21 November, 2000

Good afternoon all...

There's a game on at the Kotla, after all, thanks to an unusual declaration by Ganguly and a fine spell of new ball bowling by Javagal Srinath. But since the usual match report deals with those events, this diary focusses on a couple of unusual activities by two old friends -- Lord McLaurin and Jagmohan Dalmiya.

McLaurin's contortions as he attempts to sweep allegations against English cricketers aside is proving food for farce, these days. First, there was the 'extensive, in-depth investigation via conference call', at the end of which the peer of the British realm pronounced himself satisfied with Alec Stewart's innocence. Unfortunately for McLaurin, Stewart then confessed that the 'extensive investigation' comprised just three questions, to each of which Stewart answered with one word: 'No'.

And now comes his latest -- a statement to the effect that he is constituting a committee to examine the credibilty of the CBI report!

Huh? An accused player is investigated and cleared through a 30-second phone call, there is no talk of any committee or suchlike device to probe in-depth, but the police agency levelling the allegation is to be probed in depth by a committee?

Classic defense strategy -- if you can't answer questions, then attack your accuser. Frankly, though, I am getting increasingly suspicious about His Lordship -- the haste with which he keeps trying to cover up makes you wonder just what his stake in the whole affair is.

Equally interesting, is the latest statement from Dalmiya. 'What is wrong,' that worthy asks, 'if cricketers provided information to bookmakers? After all, commentators have been doing the same thing, providing the same information on television for free, so what is the harm if a few cricketers pass on the same kind of stuff?'

Interesting, that argument. I wonder, though, if Dalmiya is aware of a little booklet, titled 'Code of Conduct, Standard Playing Conditions and Other Regulations', which was published in September 1999, and is in circulation among cricket-playing nations around the world.

Page 48 of this booklet is interesting. Under the heading 'Relevant Matters for Investigation', the first para of the document document says:

'Whether, at any time after July 1, 1993, any player of a cricket authority's team participating in any Test, One Day International, or representative cricket match.... has engaged in any of the following conduct:'

Clause (viii) reads: "Received from another person any money, benefit or other reward (whether financial or otherwise) for the provision of any information concerning the weather, the teams, the state of the ground, the status of, or the outcome of, any match or the occurence of any event unless such information was provided to a newspaper or other form of media in accordance with an obligation entered into in the normal course and disclosed in advance to the cricket authority of the relevant member country...."

Shorn of the legal jargon, what that clause says is that any player who has provided information to anyone without having previously informed his country's cricketing authorities is liable for investigation.

So, if you have talked to bookies, you are under the gun, period -- as per the ICC's own code.

Having quoted from page 48 and 49, let us flip back to page 3 -- which gives the list of office bearers of the ICC, under whose aegis this code was introduced. And right there, on top, occupying pride of place, is this entry:

President: Jagmohan Dalmiya.

That leaves us with just two questions:

1) Through his recent statement justifying the passing on of information to bookmakers, is Dalmiya repudiating the code that was pushed through under his presidentship of the ICC?

2) Is Dalmiya saying that he, and the BCCI, knew that players were passing on information to the bookmakers? Because, you see, the code does say that if the players concerned have informed their respective boards, then they are not liable for any kind of action. So what is Dalmiya really saying, when he says that the five players named by the CBI are not guilty of any wrongdoing -- that he, and the board, knew all along that they were playing footsie with bookies?

Okay, make that three questions: Do these blokes in cricket administration think before they speak? Or rather, rephrase that -- CAN they think?

Adios, all... stay safe, keep smiling....

Prem

Mail Cricket Editor