Corruption in the IPL June 2, 2013

Srinivasan could breach ICC code

  shares 26

If, as reported, the BCCI is to allow N Srinivasan to be the Indian representative at ICC meetings, starting with the annual conference in London in the last week of June, it raises questions about his suitability according to the ICC's Code of Ethics for its directors, as well as highlighting certain grey areas.

Under clause 7 of the code, which deals with 'Betting, Gaming and Gambling', sub-section 7.2, sub-para (d) reads: "It is not permitted and a Director shall be in breach of this Code if a member of his immediate family (being a spouse, parent, sibling, son or daughter) has a controlling interest in a betting business, a substantial relationship with a betting business or is employed in the day to day operational control of a betting business."

Is Srinivasan, who is one of the ICC directors, in the breach of the above code after the arrest of his son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan in relation to betting allegations?

According to Srinivasan, he was unaware of the code. "If you're looking at ICC's rules, I mean I first have to see it myself, you're reading something, number one," Srinivasan said at the press conference after the IPL final in Kolkata. "I don't have it with me, number two. I have not done anything wrong but we will see. If you've brought it to my attention, we will examine it."

The ICC declined to comment on the issue but a closer examination only exposes uncertainty. Firstly, there is no mention of the word "son-in-law" under various relations listed with reference to immediate family. Then the fact that Meiyappan was not associated with any betting company. This may mean there has been was no direct violation of the code by Srinivasan.

But does being the husband of Srinivasan's daughter not make Meiyappan also immediate family? Meiyappan may not be part of a betting company but if allegations that he was actually betting on cricket during the IPL are proven, is that not illegal under the code?

Assistance on interpretation may be found elsewhere in the document. Clause 4 of the code, on 'Conflicts of Interest', lists the circumstances when a conflict can occur and makes it clear that "this list is not exhaustive, merely illustrative". For the issue to be brought to the table, according to the ICC rules, one of the directors on the ICC board needs to raise it.

Another question that needs clarification pertains to the decision by the BCCI to absolve Srinivasan of the daily duties of the board until the internal probe into Meiyappan is concluded. But if he is not supposed to do day-to-day jobs, why should Srinivasan attend ICC meetings? Isn't that part of the BCCI's daily duties?

That question has no clear answer as Jagmohan Dalmiya, who was appointed as the interim head of the BCCI at Sunday's emergency BCCI meeting in Chennai, said the decision of who would represent India at ICC meetings was still to be made, contradicting the Mumbai Cricket Association's interim president, Ravi Sawant, who told ESPNcricinfo that Srinivasan was the frontrunner.

Nagraj Gollapudi is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY madras_boy on | June 4, 2013, 11:38 GMT

    Comeon cricinfo, why are you saying breach of ICC code when you can literally read what it states. Guru is not in betting business - as simple as that !!!

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 11:29 GMT

    The fact is that, ICC fore-sighted these sort of scenario and made relevant codes and rules too..Now to call Cricket-"Gentleman's Game" and to have these sort of clauses and codes in place is Hilarious... Cricket is a now a game within a game of deceit.. loved still by millions of true fans..

  • POSTED BY rimx12 on | June 4, 2013, 9:15 GMT

    Son in law is not there because he is not "deemed" to be in close association with the director but in the south asian culture he is deemed to be in actual having a close association with the family. Well, code of ethics is a code showing the general public that we adhere to these principles serving in the integrity and credibility of the organization they are not law as like some people are dissecting it. If we look at the ethical principles and the close association in this scenario between the 2 persons its clearly unethical and no stakeholder of cricket shall deem it to be ethical. It is with the ICC to play with its reputation or sacrifice the integrity of itself and of cricket. Lets see if ICC is also on the payroll of BCCI.

  • POSTED BY r.r.nathan on | June 4, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    The clause is under "ICC's Code of Ethics for its directors", so here the most important point of the code is "Ethics" for which the clause are made. So if some one trying to fight with points like in-laws are not included in the clause or not directly associated with betting industry directly etc are all are reasons to stick around as i mentioned earlier, the code is made to remind you about some ethics one has to have and act.

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 6:20 GMT

    How can these people be running the most important and influential cricket board in the world, there must be better candidates around

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | June 4, 2013, 6:16 GMT

    I don't see any grey area at all. As the law is worded, Srinivasan is clearly not in breach of it. If the list of relations was "including but not limited to" then that might be a grey area. If the law said "was substantially involved in betting" then that might be a grey area. As it stands, the only grey area could be if the relation involved was one of those specified and he was employed by a betting company but it was difficult to determine what his actual involvement in day-to-day control was. Maybe the regulation should be broader but, right now, it's not so there's no breach.

