ICC news May 7, 2013

FICA call for ethics enquiry into May's ICC exit

  shares 80

Tim May's removal from the ICC cricket committee following allegations of pressure exerted by the BCCI to install their preferred candidate Laxman Sivaramakrishnan should be the subject of an ICC ethics committee enquiry, according to the Federation of International Cricketers Associations (FICA) of which May is the chief executive.

Ian Smith, FICA's legal advisor, has also said that the players' body is aware the ICC warned member nations not to interfere with the voting process but then did nothing when those warnings were ignored, accusing Boards of applying "direct pressure on their captains to amend their votes." He said there had been been a "very clear distinction" between routine "lobbying" before an election and "threatening an employee to change their vote."

"In light of media reports that five ICC full member boards applied direct pressure on their captains to amend their votes in the recent elections, FICA's official stance is that these allegations must warrant careful and independent scrutiny," Smith said. "Especially because we understand ICC specifically instructed the Boards not to interfere in the voting process.

"The actions, allegedly instigated by BCCI, are a timely and stark reminder of the very serious shortcomings in governance at ICC highlighted more than a year ago by the Woolf Report and about which ICC has done nothing in the intervening period.

"It is further apparent from statements made by unnamed ICC Board sources overnight that they are trying to position the involved Boards' actions as 'lobbying', but there should be a very clear distinction made between a candidate lobbying for a vote and an employer threatening an employee to change their vote."

May, a staunch advocate of players' rights for more than a decade, lost his place as one of two current players' representatives on the cricket committee following a captains' vote to Sivaramakrishnan, who is employed by the BCCI as a television commentator.

Jimmy Adams, the former West Indies captain and FICA president, said the process by which May was ousted has raised major questions of the ICC's ethics. He also questioned how the game's governing body had the right to stand in judgement over the actions of the players when its own moral compass is so often found to be lacking.

"How can the players of the world look to ICC for leadership in these circumstances and how does the spirit of cricket apply to the organisation itself?" Adams said. "Board members didn't like how their captains intended to vote, so they apparently ordered them to change that vote. This type of behaviour from the game's ruling body makes a mockery of their motives behind the procurement of the Woolf report.

"FICA want ICC to use its own processes to deal with this. It has a Code of Ethics with which Directors and Members need to comply - the reported actions of some of the Member Boards and ICC directors, at the very least warrant investigation under this Code. We call on ICC to hold itself up to the high standards of moral conduct it constantly tells the players and officials it expects from them.

"Ultimately, these actions are symptoms of poor governance at the top level and a blatant disregard for what most would regard as the necessary ethical standards required to run a prominent international sport - cricket deserves a lot better."

Comment has been sought from the ICC and the BCCI.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. He tweets here

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 10, 2013, 0:44 GMT

    Relax gbqdgj and other guys. Si Baker has attributed something to Siva that he never said. Si Baker first has to prove that Siva indeed said that. I know that things like proof and logic are somewhat difficult for Si Baker to understand and this is why he tends to talk about imaginary things just to be seen as saying something. Have you not seen his comment? Dismissing Siva just cos he has squeaky voice (which too btw is partly false) shows what kind of thinking Si Baker has. Chill.

  • POSTED BY gbqdgj on | May 9, 2013, 10:29 GMT

    @KK47...much of what you say I agree with but "Wankhede one of the traditional homes of world cricket". Really? Tell me how this would be the case given that it was only opened in 1975? Frankly it's not even the home of cricket in India let alone in the world. To suggest otherwise just to defend Siva is just plain silly and you undermine your other arguments by suggesting otherwise.

  • POSTED BY yoohoo on | May 9, 2013, 7:36 GMT

    @SurlyCynic - There was no such past in the 70s and 80s. Neither was india considered major enough to complain, nor did they bother. Eng and Aus just did what they wanted, and nobody complained, everybody else just adjusted to that scenario. Were there any indians in any position of authority back in the 70s/80s? Do you know India played Eng about once a decade (every 8 yrs) back then? It is fair enough that India now expects Aus and Eng to shut up and adjust to the new dynamics, instead of whinging all the time.

  • POSTED BY amitgarg78 on | May 8, 2013, 13:21 GMT

    @diddles None of this proves Siva cannot do the job. It's a lot easier once you let go of the "I am superior" mindset. I have nothing against May, but to assume that he could occupy the chair in perpetuity is just not acceptable. And as for the moral science sermon, lesser said the better. That was the kind of comment that fuels the " us vs them" or "colonial" debates on such forums. Why can't people just accept that they lost and move on?

  • POSTED BY diddles on | May 8, 2013, 11:54 GMT

    Here we see yet again the undermining of a proper cricket ruling body by our good friends on the Sub-continent. May was a first class representative of the interests of all professional cricketers, a man who comes from a country in Australia where the industrial relations idea of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is long entrenched in its culture. He come's from a country where straight talk is not an uncommon quality and where people in the majority, like their brothers and sisters in England and New Zealand have little time or respect for unfettered corruption.

