Ombdudsman rejects complainant’s request to access Tendulkar-Laxman’s contract details
Getty
In the latest development to this saga, BCCI Ombudsman DK Jain has rejected complainant Sanjeev Gupta’s request of revealing Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman’s contract obligations with their respective franchises. The cricketing duo has agreed to person hearing in case they are summoned.
The “conflict of interest” saga has continued throughout the IPL season this time with Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman being the latest to hog the limelight after a life member of Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association (MPCA), Sanjeev Gupta complained about the duo's dual interest. Gupta alleged Tendulkar and Laxman for their dual role for being mentors for IPL franchises Mumbai Indians and Sunrisers Hyderabad respectively and simultaneously being members of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) that had picked Ravi Shastri as the head coach of the national team in 2017.
Following that, while an angry Laxman went to the extent of recusing himself from Cricket Advisory Committee, Tendulkar has categorically clarified that he doesn’t enjoy any monetary benefit as an 'Icon' of MI.
It was Gupta’s turn to respond and he had three specific demands-
A) A copy of Tendulkar and Laxman's contract with their respective franchise.
B) A copy of MI and SRH's eligible list of players & Team Officials & Team Management etc, supplied to BCCI / BCCI ACU for allowing them to sit in dugout & to enter into the restricted ground area.
C) A copy of BCCI Anti Corruption Units norms/ rules for allowing the players, Team Officials & Team Management etc of IPL Franchisee to sit in the dugout & to enter into the restricted ground area.
But, Justice DK Jain has turned his request down deeming it unnecessary for the cricketing duo to respond.
"I have filed my response and my contention remains that both players are conflicted. They (franchises) might change nomenclature from icon to mentor but this is the conflict of interest," Gupta told PTI.
Both the cricketers have, however, agreed to be present for in-person hearing if the ethics officer summoned them.
