Sachin Tendulkar clarifies himself with 14-point written response to BCCI Ombudsman

After Sourav Ganguly was served a notice by the BCCI Ombudsman following accusations of “conflict of interest” by three Bengal-based cricket fans, following him taking up the Delhi Capitals’ mentor role while simultaneously being the Cricket Association of Bengal president, it was then the turn of Mumbai and Sunrisers Hyderabad mentors – Tendulkar and VVS Laxman.

The accuser, this time, was a Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association (MPCA) member Sanjeev Gupta, who had stated that the duo was members of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC), which appointed Ravi Shastri as the head coach of the national team in 2017. It had led Jain to serve a notice to Tendulkar and Laxman asking him to file a written response before April 28 failing which the former cricketer he wasn’t to get a chance to explain himself.

Tendulkar has duly sent a 14-point written response to the Ombudsman claiming that he has never "received any compensation" from Mumbai Indians and neither did he hold any decision-making role in the franchise.

"At the outset, the Noticee (Tendulkar) denies the contents of the Complaint in totality (except the statements specifically admitted herein). No part of the Complaint should be deemed to be admitted by the Noticee for lack of specific denials," Tendulkar wrote in his response reported PTI.

"The Noticee (Tendulkar) has received no pecuniary benefit/ compensation from the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise in his capacity as the Mumbai Indians 'ICON' since his retirement, and is certainly not employed with the Franchise in any capacity.

"He does not occupy any position, nor has he taken any decision (including the selection of team players) which could qualify as being in governance or management of the Franchise. Accordingly, there is no conflict of interest, either under the BCCI Rules or otherwise," it further read.

Tendulkar also clarified that he was appointed in CAC in 2015, which was much after his involvement with Mumbai Indians.

"The Noticee was appointed to the panel of the Cricket Advisory Committee ("CAC") in the year 2015. The Hon'ble Ethics Officer will appreciate that the Noticee was named as the 'ICON' for Mumbai Indians much prior to his empanelment with the CAC – which fact has always been in the public domain.

"Accordingly, the BCCI is aware of the Noticee's association with the Mumbai Indians Franchise at the time of his appointment to the CAC. The Complaint wrongly assumes that the Noticee's association with the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise (“Franchise”) is in the capacity of "governance", "management" or "employment" – thereby attracting a conflict under Rule 38 (4).

"His role is limited to providing guidance to the Franchise team by sharing his insights, learnings and working closely with the younger members in the team to help them realise their true potential."

Tendulkar also replied to Gupta’s question of him sitting in the dugout of the Mumbai Indians, which the MPCA member stated was specifically for the players and support staff.

"A mentor cannot be qualified as "management" of the Franchise. If the Complainant's absurd logic were to be applied, a physiotherapist, trainer or a masseur would also be qualified as "management" of the Franchise," Tendulkar responded, making it clear that he is answerable to none of the support staff.

"It is also pertinent to note that the Mumbai Indians team has a head coach, who works side by side with coaches for specific disciplines such as bowling, batting etc. in ultimate coordination with the Director of Cricket Operations – none of whom the Noticee is answerable to or vice versa since his role is limited to that of providing guidance and motivation to the team."

The former Indian legend also clarified that if the Ombudsman wanted to "continue proceedings", then he would "request for a personal hearing along with his legal representatives."