    The ICC needs such people at the centre of its administration, not people who kowtow to every bit of shenigans that seems too often to take place on the Sub-continent. Yes India does supply a lot cricket's wealth..but that's like running the only pub in Sydney..any fool could make a profit. In the sporting markets that exist in England, Australia and New Zealand, an administrator to survive needs to have serious skill.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 8, 2013, 10:29 GMT

    Chris_P, wrong again. I am not sure if you read the article by jarrod kimber but it's clear that Ban, Pak and SL players were not happy about May's stance against thier respective T20 leagues. And before the election results announced BCCI insider had clearly dismissed allegations that initially 9 members were favouring May's inclusion as baseless. As I said before, unless any of the actual electors come out and accuse BCCI (or anyone) that they were influenced, I see no reason why this allegation by FICA should be entertained.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 8, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    @KK47. The Sri Lankan, BD & Pakistan captain, did, in fact all vote for May in the initial ballot. BD & SL have player associations in FICA.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 8, 2013, 9:09 GMT

    @Si Baker: Siva is a respected commentator and his voice is just fine. He has a common south Indian accent and though you may not like it but lot many do. Just like Lord's and MCG, Wankhede is one of the traditional home of world cricket. He is not wrong in that. Stop being so prejudiced.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 8, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    @Chirs_P, see from whatever angle, captains from Ind, SL, Ban and Pak had absolutely no reason to vote for May. I don't know about ZIM but I don't think May has done anything to them except talking infront of media. Only Sammy's vote seems iffy but I guess its unfair to blame BCCI for that one. And don't forget Gayle's saga in WI and I didn't see May running to solve matters anytime during that disgraceful episode. Even though I am not a fan of BCCI, their decision to lobby for LS is understandable. BTW, there is no allegation towards BCCI from ANY member that any financial blackmail has been done. I don't think it was necessary anyway.

  • POSTED BY Bang_La on | May 8, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    Tim May, what goes up, will go down!

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 10, 2013, 0:44 GMT

    Relax gbqdgj and other guys. Si Baker has attributed something to Siva that he never said. Si Baker first has to prove that Siva indeed said that. I know that things like proof and logic are somewhat difficult for Si Baker to understand and this is why he tends to talk about imaginary things just to be seen as saying something. Have you not seen his comment? Dismissing Siva just cos he has squeaky voice (which too btw is partly false) shows what kind of thinking Si Baker has. Chill.

  • POSTED BY gbqdgj on | May 9, 2013, 10:29 GMT

    @KK47...much of what you say I agree with but "Wankhede one of the traditional homes of world cricket". Really? Tell me how this would be the case given that it was only opened in 1975? Frankly it's not even the home of cricket in India let alone in the world. To suggest otherwise just to defend Siva is just plain silly and you undermine your other arguments by suggesting otherwise.

  • POSTED BY yoohoo on | May 9, 2013, 7:36 GMT

    @SurlyCynic - There was no such past in the 70s and 80s. Neither was india considered major enough to complain, nor did they bother. Eng and Aus just did what they wanted, and nobody complained, everybody else just adjusted to that scenario. Were there any indians in any position of authority back in the 70s/80s? Do you know India played Eng about once a decade (every 8 yrs) back then? It is fair enough that India now expects Aus and Eng to shut up and adjust to the new dynamics, instead of whinging all the time.

  • POSTED BY amitgarg78 on | May 8, 2013, 13:21 GMT

    @diddles None of this proves Siva cannot do the job. It's a lot easier once you let go of the "I am superior" mindset. I have nothing against May, but to assume that he could occupy the chair in perpetuity is just not acceptable. And as for the moral science sermon, lesser said the better. That was the kind of comment that fuels the " us vs them" or "colonial" debates on such forums. Why can't people just accept that they lost and move on?

  • POSTED BY diddles on | May 8, 2013, 11:54 GMT

    Here we see yet again the undermining of a proper cricket ruling body by our good friends on the Sub-continent. May was a first class representative of the interests of all professional cricketers, a man who comes from a country in Australia where the industrial relations idea of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work is long entrenched in its culture. He come's from a country where straight talk is not an uncommon quality and where people in the majority, like their brothers and sisters in England and New Zealand have little time or respect for unfettered corruption.

