Sachin Tendulkar terms the alleged conflict of interest as absurd

Tendulkar provided an exhaustive response to the notice issued by the BCCI ethics officer Justice DK Jain over alleged conflict of interest complaint filed by Sanjeev Gupta a life member of the Madhya Pradesh Cricket AssociationFormer India elegant batsman VVS Laxman too has been issued a similar notice Today is the last date for Tendulkar and VVS Laxman to reply to the ethics officers noticeTendulkar who is a member of the Cricket Advisory Committee and a part of the Mumbai Indians team first put the facts up front before replying pointwise to the alleged conflict of interestThe Noticee was appointed to the panel of the Cricket Advisory Committee CAC in the year 2015The Honrsquoble Ethics Officer will appreciate that the Noticee was named as the lsquoICONrsquo for Mumbai Indians much prior to his empanelment with the CAC ndash which fact has always been in the public domain Accordingly the BCCI is aware of the Noticeersquos association with the Mumbai Indians Franchise at the time of his appointment to the CAC stated Tendulkar in his response a copy which is in possession with middayAlso ReadCoA wont offer opinion in Sachin Tendulkar VVS Laxman conflict issueTendulkar denied that he has breached BCCI rule 38 The Complaint wrongly assumes that the Noticeersquos association with the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise ldquoFranchiserdquo is in the capacity of ldquogovernancerdquo ldquomanagementrdquo or ldquoemploymentrdquo ndash thereby attracting a conflict under Rule 38 4jThe Noticeersquos role and association with the Franchise is at best that of a mentor on account of the Noticee being declared an integral part of and source of inspiration for the Franchise team since its inceptionHis role is limited to providing guidance to the Franchise team by sharing his insights learnings and working closely with the younger members in the team to help them realise their true potentialThe Noticee is also involved in supporting and promoting the education of children through sport as a part of the Franchisersquos charitable initiative Education and Sports for All he statedTendulkar mentioned that he does not receive pecuniary benefit or compensation with his association with the Mumbai Indians The Noticee has received no pecuniary benefit compensation from the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise in his capacity as the Mumbai Indians lsquoICONrsquo since his retirement and is certainly not employed with the Franchise in any capacity He does not occupy any position nor has he taken any decision including selection of team players which could qualify as being in governance or management of the Franchise Therefore the post listed in Rule 38 4j is inapplicable to the Noticee Accordingly there is no conflict of interest either under the BCCI Rules or otherwiseGupta had objected in his complaint that Tendulkar and Laxman are allowed to sit in their respective IPL teams dugoutTendulkar said the complainants understanding is completely misplaced The Complaint seeks to jump to conclusions about the Noticeersquos role in the Franchise on the sole and incorrect basis that the Noticee is allowed to sit in the dugout area with said IPL team outfitThe above understanding in the Complaint is entirely misplaced The issue of entry and access to the dugout area is dealt with by BCCIrsquos Minimum Standards for Players and Match Officials Areas at IPL Matches ldquoPMOA Standardsrdquo The PMOA Standards have been adopted by BCCI in support of the BCCI AntiCorruption Code In particular the PMOA Standards seek to restrict to the greatest extent possible all methods of communication between Players Player Support Personnel and Match Officials with all third parties during the IPL matchWatch videoThe Complaint wrongly states that as per these PMOA Standards only team players and team management are allowed to sit in the dugout area In fact Article 311 of the PMOA Standards states that access to the PMOA will be restricted to only those individuals whose presence in that area is absolutely essential for operational purposes This would invariably include Players Match Officials BCCI AntiCorruption Manager other BCCI ACU staff and Player Support PersonnelThe term Player Support Personnel has been defined to mean up to 11 appropriately qualified staff engaged by each Franchisee in the cricket support roles of team manager coaches trainers physiotherapist masseur analyst logistics and mentorThus a mentor is clearly included along with several other staff members within the term lsquoPlayer Support Personnelrsquo ndash and is allowed access to the dugout area under the PMOA Standards A mentor cannot be qualified as ldquomanagementrdquo of the FranchiseIf the Complainantrsquos absurd logic were to be applied a physiotherapist trainer or a masseur would also be qualified as management of the FranchiseIt is also pertinent to note that the Mumbai Indians team has a head coach who works side by side with coaches for specific disciplines such as bowling batting etc in ultimate coordination with the Director of Cricket Operations ndash none of whom the Noticee is answerable to or vice versa since his role is limited to that of providing guidance and motivation to the team Thus it is submitted that the Noticeersquos involvement with the Franchise falls outside the scope of the post listed at Rule 38 4j of the BCCI Rules Tendulkar concludedAlso ReadSachin Sourav and Laxman are soft targetsCatch up on all the latest IPL News and updates here Also download the new midday Android and iOS apps to get latest updates