Sachin Tendulkar terms the alleged conflict of interest as absurd

Sachin Tendulkar and VVS Laxman

Tendulkar provided an exhaustive response to the notice issued by the BCCI ethics officer Justice DK Jain over alleged conflict of interest complaint filed by Sanjeev Gupta, a life member of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association.

Former India elegant batsman VVS Laxman too has been issued a similar notice. Today is the last date for Tendulkar and VVS Laxman to reply to the ethics officer's notice.

Tendulkar, who is a member of the Cricket Advisory Committee and a part of the Mumbai Indians team, first put the facts up front before replying point-wise to the alleged conflict of interest.

"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," stated Tendulkar in his response, a copy which is in possession with mid-day.

Also Read: CoA won't offer opinion in Sachin Tendulkar, VVS Laxman conflict issue

Tendulkar denied that he has breached BCCI rule 38. "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)(j).

The Noticee's role and association with the Franchise is at best that of a mentor, on account of the Noticee being declared an integral part of and source of inspiration for the Franchise team since its inception.

"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."

"The Noticee is also involved in supporting and promoting the education of children through sport, as a part of the Franchise's charitable initiative - Education and Sports for All," he stated.

Tendulkar mentioned that he does not receive pecuniary benefit or compensation with his association with the Mumbai Indians. "The Noticee 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 selection of team players) which could qualify as being in governance or management of the Franchise. Therefore, the post listed in Rule 38 (4)(j) is inapplicable to the Noticee. Accordingly, there is no conflict of interest, either under the BCCI Rules or otherwise."

Gupta had objected in his complaint that Tendulkar and Laxman are allowed to sit in their respective IPL teams' dugout.

Tendulkar said the complainant's understanding is completely misplaced. "The Complaint seeks to jump to conclusions about the Noticee's role in the Franchise on the sole (and incorrect) basis that the Noticee is allowed to sit in the dugout area with 'said IPL team outfit'.

"The above understanding in the Complaint is entirely misplaced. The issue of entry and access to the dugout area is dealt with by BCCI's Minimum Standards for Players and Match Officials Areas at IPL Matches ("PMOA Standards"). The PMOA Standards have been adopted by BCCI in support of the BCCI Anti-Corruption Code. In particular, the PMOA Standards seek to restrict, to the greatest extent possible all methods of communication between Players, Player Support Personnel and Match Officials with all third parties, during the IPL match."

Watch video:

"The Complaint wrongly states that as per these PMOA Standards, only team players and team management are allowed to sit in the dugout area. In fact, Article 3.1.1 of the PMOA Standards states that access to the PMOA will be restricted to only those individuals whose presence in that area is absolutely essential for operational purposes. This would invariably include Players, Match Officials, BCCI Anti-Corruption Manager, other BCCI ACU staff and Player Support Personnel."

"The term Player Support Personnel has been defined to mean up to 11 appropriately qualified staff engaged by each Franchisee in the cricket support roles of team manager, coaches, trainers, physiotherapist, masseur, analyst, logistics and mentor."

"Thus, a mentor is clearly included, along with several other staff members, within the term ‘Player Support Personnel' - and is allowed access to the dugout area under the PMOA Standards. 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."

"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. Thus, it is submitted that the Noticee's involvement with the Franchise falls outside the scope of the post listed at Rule 38 (4)(j) of the BCCI Rules," Tendulkar concluded.

Also Read: 'Sachin, Sourav and Laxman are soft targets'

Catch up on all the latest IPL News and updates here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates