ICC news June 25, 2012

SLC asked to implement anti-corruption code before SLPL

ESPNcricinfo staff

The ICC's chief executives' committee has instructed Sri Lanka Cricket and the Bangladesh Cricket Board to incorporate and implement anti-corruption codes for domestic cricket in line with the ICC's international code. In the SLC's case, it must comply with the rules before the Sri Lanka Premier League in August this year.

In October 2010, the ICC chief executive Haroon Lorgat had asked all ICC members to adopt a domestic anti-corruption code. This followed the spot-fixing controversy in June 2010 during a Test match between England and Pakistan at Lord's. The PCB revised the code of conduct for its players later that same year, with a strong emphasis on anti-corruption. Cricket Australia, the ECB and the BCCI have taken steps to establish their own anti-corruption units to monitor domestic cricket in their respective countries.

An ICC release said: "At the meeting, the CEC, after hearing that neither the BCB nor SLC have incorporated domestic anti-corruption codes, recommended that the ICC Board instruct these Boards to implement codes forthwith and, in the case of SLC, certainly before the start of the Sri Lanka Premier League Twenty20."

The cricket committee also asked the BCB to deliver a "comprehensive report" about allegations of corruption during the inaugural Bangladesh Premier League. Prior to the tournament, the former Bangladesh captain Mashrafe Mortaza, who led the Dhaka Gladiators team, reported he'd been approached over spot-fixing. A Pakistani citizen, Sajid Khan, was arrested during the tournament, following a game between Chittagong Kings and Barisal Burners in Mirpur, in relation to match-fixing claims. The Professional Cricketers' Association (PCA), the players' lobby in England, subsequently expressed concern over the organisation of the league.

The cricket committee stated it "considered the importance" of having a uniform set of anti-corruption regulations across all Full Member countries to avoid inconsistency and any "potential jurisdictional loopholes".