The Supreme Court-appointed Committee of Administrators has given a surprise to the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and it is like an acute shocker for some office bearers by deciding to relook at the conflict of interest rules for the contracted Team India coaches.
CoA has decided to take a relook at the conflict of interest rules in order to consider allowing Indian coaches Ravi Shastri and Rahul Dravid to commentating in the BCCI’s Indian Premier League (IPL). According to the Lodha Recommendations, BCCI’s contracted coaches are not eligible to perform due roles as it comes under the conflict of interest, while Shastri and Dravid already have taken top roles in the national side –India coach and India U19 and A team respectively.
A senior BCCI official member told CricketNext, “COA's decision to take a relook at the conflict of interest rules in order to consider allowing Shastri and Dravid to commentate in the IPL is yet another evidence of their capricious conduct. They have not been honest to their job and have looked at everything through the prism of bias and as a result, though they are supervising the administration of the BCCI, their thinking is adversarial to the board and this reeks of dishonesty in their actions.”
He further explained, “A prime example is their suo moto decision to disallow those disqualified from being office bearers to participate in even committee meetings of the BCCI while specifically asking N Ram to be a part of the committee even though he is above 70 and disqualified to be an office bearer. Additionally, nothing can be more hypocritical than Vinod Rai chairing the COA meeting despite having turned a sweet 70 while himself having spared no effort to disallow everyone else who is a shade over 70. This is like the behavior of the child who wants to bat twice merely because he owns the bat.”
Meanwhile, another BCCI official said that the CoA’s latest move shows insincerity in their conduct, saying the committee has not been honest in carrying out the job.
He signed off by saying, “They have themselves stated that they agree with a few impracticalities like the presence of the CAG representative on the Board. However, the insincerity in their conduct and shades of vindictiveness prevent them from truthfully expressing these issues.”