will happen..SC is dragging this like Saas-Bahu serials :banghead:

[kruiser]

So all this fuss is for nothing? No betting, no matcfixing, no nepotism, just a COI? That is not even a crime. All SC can do is to recommend BCCI to remove COI.

[rkt.india]

So all this fuss is for nothing? No betting' date=' no matcfixing, no nepotism, just a COI? That is not even a crime. All SC can do is to recommend BCCI to remove COI.[/quote'] Why no betting? Mayappan abnd Kundra did betting.

[yoda]

Why no betting? Mayappan abnd Kundra did betting.

Everyone knows that Meyappan and Kundra did betting. Don't need SC and Mudgal and co. to repeat the same.

[Crookbond]

Everyone knows that Meyappan and Kundra did betting. Don't need SC and Mudgal and co. to repeat the same.

I'm not sure if you are serious but unless a charge is proved in court, it pretty much is thin air. Both Meiyappan and Kundra, denied that they placed bets even to the SC.

[moniker]

Even if the betting charges are proved in court, are the laws adequate? Would be funny if Meiyappan and Kundra are asked to pay a fine of Rs 500 under the Gambling Act and allowed to walk free.

[yoda]

I'm not sure if you are serious but unless a charge is proved in court' date=' it pretty much is thin air. Both Meiyappan and Kundra, denied that they placed bets even to the SC.[/quote'] Police already had evidence that Meyappan did the betting. Why should it jump the normal courts route and get to SC? There was no need for SC to intervene with the Mudgal committee, much like it was done in case of the players involved with spot fixing. Whatever happened to those spot fixing cases anyways?