BCCI demands explanation from Bindra, PCA

At a time when investigations into various matchfixing allegations are in progress, most people prefer to offer no comment. A standard response elicited from anyone queried is "the concerned authorities are investigating and till they pronounce their verdict I would not like to comment." Inderjit Singh Bindra might be wishing that he too used that line on curious journalists. Instead, Bindra has gone out on a limb ever since the matchfixing scandal hit the headlines. Today, the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is demanding an explanation.

The BCCI have issued show cause notices to both the Punjab Cricket Association (PCA) and Bindra. The exact date when the notice was issued is under some dispute. The Times of India reports that a courier service acknowledged delivery of the notice on the 17th of July. The Punjab Cricket Association however claims that they only received the notice on Monday, 24th July. Although we have no way of determining when exactly the notice was received, one thing is certain. Even if the PCA did receive the notice only on the 24th of July, they will have to respond on or before the 13th of September. Thus the variation in date of receipt, a week, is not a matter that will cause anyone great concern.

The BCCI has specifically asked the PCA to separate itself from the comments made by its president. If it does not do so, the PCA will be held responsible and further action will be taken against them.

The notice that was issued to Bindra is supposed to contain various different comments made by Bindra to the press. The most famous incident being the time that Bindra spoke on a late night show hosted on CNN and alleged that Kapil Dev was the man named by Manoj Prabhakar as the player who offered him money to underperform. After that there have been many more television shows, and indeed many more debatable comments.

When contacted by CricInfo, Bindra said "I have received the notice only on Monday (24th July) and will respond within the stipulated time." When pressed further, his reply was ironic "I can comment further on the issue only after I respond officially to the Board." If only he had shown the same restraint earlier!