    The ICC needs such people at the centre of its administration, not people who kowtow to every bit of shenigans that seems too often to take place on the Sub-continent. Yes India does supply a lot cricket's wealth..but that's like running the only pub in Sydney..any fool could make a profit. In the sporting markets that exist in England, Australia and New Zealand, an administrator to survive needs to have serious skill.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 8, 2013, 10:29 GMT

    Chris_P, wrong again. I am not sure if you read the article by jarrod kimber but it's clear that Ban, Pak and SL players were not happy about May's stance against thier respective T20 leagues. And before the election results announced BCCI insider had clearly dismissed allegations that initially 9 members were favouring May's inclusion as baseless. As I said before, unless any of the actual electors come out and accuse BCCI (or anyone) that they were influenced, I see no reason why this allegation by FICA should be entertained.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 8, 2013, 9:34 GMT

    @KK47. The Sri Lankan, BD & Pakistan captain, did, in fact all vote for May in the initial ballot. BD & SL have player associations in FICA.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 8, 2013, 9:09 GMT

    @Si Baker: Siva is a respected commentator and his voice is just fine. He has a common south Indian accent and though you may not like it but lot many do. Just like Lord's and MCG, Wankhede is one of the traditional home of world cricket. He is not wrong in that. Stop being so prejudiced.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 8, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    @Chirs_P, see from whatever angle, captains from Ind, SL, Ban and Pak had absolutely no reason to vote for May. I don't know about ZIM but I don't think May has done anything to them except talking infront of media. Only Sammy's vote seems iffy but I guess its unfair to blame BCCI for that one. And don't forget Gayle's saga in WI and I didn't see May running to solve matters anytime during that disgraceful episode. Even though I am not a fan of BCCI, their decision to lobby for LS is understandable. BTW, there is no allegation towards BCCI from ANY member that any financial blackmail has been done. I don't think it was necessary anyway.

  • POSTED BY Bang_La on | May 8, 2013, 7:53 GMT

    Tim May, what goes up, will go down!

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 8, 2013, 7:52 GMT

    @CricFan78. It is a statement made by Tony Irish, secretary of the FICA & chairman of the SA cricketers association. And He has called for the enquiry. If there is nothing to hide, all parties should welcome the enquiry, shouldn't they?

  • POSTED BY CricFan78 on | May 8, 2013, 7:31 GMT

    @CHrisP " The other captains did vote for May, but were influenced AFTER the initial vote after the BCCI who threatened tour withdrawals etc. "

    Do you have any proof of that or are you talking based on reading 3rd grade tabloid stuff from conn and manthorp

  • POSTED BY Lmaotsetung on | May 8, 2013, 6:47 GMT

    It's very simple. If you live in a country with little or no union representation of any kind you won't understand the issue at hand and I'm not talking about cricket but the general workplace. Just to give an example, every year when September rolls around and a new round of contracts are handed out to the few lucky England cricketers by the ECB, plenty of backroom negotiations and lobbying are done by the players' association such as allowing players to play in the IPL, pay scale, amount of cricket being forced to play, rest & holidays, medical, etc. These stuff don't get reported often so most people are unaware of what goes behind the scene til the final contract is drafted and signed. If the asian nations + WI are happy to have a BCCI puppet work on behalf of the players more power to them. I hope you guys won't mind having your boss also represent you in your employment negotiation should it arise in the future.

  • POSTED BY pauln2 on | May 8, 2013, 6:25 GMT

    Without Tim May and the Australian Players Association leading the way nearly 20 years ago, current players would be on nothing like the money they're getting and the IPL millions would be disappearing into the already well-lined pockets of the owners (if, in fact, IPL even existed). May, like Marvin Miller before him in another sport, has done great service for players beyond his own generation and neither has ever been too popular with the powers that be. But the players who shafted May here needed to know their history - before the vote, afterwards is too late - and now all they can do is look back in ten years time and see how well their appointment turned out. One thing they can't do is cry if they're the losers.

  • POSTED BY guptahitesh4u on | May 8, 2013, 5:59 GMT

    May worked for Eng, Aus, NZ & SA...I am sure Siva will work for all cricket playing nations!!

  • POSTED BY thalalara on | May 8, 2013, 4:43 GMT

    Is this post such a powerful one to let go off? Wow!!! Is May discontended for being at the helm of affairs for 15 odd years or this whole drama is about May being used as a puppet by the Aus-Eng-NZ to express their aversion towards BCCI.

    How frequently issues like KP and Gayles crop up ? What was May's role in these episodes?Whether he was instrumental in solving these issues ?

    We cannot blame neither May nor LS, these two guys are just used as pawns by the power mongers of respective Cricket Boards.

  • POSTED BY on | May 8, 2013, 4:22 GMT

    Why are so many people complaining? The squeaky-voiced Sivaramakrishnan has to be the most irritating commentator ever to hold a microphone. Being on the ICC Cricket Committee will at least give us all a rest from him. Even by the risible standards of Indian commentators, some of his statements are hilarious. This is what he said (with a perfectly straight face) about the Wankhede Stadium in Bombay: "The Wankhede Stadium, traditional home of world cricket..." Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

  • POSTED BY Insult_2_Injury on | May 8, 2013, 4:04 GMT

    You're kidding aren't you Chakrapani_Bvsn; the race card? The ICC as an organisation is made up of countries. Every country is different. How does a complainant point in the right direction in an organisation like the ICC without some clown muddying the debate with ridiculous accusations like that. May has demanded an enquiry, Chakrapani, how do you propose he do that without pointing at the member he believes culpable? Race is defined as a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic or geographical differences. Therefore Australians and New Zealanders are different races and both members of the ICC, if one has a problem with the other does the debate also bog down into accusations of racism? Or is it, exactly as this issue is, a dispute between two parties under the umbrella of an international organisation? It's sad that while everyone is entitled to their opinion, some don't add value!

