Ban on Sreesanth against principles of natural justice: lawyer

September 15, 2013

SreesanthNew Delhi, Sep 15: Calling the life ban imposed on S Sreesanth "bizarre", his lawyer Rebecca John said the tainted pacer will challenge the BCCI's decision in court as it is "completely against the principles of natural justice".

Sreesanth was banned for life by the BCCI after being found guilty of spot-fixing in the IPL in an internal inquiry conducted by the Board's Anti-Corruption and Security Unit chief Ravi Sawani.

"The (BCCI) order is completely against the principles of natural justice," John told 'ESPNcricinfo'.

"It has based its findings on personal interactions with members of Delhi Police as well as taken material from the chargesheet that has been filed by the police before a sessions court.

"If that is so then they should have waited for the court to determine whether or not any of this holds up in legal proceedings," she pointed out.

John described the Sawani report as "loose" and questioned the basis of its findings.

"They just picked up conversations they had with members of Delhi Police where they said Sreesanth and other members of the cricketing community confessed before them. It is a very, very loose report with little or no substance in it," John said.

She asked how the evidence which wasn't enough to keep the accused players in jail, could be considered proof of their guilt by the BCCI. Sreesanth, along with four other cricketers, is currently out on bail after spending quite a few days in jail.

"The fact is that the sessions court has released players on bail and said none of this adds up as a case. (The court said) it is very, very tenuous - the link between whatever bookie you are saying had a role to play and the players, particularly Sreesanth, and granted him bail," she said.

"And then this BCCI's one-man committee says that Sreesanth is guilty of spot-fixing and hands over a life sentence to him. Not only is it is excessive, it is completely contrary to all principles of natural justice," she reasoned.

John said Sawani's findings are based on conversations with policemen who are investigating the case, which cannot be enough to impose a life ban.

"How does he come to a conclusion? By having personal conversations with police officials. And you are basing your findings on these?" she asked.

"If you want to read these audio tapes, which are part of the Delhi Police (evidence) in a criminal trial, the link is so tenuous. You will believe it only because the Special Cell of Delhi Police is saying you will have to believe it in a particular way. In any case these are allegations which have to be assessed, processed and a finding has to be determined by a court of law," John said.

She claimed that the life ban was imposed at the behest of BCCI's President-in-exile N Srinivasan.

"The only reason the life ban was imposed -- Mr Srinivasan was very keen to tell the public and the people of India he was treating (the issue) with a heavy hand and some people had to be made scapegoats," John said.

"What is more annoying form the point of the view of the players is that they have let the big fish get away. What happens to Mr Srinivasan. He is owner of Chennai Super Kings and there is a case of conflict of interest pending in the Supreme Court against him.

"The Bombay High Court recently had called the two-member committee illegal after it cleared Gurunath Meiyappan and Raj Kundra (part of Chennai Super Kings and Rajasthan Royals respectively) from corruption charges," she added.

John said her client has been made a scapegoat in the entire scandal.

"Now when the BCCI, of which Srinivasan is the de facto or de jure head, conducts itself in this kind of fashion and then it hands over these sentences to players, who are soft targets, it is a little bizarre," John said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
January 23,2020

Jan 23: Quinton de Kock has been named as the new captain of the South Africa One-Day International side, taking over from Faf du Plessis, who is dropped altogether from the three-match series against England next month.

Du Plessis led South Africa in their disastrous 2019 World Cup campaign and has hinted at international retirement from all formats following the Twenty20 global finals in Australia later this year.

"We all know the quality of the player that Quinton de Kock has grown to become," CSA director of cricket Graeme Smith said in a statement on Tuesday.

"Over the years we have watched him grow in confidence and become one of the top ODI wicket-keeper batsmen in the world. He has a unique outlook and manner in which he goes about his business and is tactically very street smart."

De Kock leads a 15-man squad with five uncapped players in seamers Lutho Sipamla and Sisanda Magala, left-arm orthodox spinner all-rounder Bjorn Fortuin, opening batsman Janneman Malan and wicketkeeper-batsman Kyle Verreynne.

Magala, leg-spinner Tabraiz Shamsi, seamer Lungi Ngidi and hard-hitting opening batsman Jon Jon Smuts must pass fitness tests before they can join the squad.

Fast bowler Kagiso Rabada will be rested for the series, while allrounders Chris Morris and Dwaine Pretorius have also not been able to force their way in.

"The road towards the 2023 Cricket World Cup starts now and we want players doing well in our domestic structures to see the rewards of the hard work that they have put in," CSA Independent Selector Linda Zondi added.

The first ODI will be staged in Cape Town on Feb.4th, with the second in Durban three days later and the final match of the series to be held in Johannesburg on Feb.9th.

