ICC's Code of Conduct Commission not for reviewing Chandrachud report

By G. Viswanath

MUMBAI, APRIL 16. The International Cricket Council's Code of Conduct Commission, appointed to review inquiries conducted by Justice (Retd) Y.V. Chandrachud for the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Mr. Rob O'Regan for the Australian Cricket Board (ACB), has said there will be no useful purpose served by revisiting these allegations.

Submitting their report last October, which is a public document, the three-man Code of Conduct Committee in Lord Griffiths (England), Justice Albie Sachs (South Africa) and Sir Oliver Popplewell have said, ``We are satisfied that the Chief Justice (Y.V. Chandrachud) saw and heard every witness that he could reasonably expect to contribute to his inquiry. He was on the spot and steeped in the matter and it was for him to decide which evidence to accept and which to reject. We can see no ground upon which his conclusion could be challenged. We therefore advise the Executive Board (of the ICC) that the report should be accepted and no useful purpose would be served by revisiting these allegations.''

Lord Griffiths Committee, however, added a rider, citing Justice Chandrachud's remark that, ``...One cannot, therefore, rule out the possibility that some Indian players may be laying the flutter of a bet. But it is less than just to conclude that they lay bets for losing a match. Such a charge lacks substance and is unjustified.''

The rider is, ``We advise that the BCCI should be requested to ensure that all their players and officials have their attention drawn to these provisions (ICC's Code of Conduct for Players & Team officials) and are told in plain language that betting is not permitted.''

The ICC's Code of Conduct for players & Team Officials clause 9 says that ``Players and/or team officials shall not engage, directly or indirectly, in betting, gambling or any form of financial speculation on the outcome of any cricket match to which this Code applies and in which the player is a participant or with which a team official is associated or any event which, in the opinion of the referee, shall be connected with any such cricket match the purpose (or pretended purpose) of which is to benefit such player or team official either directly or indirectly whether financially or otherwise. Player, umpires, team officials shall not accept any form of inducement which is considered by the referee to be likely to affect the performance of any player involved in any such cricket match adversely.''

In his report for the ACB, Mr. Rob O' Regan has said, `` I am satisfied that the investigation thus conducted was as comprehensive as the limited powers of the inquiry and the time set for publication of the report permitted.'' Commenting on this, Lord Griffith's committee said, ``The reference to the limited powers of the inquiry is to the fact that it did not have power to take evidence on oath of affirmation, compel witnesses to attend or to require the production of documents. It is however to be observed that a similar limitation would apply to any inquiry that was carried out by a commission or inquiry on behalf of the ICC. Nevertheless, Mr. O'Regan records that almost without exception, he received full cooperation from all who approached. ''

Lord Griffiths committee has further said, ``The inquiry was most expeditiously conducted but we have no reason to believe that a longer time span for the inquiry would have yielded any better result. The inquiry concluded that no other Australian Cricketer (apart from Mark Waugh and Shane Warne) had accepted payments from the bookmaker, but that at varying times, a number of other Australian players had been approached with offers that they rejected.''

``The inquiry (O'Regan's report) is critical of the decision of the ACB not to publish their decision to fine Mark Waugh and Warne in February 1995 and also criticises the fines as too lenient a punishment. We agree with both criticisms. If a player is found guilty of accepting money from a bookmaker, the penalty should be a substantial suspension and the reason for it made public, as should other serious breaches of the Code of Conduct.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Sport
Previous : Shariyazdanov proves his billing
Next     : Hussain gives clean chit to England-South Africa
           Test