  • POSTED BY on | May 8, 2013, 1:37 GMT

    So what is the definition of a fair election - if the candidate of FICA wins then it is a fair election, otherwise unfair. Grand way of being self righteous.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 8, 2013, 1:17 GMT

    @KK47. How can the FICA provide support to someone who isn't a member of their organization & who represents another body who doesn't want to get involved? It is not about May or Siva or any other name, it is about the due process which was severely compromised. One party didn't like the initial decision & called for a re-count after (financially) influencing other boards. Players concerns weren't even considered!

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 8, 2013, 1:01 GMT

    @Chakrapani_Bvsn. " If he suspects foul, then provide evidence and demand an enquiry." That is EXACTLY what he is demanding! Read the headlines.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 8, 2013, 0:59 GMT

    @santhoo24. You have missed the point entirely. The other captains did vote for May, but were influenced AFTER the initial vote after the BCCI who threatened tour withdrawals etc. The boards, in other words, were coerced by funding cuts to make the captains alter their vote. Democracy, as the real world knows it, was totally tossed out the window. This isn't about whether Siva or May should have been there, if the captains had voted for Siva initially without interference, no problem, that is democracy. What happened was not.

  • POSTED BY bobagorof on | May 8, 2013, 0:13 GMT

    Chakrapani_Bvsn: I thought that's exactly what FICA is calling for - for the ICC to hold an inquiry using the ICC's own processes.

  • POSTED BY Whatsgoinoffoutthere on | May 7, 2013, 23:01 GMT

    @the_blue_android: I didn't notice a hat.

    @santhoo24: I will admit some of my own lack of interest in IPL arises from the appalling TV coverage we get here, but Cook, at present not even in Twenty20 contention, why should IPL influence him in any way?

    Nobody has fought harder for players than Tim May, but this is a battle not a war and he should remember you can't fight every skirmish without getting defeated through exhaustion. Maybe we should give Sivaramakrishnan a chance, but it is hard to see what he brings to the table.

  • POSTED BY SurlyCynic on | May 7, 2013, 22:14 GMT

    @ the_blue_android: I'm talking about the past, 70s 80s and earlier, when the MCC ran cricket, and most of the cricket world criticised England for having too much influence and acting in their own interests. Now that the BCCI dominates the smaller boards (and hence the ICC) some of the same people who criticised the MCC defend the BCCI.

    As someone who isn't English or Indian it's interesting to see how times change - and how some opinions of good governance change too.

  • POSTED BY vish2020 on | May 7, 2013, 21:21 GMT

    Grapes are sour in eng, Aus, SA, nz. Must be that time of year. Cry babies

  • POSTED BY the_blue_android on | May 7, 2013, 21:20 GMT

    @SurlyCynic - Indian fans complaining about England having too much influence? Can you speak in more tangible and verifiable terms instead of imaginary tales which you pull out of your hat?

  • POSTED BY ashok16 on | May 7, 2013, 21:03 GMT

    This whole issue is not very clear to me. What was done wrong and what is the proof that something wrong happened? And exactly, what is the role and responsbility of this player representative.

  • POSTED BY samincolumbia on | May 7, 2013, 21:02 GMT

    @hhillbumper - What is ECB's golden boy upto these days...Mr. Stanford, who is the embodiment of truth and honesty? They should loan him to BCCI for a few days to straighten them up. What do you think?

  • POSTED BY SurlyCynic on | May 7, 2013, 20:46 GMT

    Funny how Indian fans used to complain about England having too much influence over the game they invented. But now when their board tells other boards what to do (like threatening to cancel the India v SA tour if Lorgat is made CEO of the SA board) they claim to be proud of this behaviour and state that 'this is the way the world is'.

    So, were those earlier complaints about England invalid? Are people right to question why this election was redone after India complained? Or is it just the case that people tend to blindly defend their nations without thinking about the effect on other countries?