Squad: Quinton de Kock (captain), Reeza Hendricks, Temba Bavuma, Rassie van der Dussen, David Miller, Jon Jon Smuts, Andile Phehlukwayo, Lutho Sipamla, Lungi Ngidi, Tabraiz Shamsi, Sisanda Magala, Bjorn Fortuin, Beuran Hendricks, Janneman Malan, Kyle Verreynne.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 10,2020

New Delhi, May 10: Former Australia captain Ian Chappell has proposed radical changes in the LBW laws, stating that a batsman should be given out leg before as long as the ball is hitting the stumps irrespective of the spot of its landing and impact.

Chappell also said captains should agree on one way of working up the ball which will encourage swing bowling, even as the ICC is considering the use of artificial substances to shine the ball instead of sweat and saliva in post-COVID-19 scenario.

"The new lbw law should simply say: 'Any delivery that strikes the pad without first hitting the bat and, in the umpire's opinion, would go on to hit the stumps is out regardless of whether or not a shot is attempted'," he wrote in a column for ESPNcricinfo.

"Forget where the ball pitches and whether it strikes the pad outside the line or not; if it's going to hit the stumps, it's out."

The 76-year-old said the change in lbw law would attract expected criticism from the batsmen but it would make the game more fair.

"There will be screams of horror - particularly from pampered batsmen - but there are numerous positives this change would bring to the game. Most important is fairness.

"If a bowler is prepared to attack the stumps regularly, the batsman should only be able to protect his wicket with the bat. The pads are there to save the batsman from injury not dismissal.

"It would also force batsmen to seek an attacking method to combat a wristspinner pitching in the rough outside the right-hander's leg stump," said Chappell.

He cited Sachin Tendulkar's example on how he negotiated Shane Warne's round the wicket tactic during the 1997-98 Test series in India.

"Contrast Sachin Tendulkar's aggressive and successful approach to Shane Warne coming round the wicket in Chennai in 1997-98 with a batsman who kicks away deliveries pitching in the rough and turning in toward the stumps. Which would you rather watch?

"The current law encourages "pad play" to balls pitching outside leg while this change would force them to use their bat. The change would reward bowlers who attack the stumps and decrease the need for negative wide deliveries to a packed off-side field," he said.

Chappell said his proposed change to the lbw law would also cut down "frivolous" DRS challenges.

"This change to the lbw law would also simplify umpiring and result in fewer frivolous DRS challenges. Consequently, it would speed up a game that has slowed drastically in recent times.

"It would also make four-day Tests an even more viable proposition as mind-numbing huge first-innings totals would be virtually non-existent."

On the substitute of shining the ball without sweat and saliva, Chappell said international captains should find out a way of working up the ball.

"With ball-tampering always a hot topic, in the past I've suggested that administrators ask international captains to construct a list (i.e. the use of natural substances) detailing the things bowlers feel will help them to swing the ball.

"From this list, the administrators should deem one method to be legal with all others being punishable as illegal," the cricketer-turned-commentator added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
May 26,2020

Mumbai, May 26: Former Pakistan pacer Shoaib Akhtar said that if he was playing currently he and Virat Kohli would have been the best of friends off the field, but real enemies whenever they stepped on the field.

Akhtar also said that he would have liked to challenge Kohli to drive the ball.

"Virat Kohli and I would have been the best of friends as both of us are Punjabi, but on the field, we would have been the best of the enemies. I would have loved to get inside the head of Kohli. I would have told him that you cannot play a cut or pull shot against me," Akhtar told Sanjay Manjrekar in a videocast hosted by ESPNCricinfo.

"I would have gone wide of the crease and bowled a ball that would go away from him, I would have forced him to drive the ball as it is his favourite shot. So I would keep forcing him to play the drive shot at my pace," he added.

Akhtar also said that he wishes that Kohli could have played against some of the top bowlers in the game.

The Rawalpindi Express said that Kohli would have enjoyed the challenge of facing bowlers like Wasim Akram, Shane Warne, and Waqar Younis.

"I would also keep talking to him, because if I get him to lose his focus then that would have been great. The great thing about Kohli is that he gets more focused when he is challenged. But I believe Virat Kohli would have still scored the same amount of runs if I was playing," Akhtar said.

"I really wish that he had played against Wasim Akram, Waqar Younis, Shane Warne, and then Virat would have also enjoyed the challenge," he added.

Akhtar played 224 matches for Pakistan in international cricket and took 444 wickets across all formats.

Over the years, comparisons between Kohli and Sachin Tendulkar have been growing and many have picked the current Indian skipper to break the records set by Tendulkar.

Tendulkar called time on his career after registering 100 international centuries, while Kohli has 70 centuries across all formats.

Currently, Kohli is ranked at the top spot in the ICC ODI rankings while he is in second place in the Tests rankings.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.