Leaving aside all the current cacophony, if one looked dispassionately, one has to admit that Srinivasan has contributed a lot to Indian as well as world cricket and the welfare of cricketers over the last one decade. Today, if even a Ranji Trophy player is making a decent living playing the game (earning a few lakhs of rupees every year), the credit goes to Srinivasan. Srinivasan deserves a fair trial and a fair punishment if he is guilty of anything. He has already been subjected to a lot of humiliation without adequate reasons. And it would be a travesty of justice to force him out of the BCCI by applying the rule of the jungle.
Re: JUDICIARY SHOULD NOT BE PREJUDICED AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL
by ramamoorthi venkatraman on Dec 02, 2014 12:14 PM
With due respects to your statement, what is surprising is the way in which IPL issue has been handled by Srinivasan, which has been conveniently omitted by you. When Meiyappan was caught red handed, Srinivasan spoke on his behalf and named him an enthusiast. Shreeshanth and other players were banned from cricket and they were made scape goats whereas Meiyappan was not punished.
Srinivasan did not step aside from the post of BCCI president on his own rather was forced to step down because of the intervention of SC.
He has purchased each and every official in BCCI and the list extends to Cricketers also. It is a shame that legends of the game have fallen prey to money and they neither have the guts to oppose unruly activities nor save the game as money making is the bottom line.
Finally, it is disappointment and frustration for hard core sport loving people like myself and many others.
SC SHOULD PUNISH TOP OFFICIALS OF BCCI FOR BRINGING THIS GAME TO DISREPUTE AND SHOULD BRING BCCI UNDER THE AMBIT OF LEGAL SCRUTINY ONCE IN A WHILE. IT CAN NO MORE REMAIN OT BE A AUTONOMOUS BODY AND ENGAGE IN UNPROFESSIONAL AND CORRUPT PRACTICES.
PEOPLE LIKE LALIT MODI, SRINIVSAN, PATEL HAVE NOT PLAYED THE GAME AND NON-PLAYERS SHOULD NOT HOLD ANY POST. IT SHOULD BE HANDLED ONLY BY THOSE WHO HAVE REPRESENTED THE GAME IN THE HIGHEST LEVEL.
UNLESS THAT HAPPENS, IT IS GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL FOR THOSE WHO RULE THE GAME
The Mukul Mudgal report, after a detailed investigation, clearly stated that Srinivasan had not indulged in either match-fixing or spot-fixing, he had not interfered with the inquiry, he had not misused his office either for his own benefit or of the Chennai Super Kings. The report merely blamed him of inaction even when he was aware of the scam. Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan was accused of indulging in betting, but the committee did not find the BCCI chief having a hand in it. The Supreme Court judges have laid a lot of stress on Srinivasan's 'conflict of interest,' because he owned CSK through India Cements, while continuing to be BCCI president. But the rules of IPL were amended to allow Srinivasan to own a franchise when Sharad Pawar was the BCCI president and Lalit Modi - who is now sitting in London evading the Indian law and directing his ire at Srinivasan - was the IPL commissioner. Besides, in the last eight years that IPL has been running, no franchisee has accused Srinivasan of favouring CSK in any manner. Merely holding two or three posts cannot be construed as 'conflict of interest,' unless it is clearly established that the primary interest has been influenced or jeopardised by the secondary interest. How can Dhoni being India captain and CSK captain be conflict of interest? Was there no conflict of interest when Sharad Pawar as India's agriculture minister in the UPA government for 10 years, took many policy decisions benefiting the sugar industry,