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 6:14 GMT

    the fact that the emergency meeting went without fuss means that srinivasan had the votes.. the fight now moves into the mumbai crime branch where investigations are happening and may be the moot three man committee.

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 6:12 GMT

    On morale grounds it doesn't matter if he himself has indulge in false things or not. What is more important that after all this halla gullaa how can a man, who is believed to be a reputed personality still be so shameless not to resign from the head position of board which is surrounded by huge controversy? Will it not hurt his self esteem badly??? Hard to understand for a common man like me!!!

  • POSTED BY TheOnlyEmperor on | June 4, 2013, 6:09 GMT

    "It is not permitted and a Director shall be in breach of this Code if a member of his immediate family (being a spouse, parent, sibling, son or daughter)"

    In laws are not immediate family, especially so if they are not dependent on the person!

  • POSTED BY crindex on | June 4, 2013, 6:06 GMT

    When did son-in-law became part of family unit in the strict definition of it?

  • POSTED BY madras_boy on | June 4, 2013, 11:38 GMT

    Comeon cricinfo, why are you saying breach of ICC code when you can literally read what it states. Guru is not in betting business - as simple as that !!!

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 11:29 GMT

    The fact is that, ICC fore-sighted these sort of scenario and made relevant codes and rules too..Now to call Cricket-"Gentleman's Game" and to have these sort of clauses and codes in place is Hilarious... Cricket is a now a game within a game of deceit.. loved still by millions of true fans..

  • POSTED BY rimx12 on | June 4, 2013, 9:15 GMT

    Son in law is not there because he is not "deemed" to be in close association with the director but in the south asian culture he is deemed to be in actual having a close association with the family. Well, code of ethics is a code showing the general public that we adhere to these principles serving in the integrity and credibility of the organization they are not law as like some people are dissecting it. If we look at the ethical principles and the close association in this scenario between the 2 persons its clearly unethical and no stakeholder of cricket shall deem it to be ethical. It is with the ICC to play with its reputation or sacrifice the integrity of itself and of cricket. Lets see if ICC is also on the payroll of BCCI.

  • POSTED BY r.r.nathan on | June 4, 2013, 9:12 GMT

    The clause is under "ICC's Code of Ethics for its directors", so here the most important point of the code is "Ethics" for which the clause are made. So if some one trying to fight with points like in-laws are not included in the clause or not directly associated with betting industry directly etc are all are reasons to stick around as i mentioned earlier, the code is made to remind you about some ethics one has to have and act.

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 6:20 GMT

    How can these people be running the most important and influential cricket board in the world, there must be better candidates around

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | June 4, 2013, 6:16 GMT

    I don't see any grey area at all. As the law is worded, Srinivasan is clearly not in breach of it. If the list of relations was "including but not limited to" then that might be a grey area. If the law said "was substantially involved in betting" then that might be a grey area. As it stands, the only grey area could be if the relation involved was one of those specified and he was employed by a betting company but it was difficult to determine what his actual involvement in day-to-day control was. Maybe the regulation should be broader but, right now, it's not so there's no breach.

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 6:14 GMT

    the fact that the emergency meeting went without fuss means that srinivasan had the votes.. the fight now moves into the mumbai crime branch where investigations are happening and may be the moot three man committee.

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 6:12 GMT

    On morale grounds it doesn't matter if he himself has indulge in false things or not. What is more important that after all this halla gullaa how can a man, who is believed to be a reputed personality still be so shameless not to resign from the head position of board which is surrounded by huge controversy? Will it not hurt his self esteem badly??? Hard to understand for a common man like me!!!

  • POSTED BY TheOnlyEmperor on | June 4, 2013, 6:09 GMT

    "It is not permitted and a Director shall be in breach of this Code if a member of his immediate family (being a spouse, parent, sibling, son or daughter)"

    In laws are not immediate family, especially so if they are not dependent on the person!

  • POSTED BY crindex on | June 4, 2013, 6:06 GMT

    When did son-in-law became part of family unit in the strict definition of it?

  • POSTED BY TATTUs on | June 4, 2013, 5:53 GMT

    To quote captain Barbosa - "The code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 5:49 GMT

    I am getting fed up with all these controversies. What I am going to do now - and what anyone with a bit of common sense will do - is I am going to stop watching cricket and also stop buying those brands endorsing teams like CSK and players like Dhoni, Raina and Jadeja, to name a few. This is the least I can do for a game which I loved dearly and played upto till college and district league level.

  • POSTED BY ladycricfan on | June 4, 2013, 5:48 GMT

    1) son-in-law is not immediate family.

    2)meiyappan has no controlling interest in "betting business", he is only alleged to have been involved in "betting".

