Onus on BCCI to enforce discipline: Madhavan

By S. Dinakar

CHENNAI, DEC. 13. The anti-corruption commissioner of the Board of Control for Cricket in India, Mr. K. Madhavan, today said his first examination of cricketer Ajay Jadeja, banned from the game for five years, confirmed his opinion of the latter.

In an interview to The Hindu today, he said: ``When Jadeja appeared before me, he confirmed what I had thought of him. That he is a bubbling youngster full of enthusiasm, life, vigour. This was reflected in the manner he expressed himself on occasions. I could also perceive an anxiety in him. He had quite a bit of cricket left in him, but paid the price.''

On Jadeja's claim that he did not receive calls on a certain day as alleged by the CBI, Mr. Madhavan said, ``Jadeja's statement, as soon as the report was released, that he was in Guwahati where there was no cell phone facility, was later withdrawn by him. Later it was found out by him obviously and by me also, that in the forenoon of that day he was in Delhi and only in the afternoon was he in Guwahati. The CBI only said that he had received some calls in the forenoon. In fact, he was traveling to the airport when he received the first call at Mehpalpur. And the second call he received was in the domestic terminal of the Delhi airport. After that for two days when he was in Guwahati, even the CBI doesn't allege that he received any calls. The calls were from bookie Uttam Chand of Chennai. Both the calls.''

Turning to Manoj Prabhakar, he said: ``I would first like to clear a small misconception in this regard. It is correct that the first allegation of match-fixing came from Prabhakar in 1997. At that time he did not name the person. But then in a year or so that became a closed issue. Nobody spoke about it. What started the present series of enquiries was not Prabhakar's allegations, it had no links whatsoever with that. This was on the basis of a Delhi police recording of certain conversations involving Hansie Cronje in another case which they were investigation, which had nothing to do with cricket. This discovery was incidental. Very often we find, in police experience, that the persons involved in a case themselves, start giving information about it as if they are not involved. It has happened in the past also.''

``Prabhakar was the most energetic among the cricketers I examined, even while talking. His expressions are strong, he puts his views forward boldly, is quite assertive. His contacts with the bookies as proved by the records went against him.''

Originator of the operation

Ajay Sharma, Mr. Madhavan said, was the first person contacted by MK in the entire group. ``He was the originator of the operation for MK in a manner of speaking. And he had very, very close contacts with Azhar and all this is part of the evidence. Therefore the Disciplinary Committee has decided to bracket him with Azharuddin. As a person he appeared soft, not as energetic as Prabhakar.''

The CBI report against Nayan Mongia was wishy-washy, he said. ``It neither said he was guilty nor did it say he was innocent. On fresh assessment I found that I should call a spade a spade. In his case no contacts with bookies could be established. The only point against him was the 1994 Kanpur one- day match where there are circumstances to indicate that what he conveyed to Prabhakar had some basis. There was some discussion in the dressing room about not losing any further wickets. Probably he decided to communicate this to him. Though some others have withdrawn from that stand later, from the circumstances I see that there are certain possibilities that what Mongia is saying is correct.''

About the former Indian team physiotherapist, Dr. Ali Irani, he said: ``The evidence against him is reasonably strong, though not as strong as in the case of Azharuddin. He was the conduit between MK, also known as John, and Azharuddin and that is part of the evidence, which the CBI has mentioned and I have also mentioned in my report. He appeared a very friendly person. Described himself, as the players in the team described him, `The Mother Hen'. He goes in the front and the others follow him, like the chickens following the hen. I could see the satisfaction and the pride in his tone when he mentioned this to me. He was a Mother Hen all right, but that does not take away the fact that he had done some other irregular things.''

On the Feroze Shah Kotla groundsman Ram Adhar, he said ``there was a bit of a contradiction in the CBI report itself, in what the CBI mentioned in the report and what they exactly recorded. In any event, the evidence was very feeble.''

And, about his ongoing investigation involving among others, Kapil Dev, Mr. Madhavan said: ``I have to conduct my inquiry and submit my report. The terms of references are open. I know I'll have to examine Kapil and see what he has to say and come to a conclusion.''

About the CBI not pressing for prosecution of the players, he said, ``guilty so far as the scope for misconduct for which I was inquiring into is concerned. But the CBI decided that they were not guilty enough to be prosecuted. Well, I accept the report of the CBI which again is based on the legal opinion they have obtained. I must say here that I received the full cooperation of the CBI when I conducted my investigation.

Asked whether corruption in cricket could be eradicated, he said, ``no offence can be done away with. No offence has been done away with. Murders continue, rapes continue despite people being caught and punished. The aim of the BCCI should be to ensure that the players do not get mixed up with the bookies and they should not, in any event, be in frequent contact with the bookies. I am hopeful that with the present inquiry conducted by the BCCI, and with the strict punishments meted out by the BCCI, this will come about.''

Mr. Madhavan said he found the BCCI president, Mr. A.C. Muthiah, to be a pleasant-natured man. ``He does not at all interfere in any manner in my functioning. It is very easy to interact with him.''

Grey areas stll exist

``Nobody knows what I have mentioned in volume four of my report which relates to the CBI's observations regarding the BCCI, where I have given my own views. Wherever I found there was some force in what the CBI said, I've taken note of that, he said to criticism that he was soft towards the BCCI. ``In many crimes one or two persons, who may be involved, may escape. You can't punish a person on mere suspicion, you need some evidence also. The law has to take note of those grey areas.''

On whether two or three players could fix the result of a match, Mr. Madhavan said, ``as I mentioned it may not be two or three guys, it is just that the evidence is available only against them. That is a possibility. As a former CBI officer and now as BCCI's anti-corruption commissioner, it would be a very good state of affairs if all the guilty are brought to book.''

``In the circumstances of no legal offence having been made out as per the CBI, I think the Disciplinary Committee has acted correctly in this matter. And please remember that prosecution and sentencing to imprisonment is not the BCCI's role. They cannot do that.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Bank unions to resume stir
Next     : Madhavan's tips for treading the straight path