  • POSTED BY aby_prasad on | May 7, 2013, 20:30 GMT

    I would never criticise BCCI or any body as I know they are a 'group' and as such they are better aware than individuals like us. But if this is true, it isn't in the true spirit of cricket. In addition, I just cant digest the fact that BCCI takes too much time in bringing forth any changes. Forget team changes for team India, just take a look at their commentary team. That man Ravi Shastri is using the same cache phrases and same template lines for years n years and us spectators and tv viewers have to remain silent with frustration and anger growing more n more listening to his grunts, mmphs, mm and the same lines forever! I mean in a country of 1 billion, arent there other good commentators!!!? Hate this fixed unchanged system. Do you need someone to throw an egg at his face for them to get the message? Just takes too much time for anything positive in our country

  • POSTED BY Chakrapani_Bvsn on | May 7, 2013, 20:06 GMT

    How does Tim May know that BCCI has influenced the election? Let us not play the race card here. It is an election and the voters had the final say. If he suspects foul, then provide evidence and demand an enquiry.

  • POSTED BY spickandspan on | May 7, 2013, 19:47 GMT

    @santhoo24, "given that a tour between ENg-NZ is purposefully scheduled so that their players can not participate in IPL". Purposefully sheduled... tad paranoid are we? The English season is what it is, when else could it have been sheduled given there is both the Champions Trophy and the Ashes in England this summer?

  • POSTED BY santhoo24 on | May 7, 2013, 18:47 GMT

    interestingly, does one think either Cook or Taylor/McCullum would vote for May if they were not influenced by their respective boards, given that a tour between ENg-NZ is purposefully scheduled so that their players can not participate in IPL, and Tim May didn't do anything?

  • POSTED BY sportofpain on | May 7, 2013, 18:37 GMT

    BCCI has helped players from all over the world earn unprecedented sums of money. Tim May has not. So let's not compare the two. LS is a former test cricketer and in fact made his test debut 4 years before Tim May. So he has been associated with the game at the highest level longer than May. He needs to be given a fair chance. Tim May has had a good run. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • POSTED BY Al_Pinto on | May 7, 2013, 15:20 GMT

    The funny thing is that neither May or Siva is a "current player" or even a recent one. So I don't understand how they are qualified to be a current player representative. Why not get someone who is liked by everyone and can be trusted to uphold the player's interests - someone like Kumble, Brett Lee, Gilchrist, Dravid, etc. Furthermore, where is the evidence that country boards "threatened" their captains to change their vote, as May alleges?

  • POSTED BY Selassie-I on | May 7, 2013, 14:27 GMT

    Perhaps a lot of people are missing here how much May embarrased some of the boards, like SL and Bangladesh about them not paying players in their T20 tournaments.

    OF course some commentors seem to think that is okay. That players should not get paid for doing their jobs, and then they should have no body to fight their corner, they should just put up with it.That they should have noone looking for their security when playing abroad. I wonder how people would feel if after their month's work their company turned round and refused to pay them... or do some fans on here class pro cricketers as some kind of sub-human species?

  • POSTED BY Raghzzz on | May 7, 2013, 13:53 GMT

    @ Segga Express @ Nightwing 32

    You guys certainly seem to be muddled in your thinking. So what.. May might have done a great job at FICA, fine. But does that warranty a place in an ICC panel? Certainly not. Just because he heads FICA doesn't give him the entitlement. FICA and ICC Panel are two entirely different things.

    If you say Boards are pressurizing their Captains to vote, the same is applicable to Tim May too. He's using his powers and acquaintances and lobbying power from his post as FICA Chief to contest in an election which he is supposed to contest in an individual capacity.

    Lastly, and more importantly - Countries like SL, Bangladesh and WI have voted against him in spite of him being FICA chief. That I think says it all. He hasn't done enough to these countries to convince them of his candidature..

  • POSTED BY Nightwing32 on | May 7, 2013, 12:37 GMT

    We don't know what May has done because I don't sit in the meetings. But if it was originally 9-1 going to May according to the article made by Manthorp. I don't care who leads FICA, I mean if it is some random from Uganda, I wouldn't care as long as it is done in a proper manner. Firstly to first person who mentioned me, the jornos don't vote. It is the captains of all 10 teams and if the President Jimmy Adams (Windies) is saying something isn't right then something isn't right.

    To Baseball-Sucks or whatever, I repeat I don't care if Siva won in a proper manner. You don't know the work Tim May has done and nor do I. To assume that he hasn't anything is naive. Obviously there is a lot of work that the public don't need to know about.

    I repeat myself for the last time. This isn't who won, if the same thing happened to an Indian I wouldn't change my stance. It isn't right for the boards or the ICC to try and get involved in FICA's elections at all. Simple as that. It isn't about May.