    3)srinivasan has only 3months left as there will be a new BCCI president in September. I think he will leave it to others to run the BCCI, including attending icc meetings.

  • POSTED BY kaysun on | June 4, 2013, 5:37 GMT

    Read again....".... if a member of his immediate family (being a spouse, parent, sibling, son or daughter) has a controlling interest in a betting...." - No in-laws!!! Aha! Gotcha!!

  • POSTED BY procleanaction on | June 4, 2013, 5:36 GMT

    Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely - Lord Acton

  • POSTED BY WalkingWicket11 on | June 4, 2013, 4:50 GMT

    @mngc No it doesn't. Stop bringing DRS into everything. Care to explain why DRS wasn't used in the ICC World T20 in Sri Lanka last year? (Don't claim that BCCI bullied ICC against using it. BCCI clearly said that for ICC events, ICC will decide on use of DRS, and was used in the 50-over World Cup in India.)

  • POSTED BY mngc1 on | June 4, 2013, 2:41 GMT

    Doesn't this whole scenario throw up questions about why India is the only country objecting to the full use of DRS?

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 2:10 GMT

    Technically, he is not under the aegis of this law. Technically, he has not directly 'done anything wrong'. But the fact is that despite claims of being a 'cricket man' and all that, he has first brazenly, then shamelessly clung on to a post, holding the game to a ransom. Just give a chance to appreciate the few good things you've done Mr. Srinivasan, and stay away from this until you're asked to come back (if at all).

  • POSTED BY Siva_Bala75 on | June 4, 2013, 1:53 GMT

    The rule defines what is an 'immediate family' and clearly son-in-law is not considered as an immediate family as per the rule. So, it is again back to the question of legal vs moral. I will be more interested in reading the discussions and views of media, readers, etc., around this issue of legality vs morality.Very little is discussed on this matter.

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 1:23 GMT

    The best way I can respond to this article is to repeat /quote a key para from it"

    "Another question that needs clarification pertains to the decision by the BCCI to absolve Srinivasan of the daily duties of the board until the internal probe into Meiyappan is concluded. But if he is not supposed to do day-to-day jobs, why should Srinivasan attend ICC meetings? Isn't that part of the BCCI's daily duties?"

    Yes, I do have the same doubt.

    Since, the doubt lingers, till all the clouds get cleared, it is in the fitness of things that Dalmia himself attend the ICC meetings. Dalmia need to somehow "authenticate" his current "nebulous" status, through a series of acts. This is one such an act (perhaps a powerful one) he can take up and perform.

  • POSTED BY TheGuruji on | June 4, 2013, 1:21 GMT

    Mr. Nagraj - As per your article it is a violation where a member of the "immediate family (being a spouse, parent, sibling, son or daughter)" is involved. So as per the definition you mentioned, the son-in-law is not included. Then how is this a case of violation?

  • POSTED BY on | June 3, 2013, 22:27 GMT

    ICC clause 7, sub-section 7.2 doesn't spell out "Son in Law". May be he can servive on that technicality?

  • POSTED BY KingOwl on | June 3, 2013, 22:08 GMT

    Srinivasan will be stupid to attend the meeting. He will only dig himself a deeper hole. If I was his adviser, I would tell him to stay home, out of the limelight.

  • POSTED BY nick_mehta_charlotte on | June 3, 2013, 21:27 GMT

    Lol.... Like its going to make the different... I am not favoring anyone here but one thing I like to make it clear.... if India is not allowed participating in any ICC meeting then the meeting is worthless.... because final word always comes from the big daddy believe it or not...... If ICC truly wants other nations strong say in decisions then it should start working on the countries where cricket is dying.

  • POSTED BY WallFly on | June 3, 2013, 21:13 GMT

    Speaking strictly legally, Srinivasan is NOT in breach of the Code of Ethics. The questions on whether or not the provision citing "son" includes "son-in-laws" is purely academic since even on a "principled" argument of the related facts, Meiyappan is not guilty until PROVEN to be so.

    At this stage, even though carrying a high possibility of being proven true at the end of the day (at least considering the case put forward by Justice Media), these allegations are still ONLY allegations. If you are to adopt a "principled" stance, you cannot simultaneously assume the guilt of an accused.

    So, regardless of the witch hunt in progress, and the seemingly unpopular status of Mr.S within and without of India, it is not justifiable to adopt a stance of ASSUMING Maiyyappan, and by association, Srinivasan are guilty.

    However, when you step outside the bounds of STRICTLY legal considerations, it is absolutely clear that the simple tennets of gentlemenly conduct demand Srinivasan steps aside.

