The Commonwealth Games Federation on Monday hit back at Shunglu committee report that questioned the decisions of the CGF president Mike Fennell and its Chief Executive Officer Michael Hooper.
The CGF in a statement issued on Monday refuted the report and said they are factually incorrect, unbalanced and unsupported by evidence.
The Shunglu Committee report on the alleged financial irregularities in the conduct of last year’s Commonwealth Games had indicted Organising Committee chief Suresh Kalmadi and some other top OC officials for financial bungling, besides questioning the decisions of Fennell and Hooper.
“Various parts of the reports refer to Mike Hooper’s placement in Delhi. Mr Hooper was located in Delhi from October 2007 to October 2010. Many of the references to the arrangements relating to Mr Hooper’s time in Delhi are factually incorrect, unbalanced and unsupported by evidence. They are refuted by the CGF,” it said it a statement on Monday.
The Shunglu committee report had alleged that the CGF had put pressure on the OC to place Hooper in Delhi but the CGF said it was a proposal which was an extension of the advisory support role and was open to rejection.
“This legitimate offer of support was open to the OC to accept or reject. As the reports themselves note, the OC accepted the offer by letter dated 14 August 2007. On any view, that is simple contractual arrangement. At no point was Mr Hooper foisted on the OC. Neither was the OC pressured by the CGF to place Mr Hooper in Delhi. Such statements are plainly inflammatory and incorrect,” the letter read.
“The role of CGF, with its extensive experience and knowledge, is to provide advice and support to the OC. It is difficult to see what purpose the CGF would to “foist” Mr Hooper on the OC. The correspondence between the relevant parties makes it clear that this did not happen.”
The CGF also said that the offer to base Mr Hooper in Delhi was made on the condition that the OC agreed to meet all of the “on the ground” costs of such an arrangement. In exchange, the CGF offered to release the signatories of the HCC from their obligations under Clause 30 (f).
“In effect this arrangement meant that the OC would be released from its obligations to assign an individual to work in the CGF offices in exchange for Mr Hooper’s placement in India,” it said.
