Ganguly's hopes recede

Sourav Ganguly's chances of returning to the Indian team for the one-day series in Sri Lanka receded with the ICC's Disputes Resolution Committee setting a July 22 date for final arguments in the BCCI dispute over the process adopted during the Indian captain's appeal against a six-match ODI ban.

Justice Albie Sachs, a South Africa Constitutional Court Judge, has given the ICC and the BCCI until July 20 to supply written submissions of their case and a further two days to file their replies. Sachs, an anti-aparthied hero, would then consider all the information and settle the dispute.

However, the Indian team to play in Sri Lanka, against the hosts and the West Indies, is to be picked on July 18. Sachs said that he was aware of the gravity of the situation but had not yet fixed a date for his verdict. "I realise that, it's obvious. But I have not not committed to any date, all I can say is I am a fast worker," Sachs told reporters over the telephone.

Sachs said that the BCCI dispute was "a question of legality of the process" adopted to hear Ganguly's appeal and as such it needed his "serious attention". In his directions to the two parties, Sachs has asked them to submit their points on the issues raised by the BCCI.

Two questions seemingly at the heart of the dispute were (i) how the ICC's Code of Conduct fixed the culpability of a captain and the factors by which the Level 2 and 3 offences were determined and (ii) if it was possible to reconcile the two approaches adopted by Tim Castle and Michael Beloff.

It may be racalled that Castle allowed Ganguly an oral hearing when he appealed against a one-match ban handed down by Clive Lloyd, the match referee, for India's slow over-rate in the Platinum Jubilee one-dayer against Pakistan in November 2004.

Beloff, also the chairman of the Code of Conduct Commission, referred only to arguments presented by text after the six-match ban imposed by Chris Broad in April. While Castle exonerated Ganguly, Beloff upheld Broad's decision.

The finality of Appeals Commissioner's verdict was another matter raised by the BCCI. Sachs said that his verdict could have a bearing on the past decisions when captains were banned for teams' slow over rates and the ICC rules providing for it.

"It is a question of the legality of the process in terms of relevant rules. If it is not in the rules (to ban a captain for his team's slow over-rate), penalties in the past might have to be reconsidered.

"It depends on the reason for my decision. If it (the reason) is substantial, it will have an effect. But I can't go into that really at this stage."

Sachs, however, discouraged the BCCI's efforts to seek a personal hearing.