  • POSTED BY Fast_Track_Bully on | May 7, 2013, 11:55 GMT

    Why do not they ask for retaining May than a voting? If May cannot win votes from other countrys' who consider him as a failure, then how can he be the rep again? It is for a change the captains opted , not for retaining the same - that's a good thing.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 11:47 GMT

    Made me laugh ! Why is he so interested to be in ICC Committee? You lost the election and you should accept it that player do not want you to represent them in ICC Committee. Its better to welcome LS and work with him rather than against the elected player's representative. Who knows may be May will lose the FICA's position in coming election ! You never know. What cricket board does its none of his business and Test captains are always have the rights to vote their own candidates and I do not think Tim May did a good job then how did he lose the position in the election to LS. I think its better he works with LS and sort out players problems that are arising in various situations rather than wasting FICA's money to a silly enquiry.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | May 7, 2013, 11:41 GMT

    Now that Tim May has lost the usual suspects and some new chaps are making noises about the integrity of some individuals and say that the whole process was rigged. Know what? I think the real farce was to conduct an election for the election of the Current Players Representative but only letting the captains vote. Wow, what a way to conduct elections. FICA who claims to represent players and not just captains kept quite about this aspect but now that Tim May has lost they are making all sorts of objections.

    And as always, based on "SOME" reports which themselves are based on the whinging of these very FICA officials FICA is now saying that "ALLEGEDLY" BCCI acted like this to oust Tim May.

    I think FICA is almost suggesting that Tim May has a birth right for this post. Or were they thinking that since it was the month of May so May had to win :-p

  • POSTED BY Ozcricketwriter on | May 7, 2013, 11:09 GMT

    I am not sure about this. On one hand, the BCCI are trying to get a monopoly over the game but on the other hand there is simply no evidence that they manipulated votes. Tim May wasn't the most popular cricketer in the world when he played and he ended up being the player representative primarily because of his stance against the alleged match fixing proposals by Saleem Malik. Tim May is a divisive figure. I would have thought that someone like Adam Gilchrist or Sachin Tendulkar would be better options, as everyone loves them. Or Brett Lee.

  • POSTED BY Stark62 on | May 7, 2013, 11:03 GMT

    I say good riddance to may!!

    Some nationalistic players were quite obviously favoured over others, hence this guy was out voted.

    Admit defeat gracefully and go back to being a nobody.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 11:03 GMT

    Iit not a co-incidence that Mr.Sivaramakrishnan comes from the same state as the BCCI chairman.

  • POSTED BY guptahitesh4u on | May 7, 2013, 11:02 GMT

    FICA should have opposed the election itself if they wanted "May" to remain in the committee anyhow

  • POSTED BY Baseball-Sucks on | May 7, 2013, 10:58 GMT

    @ Nightwing32 ; Dude, forget about all the alleged influences, Did you really think that Mathews, Dhoni, Rahim, Misbah, Sammy n Taylor would vote for Tim May ??? What has Tim May done for those players ?? Tim May hasn't given a hoop about players from those countries. Stop being a sore loser. Its about time you people realize that you can't have everything your way. Its a new era !!!

  • POSTED BY amitgarg78 on | May 7, 2013, 10:58 GMT

    Funny how BCCI cops the blame for everything that doesnt happen (or happens) with the approval from certain quarters. We live in a world where agreeing to disagree is common in all walks of life, but it doesn't seem to be so common in cricket where some folks love to play saviors and blame others (readBCCI) for all that's wrong with the game.

  • POSTED BY zoot364 on | May 7, 2013, 10:49 GMT

    Some very odd comments here. This about due process - an administrative body abiding by its own rules. Not whether you have a personal dislike for FICA, the BCCI, or any other national cricket board.

  • POSTED BY TheUltimateTruth on | May 7, 2013, 10:41 GMT

    @Nightwing32, it is only the journalists from the 4 countries that voted for May that feel that anything was wrong here. There are respected and brave journalists that are independent of the BCCI in India too -- haven't heard any complaints from any of them yet! This is truly a case of someone who lost an election that he thought was in the bag and can't seem to handle it. Yo May earn the trust of players in Ind, Pak, SL, Bang, and WI and then may be you will win. Until then, buh-bye!

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 10:36 GMT

    very rich! Not too long ago England and Australia had veto power in ICC. Nobody from australia were complaining then.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 10:27 GMT

    what else it can be other than sour grapes

  • POSTED BY mirchy on | May 7, 2013, 10:27 GMT

    A vintage wine May have gone sour.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 10:26 GMT

    I am loving this loser attitude by the past masters

  • POSTED BY CrICkeeet on | May 7, 2013, 10:17 GMT

    Really amazing 2 see FICA childly bhaving! What is FICA'S target? Looks after PLAYER's walfare of May's personal interest?

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 10:16 GMT

    It's a classic case of sour grapes ! These people are now talking about a types of lobbying !! It is hard for them to digest that an Asian has been democratically elected........

  • POSTED BY Nightwing32 on | May 7, 2013, 10:06 GMT

    The thing is that we have had articles by well respected jornos on what took place. If Sivarmankrishnan won without any outside influence then I don't think they would care. This isn't about because who's Indian or not, it is just a breach of a process and we know for a fact that the BCCI are trying to control cricket.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 9:45 GMT

    Let no one acuse Indians of being myopic, but the comments here might prove me wrong..........

