Legendary Sachin Tendulkar has categorically refuted allallegations of Conflict of Interest levelled against him as he claimed to haveneither “received any compensation” nor holding any decision makingrole in the IPL franchise Mumbai Indians.
Tendulkar on Sunday filed a 14-point written response to anotice sent by Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer Justice (Retd) DK Jain. It was withregards to a Conflict of Interest complaint filed by the Madhya Pradesh CricketAssociation (MPCA) member Sanjeev Gupta.
As per the complainant, Tendulkar and Laxman are allegedlyperforming dual roles, first of a “support staff” in their respectiveIPL franchises Mumbai Indians (MI) and Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH), and second asmembers of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC).
“At the outset, the Noticee (Tendulkar) denies thecontents of the Complaint in totality (except the statements specificallyadmitted herein). No part of the Complaint should be deemed to be admitted bythe Noticee for lack of specific denials,” Tendulkar wrote in his responsewhich is in possession of PTI.
Since Gupta’s complaints harped specifically on Tendulkar’srole in the MI, the iconic cricketer in his response have made a fulldisclosure of his role in the franchise.
“The Noticee (Tendulkar) has received no pecuniarybenefit/ compensation from the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise in his capacity asthe Mumbai Indians ‘ICON’ since his retirement, and is certainly not employedwith the Franchise in any capacity.
“He does not occupy any position, nor has he taken anydecision (including selection of team players) which could qualify as being ingovernance or management of the Franchise. Accordingly, there is no conflict ofinterest, either under the BCCI Rules or otherwise,” world’s leading run-getterfurther explained.
As far as his role in the CAC is concerned, Tendulkarmentioned that he was appointed as a member of the BCCI committee in 2015,which was only years after his involvement with the MI.
“The Noticee was appointed to the panel of the CricketAdvisory Committee (“CAC”) in the year 2015. The Hon’ble EthicsOfficer will appreciate that the Noticee was named as the ‘ICON’ for MumbaiIndians much prior to his empanelment with the CAC – which fact has always beenin the public domain.
“Accordingly, the BCCI aware of the Noticee’sassociation with the Mumbai Indians Franchise at the time of his appointment tothe CAC.”
Tendulkar, in his disclosure, further makes it clear thatthe role of an icon — the one he is performing right now in the IPL franchiseteam — in no way is a position either in the management or the governance ofthe franchise.
“The Complaint wrongly assumes that the Noticee’sassociation with the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise (“Franchise”) is in thecapacity of “governance”, “management” or”employment” – thereby attracting a conflict under Rule 38 (4).
“His role is limited to providing guidance to theFranchise team by sharing his insights, learnings and working closely with theyounger members in the team to help them realise their true potential.”
On his reply to Gupta’s question of him sitting in the team’s ‘dugout’ — place specified for players and support staff only — he termed the allegation as “absurd”.
“A mentor cannot be qualified as “management”of the Franchise. If the Complainant’s absurd logic were to be applied, aphysiotherapist, trainer or a masseur would also be qualified as”management” of the Franchise,” Tendulkar responded, making itclear that he is answerable to none of the support staff.
“It is also pertinent to note that the Mumbai Indiansteam has a head coach, who works side by side with coaches for specificdisciplines such as bowling, batting etc. In ultimate coordination with theDirector of Cricket Operations – none of whom the Noticee is answerable to orvice versa since his role is limited to that of providing guidance andmotivation to the team.”
Also, in case of the Ombudsman willing to “continueproceedings”, Tendulkar has requested for a “personal hearing alongwith his legal representatives.”
KUSHAN SARKAR