Neither logic nor common sense have anything to do with BCCI’s campaign against ICL, writes Suveen K Sinha in the Business Standard. He says Sri Lanka Cricket's recent step to lift the bans on ICL players would have come as a jolt to the Indian board.
In the process, they [Sri Lanka Cricket] have also stood up for logic and common sense, neither of which has anything to do with BCCI’s campaign against ICL. The Indian board’s Indian Premier League and ICL are played on exactly the same format. ICL was the first to offer dozens of cricketers, who had reconciled to the humdrum and wilderness of domestic cricket, the opportunity to earn a decent livelihood and be part of a properly televised event. The fact that many of them took the opportunity is no reason to ban them. After all, BCCI had not offered them any better alternative.
BCCI’s lack of opposition to the Stanford 20/20 jamboree, which promises to make individual players richer by up to a million dollars, betrays the deep-seated lack of clarity in the Indian board. Stanford is an oil billionaire who has spotted opportunity in 20/20 cricket; Subhash Chandra, who is behind ICL, made his money in media and packaging. What are the criteria on the basis of which ICL is anathema and Stanford is not? Both ICL and Stanford’s tournament, just as BCCI’s own IPL, are about the game of cricket.
In the DNA, Ayaz Memon says Arjuna Ranatunga has fired a salvo that could gather momentum in the days to come, and more national boards could reconsider their stance on ICL players.

Mathew Varghese is sub-editor (stats) at Cricinfo