  • POSTED BY segga-express on | May 7, 2013, 9:45 GMT

    There seems to be a woeful lack of understanding about FICA's role among comments here. They will represent ANY cricketer in any country if requested. They have member associations in 7 Test playing nations, only India, Zimbabwe and Pakistan do not have member associations. They are protesting about pressure being placed on players to vote a certain way, not mere lobbying. There have been independent reports of this pressure and are urging the ICC to uphold ICC policy on such issues. Their job is to act in the players' best interests. If players are being pressured to forgo their independence of mind then FICA are compelled to attempt to restore that independence as that is FICA's raison d'etre.

  • POSTED BY TheUltimateTruth on | May 7, 2013, 9:42 GMT

    If the voting were not anonymous or by just the captains, May would have lost in a landslide. Not only has he or FICA not done anything positive for the Indian, Pak, Bang, SL, or WI players he has not done anything for English and NZ players either. English players want to play in the IPL and earn some decent money -- what have the boards done, but schedule a test series to intervene with that hope. Allow more T20 leagues to take root, and many fringe players can start making a living. It will help cricket, not hurt it. FICA is a useless organization that is just doing the bidding of the Aus, NZ, Eng, and SF boards. Good riddance, I say.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 9:24 GMT

    I doubt FICA has any role to play on accusing any one for May's exclusion. If they think the boards should not interfere then FICA also should not interfere. Why are they talking on behalf of May who is an individual capacity stood on the election and therefore FICA has no authority. If FICA has the authority then they should not blame ICC or the Individual cricket boards.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    BCCI holds a lot of power in International cricket ..... ICC , FICA are far behind BCCI .....

  • POSTED BY TonyRai on | May 7, 2013, 9:01 GMT

    Haha. What a joke. this tells you exacetly why May should leave.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 8:55 GMT

    Why make a hue and cry over this. The decisions made by the ICC Committee are rarely implemented by the Boards and the decisions are only on paper. The (non) implementation of DRS Review System by Boards is a Classical Example. So lets move ahead and enjoy this GENTLEMENS GAME.If the Players are themselves not interested in protecting their rights, why go hoarse shouting for them. Hope better sense prevail and wish Shiva all the best and (May) continue to address your fight for the cause of players.

  • POSTED BY Sundararajan on | May 7, 2013, 8:38 GMT

    So, if FICA is to be believed, they are allowed to lobby for Tim May but others are not allowed to lobby for their candidate!! I would say sore loser!!!

  • POSTED BY NumberXI on | May 7, 2013, 8:34 GMT

    The comments about Tim May's "sense of entitlement" are very telling, and very apt. Interestingly, the FICA's grouse appears to be based mainly on "media reports", and not on anything they seem to have been specifically told or have heard. At this rate, it will only be a matter of time where every tabloid will publish its own take on everything and FICA will demand in inquiry!!

  • POSTED BY vswami on | May 7, 2013, 8:28 GMT

    If FICA wants to win elections, it needs to endear itself to those whose votes it wants. Thats democracy. If you are hell bent on destroying me, I wont vote for you if given a choice. Lobbying is part and parcel of any democracy and voting process. Tell me one democratic election for any office in the world which is devoid of any lobbying for votes. I can only derive that some countries think only they are allowed to lobby for votes.

  • POSTED BY SalimLangda on | May 7, 2013, 8:16 GMT

    No evidence is provided that any threats were made by any board to their employees, although this is implied. FICA doesn't represent players from around the world. Why should everybody vote for FICA's candidate? What has Tim May done for Indian players? It seems strange that May displays this sort of entitlement. Elections were held, the process was followed. If FICA has the right to lobby on behalf of May, then everyone else is entitled to the same right. I'm not convinced May was the right choice precisely because his sense of entitlement.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 8:12 GMT

    So basically Tim May called for the investigation into his own exclusion -- hmmmm.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 8:12 GMT

    Whatever happens, happens for the best.

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 7, 2013, 8:09 GMT

    Tim May has been ousted in a keenly contested elections fairly. Just because FICA wanted May but he lost is just crying foul. Instead they should give full support to LS and carry on with its duties. Unless any captain who hsa been involved in the voting alleges board intervention, there are no grounds to investigate.

  • POSTED BY Raghzzz on | May 7, 2013, 8:01 GMT

    This is just another episode of turning sour grapes. FICA is creating hue and cry because one of its own person - a very prominent one - lost the election. So, what if BCCI did so called "loobying"..

    Then what is FICA doing here? Is it not lobbying by itself? Don't expect Captains to vote for Tim May just because their country's players are signatory to FICA. Now thats what you should call lobbying or crudely put, rigging..

