Murkier by the minute

Rajeev Soneja

With the ACB having decided in their wisdom to disregard Shane Warne and Ricky Ponting for the job of being vice-captain of their country, the question that needs answering is – does the Indian board do the same? Or, if it does choose to follow that principle, does it apply only to present cricketers? Or former players who are directly involved with the sport in India? Or should the BCCI distance itself from all ‘tainted’ players, the reference here being to the perhaps greatest batsman India has produced - - Sunil Gavaskar.

Firstly, let’s examine the decision by the Aussie board. To me, it stems of hypocrisy of the highest order. It was these very men who chose to cover-up the whole Warne consorting with bookies incident. Then these very men appointed him as the vice-captain despite the above becoming public knowledge. And now, how does a supposed extra-marital affair make him unsuitable for the job? I mean let’s the play the devil’s advocate here, and even supposing that Warne was involved with another woman, and not just flirting or having phone sex – as reports seem to indicate – surely that’s a matter between Mr. and Mrs. Warne alone?

As for Ponting - - well, he had a problem with alcohol perhaps. How does that affect his performance or his captaincy skills on the field? Surely, by bypassing them both, Warne, at 30, and Ponting, at 24, have been condemned to never lead Australia again.

And that brings us to the matter in India. In direct contrast to the Australian situation, we have the Indian board toeing the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ line. Fair enough. But playing cricket isn’t a court of law and Messrs. Azharuddin and Kapil Dev aren’t going to be prosecuted on the evidence achieved thus far. But surely, if the board so wishes, a complete testimonial and/or explanations can be demanded from the concerned gentlemen before they are allowed to resume their duties again? Let’s do an analogy here.

Just as my firm isn’t going to fire me because I got involved in fisticuffs while in a bar, outside of office hours or; having chased a woman, surely at the same time I cannot be allowed to assume duties at office while all and sundry are claiming that I was selling privileged information to a rival firm; without a sufficiently plausible explanation?

The point is that both boards have been quick to jump the gun on the issue whilst themselves being in part responsible for the whole thing to fester. It can be easily guessed that the intentions behind both the above decisions is to save face, but it’s ironical that the boards have chosen directly opposite actions.

If the ACB had let Warne remain as vice-captain they would have been seen as being too lenient towards him, and the BCCI continue to remain in firm denial of corruption in cricket, knowing that their very edifice is built on dirty deeds.

Admittedly the BCCI is caught in a difficult situation. They cannot ban the ‘tainted’ cricketers because there are too many people making too many allegations, and it becomes difficult to know where one draws the line. But that in itself does not preclude them from actively seeking answers rather than sitting back and letting the law enforcement agencies do the job. On the other hand, they design a code of conduct which would make a 12 year-old consider his freedom being put under shackles. It’s time the BCCI got it’s act together and does it’s part in clearing the mess which they themselves have contributed in no small manner.

And to think that the corruption scandal was to be seen as the harbinger of the clean-up that the sport desperately needs. Seemingly, the waters appear to get murkier by the minute and this mess isn’t going to go away from the sport anytime soon.

Mail Rajeev Soneja