  • POSTED BY CricketManMad on | June 3, 2013, 20:56 GMT

    I dont understand why media and all these folks are keep brushing things up, When according to the code of ICC there is no relationship called son-In-Law why this write up keep asking about Srini's daughter and her husband. It's their (ICC) duty to prove these things are right or wrong and not each and every writer to say this is correct, or this may be correct. I am neither his supporter nor hater. If things proven against Srini let him go to Jail or otherwise for heaven sake pls leave this topic and concentrate CRICKET related (Only game related) topics over here please.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY CricketManMad on | June 3, 2013, 20:56 GMT

    I dont understand why media and all these folks are keep brushing things up, When according to the code of ICC there is no relationship called son-In-Law why this write up keep asking about Srini's daughter and her husband. It's their (ICC) duty to prove these things are right or wrong and not each and every writer to say this is correct, or this may be correct. I am neither his supporter nor hater. If things proven against Srini let him go to Jail or otherwise for heaven sake pls leave this topic and concentrate CRICKET related (Only game related) topics over here please.

  • POSTED BY WallFly on | June 3, 2013, 21:13 GMT

    Speaking strictly legally, Srinivasan is NOT in breach of the Code of Ethics. The questions on whether or not the provision citing "son" includes "son-in-laws" is purely academic since even on a "principled" argument of the related facts, Meiyappan is not guilty until PROVEN to be so.

    At this stage, even though carrying a high possibility of being proven true at the end of the day (at least considering the case put forward by Justice Media), these allegations are still ONLY allegations. If you are to adopt a "principled" stance, you cannot simultaneously assume the guilt of an accused.

    So, regardless of the witch hunt in progress, and the seemingly unpopular status of Mr.S within and without of India, it is not justifiable to adopt a stance of ASSUMING Maiyyappan, and by association, Srinivasan are guilty.

    However, when you step outside the bounds of STRICTLY legal considerations, it is absolutely clear that the simple tennets of gentlemenly conduct demand Srinivasan steps aside.

  • POSTED BY nick_mehta_charlotte on | June 3, 2013, 21:27 GMT

    Lol.... Like its going to make the different... I am not favoring anyone here but one thing I like to make it clear.... if India is not allowed participating in any ICC meeting then the meeting is worthless.... because final word always comes from the big daddy believe it or not...... If ICC truly wants other nations strong say in decisions then it should start working on the countries where cricket is dying.

  • POSTED BY KingOwl on | June 3, 2013, 22:08 GMT

    Srinivasan will be stupid to attend the meeting. He will only dig himself a deeper hole. If I was his adviser, I would tell him to stay home, out of the limelight.

  • POSTED BY on | June 3, 2013, 22:27 GMT

    ICC clause 7, sub-section 7.2 doesn't spell out "Son in Law". May be he can servive on that technicality?

  • POSTED BY TheGuruji on | June 4, 2013, 1:21 GMT

    Mr. Nagraj - As per your article it is a violation where a member of the "immediate family (being a spouse, parent, sibling, son or daughter)" is involved. So as per the definition you mentioned, the son-in-law is not included. Then how is this a case of violation?

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 1:23 GMT

    The best way I can respond to this article is to repeat /quote a key para from it"

    "Another question that needs clarification pertains to the decision by the BCCI to absolve Srinivasan of the daily duties of the board until the internal probe into Meiyappan is concluded. But if he is not supposed to do day-to-day jobs, why should Srinivasan attend ICC meetings? Isn't that part of the BCCI's daily duties?"

    Yes, I do have the same doubt.

    Since, the doubt lingers, till all the clouds get cleared, it is in the fitness of things that Dalmia himself attend the ICC meetings. Dalmia need to somehow "authenticate" his current "nebulous" status, through a series of acts. This is one such an act (perhaps a powerful one) he can take up and perform.

  • POSTED BY Siva_Bala75 on | June 4, 2013, 1:53 GMT

    The rule defines what is an 'immediate family' and clearly son-in-law is not considered as an immediate family as per the rule. So, it is again back to the question of legal vs moral. I will be more interested in reading the discussions and views of media, readers, etc., around this issue of legality vs morality.Very little is discussed on this matter.

  • POSTED BY on | June 4, 2013, 2:10 GMT

    Technically, he is not under the aegis of this law. Technically, he has not directly 'done anything wrong'. But the fact is that despite claims of being a 'cricket man' and all that, he has first brazenly, then shamelessly clung on to a post, holding the game to a ransom. Just give a chance to appreciate the few good things you've done Mr. Srinivasan, and stay away from this until you're asked to come back (if at all).

  • POSTED BY mngc1 on | June 4, 2013, 2:41 GMT

    Doesn't this whole scenario throw up questions about why India is the only country objecting to the full use of DRS?