  • POSTED BY Ayush_Chauhan on | May 7, 2013, 7:54 GMT

    If I was to give a very blatant response to this news, I would say FICA is being a sore loser. To think that any of the test captains voted without having a discussion with their respective boards is absurd to the extent that it is funny. BCCI holds a lot of power in International cricket today, and even its small suggestions can be interpreted as threats. They don't do their public image any favors by standing by what they think irrespective of others (something remotely similar to Australian board of 90s and English board even today). Some call it lobbying, some call it threatening, it all depends on which side you are looking from.

  • POSTED BY anuradha_d on | May 7, 2013, 7:46 GMT

    There is a lot of anger and empotion overriding logic......because of the ouster of May.......FICA is not known in 6 out of 10 countries........and May did nothing for players in those 6 countries.......and so they didn't vote for him.... and now May / FICA is sounding no diffrent from the election losers in Venezuela and Malysia......like losers sound everywhere

  • POSTED BY MostCulturedAussieSirLesPatterson on | May 7, 2013, 7:38 GMT

    A clear case of "if I don't win I'll take my ball away"!

  • POSTED BY pvwadekar on | May 7, 2013, 7:31 GMT

    ICC is about as useful as United Nations. What is the point of this ethics inquiry anyway? The Woolf Report recommended that there should not be any interference from the board member, why didn't ICC implement it, the inquiry should figure out that first. Secondly Tim May/FICA, rubbed some of the cricket boards that wrong way. It was stupid of him or FICA to assume that the board members will not react. That's all to it.Move on.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 7:24 GMT

    If at all threatening by BCCI is true, it is against the ethics and morality that the game has established over the years and Cricket is called as a 'Gentleman Game'.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 7:23 GMT

    I completely agree with you Haleos

  • POSTED BY Haleos on | May 7, 2013, 7:19 GMT

    If this means we do not have to hear Laxman Sivaramakrishnan commentary then that is one the best news to come out in recent days for the fans.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 7:01 GMT

    it is a sad day for cricket when something like this occurs. This is a slur for professional cricketers, who are the main reason why this great game is flourishing.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY Chris_P on | May 7, 2013, 7:01 GMT

    it is a sad day for cricket when something like this occurs. This is a slur for professional cricketers, who are the main reason why this great game is flourishing.

  • POSTED BY Haleos on | May 7, 2013, 7:19 GMT

    If this means we do not have to hear Laxman Sivaramakrishnan commentary then that is one the best news to come out in recent days for the fans.

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 7:23 GMT

    I completely agree with you Haleos

  • POSTED BY on | May 7, 2013, 7:24 GMT

    If at all threatening by BCCI is true, it is against the ethics and morality that the game has established over the years and Cricket is called as a 'Gentleman Game'.

  • POSTED BY pvwadekar on | May 7, 2013, 7:31 GMT

    ICC is about as useful as United Nations. What is the point of this ethics inquiry anyway? The Woolf Report recommended that there should not be any interference from the board member, why didn't ICC implement it, the inquiry should figure out that first. Secondly Tim May/FICA, rubbed some of the cricket boards that wrong way. It was stupid of him or FICA to assume that the board members will not react. That's all to it.Move on.

  • POSTED BY MostCulturedAussieSirLesPatterson on | May 7, 2013, 7:38 GMT

    A clear case of "if I don't win I'll take my ball away"!

  • POSTED BY anuradha_d on | May 7, 2013, 7:46 GMT

    There is a lot of anger and empotion overriding logic......because of the ouster of May.......FICA is not known in 6 out of 10 countries........and May did nothing for players in those 6 countries.......and so they didn't vote for him.... and now May / FICA is sounding no diffrent from the election losers in Venezuela and Malysia......like losers sound everywhere

  • POSTED BY Ayush_Chauhan on | May 7, 2013, 7:54 GMT

    If I was to give a very blatant response to this news, I would say FICA is being a sore loser. To think that any of the test captains voted without having a discussion with their respective boards is absurd to the extent that it is funny. BCCI holds a lot of power in International cricket today, and even its small suggestions can be interpreted as threats. They don't do their public image any favors by standing by what they think irrespective of others (something remotely similar to Australian board of 90s and English board even today). Some call it lobbying, some call it threatening, it all depends on which side you are looking from.

  • POSTED BY Raghzzz on | May 7, 2013, 8:01 GMT

    This is just another episode of turning sour grapes. FICA is creating hue and cry because one of its own person - a very prominent one - lost the election. So, what if BCCI did so called "loobying"..

    Then what is FICA doing here? Is it not lobbying by itself? Don't expect Captains to vote for Tim May just because their country's players are signatory to FICA. Now thats what you should call lobbying or crudely put, rigging..

  • POSTED BY KK47 on | May 7, 2013, 8:09 GMT

    Tim May has been ousted in a keenly contested elections fairly. Just because FICA wanted May but he lost is just crying foul. Instead they should give full support to LS and carry on with its duties. Unless any captain who hsa been involved in the voting alleges board intervention, there are no grounds to investigate.