Ponting suggests 'shot clock' to tackle declining over rate

Jun 19: The BCCI is open to reviewing its sponsorship policy for the next cycle but has no plans to end its association with current IPL title sponsor Vivo as the money coming in from the Chinese company is helping India's cause and not the other way round, board treasurer Arun Dhumal said on Friday. Anti-China sentiments are running high in India following the border clash between the two countries at Galwan valley earlier this week. The first skirmish at the India-China border in more than four decades left at least 20 Indian soldiers dead. Since then, calls have been made to boycott Chinese products.

But Dhumal said Chinese companies sponsoring an Indian event like the IPL only serve his country's interests.

The BCCI gets Rs 440 crore annually from Vivo and the five-year deal ends in 2022.

"When you talk emotionally, you tend to leave the rationale behind. We have to understand the difference between supporting a Chinese company for a Chinese cause or taking help from Chinese company to support India's cause," Dhumal said.

"When we are allowing Chinese companies to sell their products in India, whatever money they are taking from Indian consumer, they are paying part of it to the BCCI (as brand promotion) and the board is paying 42 per cent tax on that money to the Indian government. So, that is supporting India's cause and not China's," he argued.

Oppo, a mobile phone brand like Vivo, was sponsoring the Indian cricket team until September last year when Bengaluru-based educational technology Byju's start-up replaced the Chinese company.

Dhumal said he is all for reducing dependence on Chinese products but as long as its companies are allowed to do business in India, there is no harm in them sponsoring an Indian brand like the IPL.

"If they are not supporting the IPL, they are likely to take that money back to China. If that money is retained here, we should be happy about it. We are supporting our government with that money (by paying taxes on it)."

"If I am giving a contract to a Chinese company to build a cricket stadium, then I am helping the Chinese economy. GCA built the world's largest cricket stadium at Motera and that contract was given to an Indian company (L&T)," he said.

"Cricketing infrastructure worth thousands of crores was created across country and none of the contract was awarded to a Chinese company."

Dhumal went on to say the BCCI is spoilt for choice when it comes to attracting sponsors, whether Indian or Chinese or from any other nation.

"If that Chinese money is coming to support Indian cricket, we should be okay with it. I am all for banning Chinese products as an individual, we are there to support our government but by getting sponsorship from Chinese company, we are helping India's cause."

"We can get sponsorship money from non-Chinese companies also including Indian firms. We can support our players any way but the idea is when they are allowed to sell their products here, it is better that part of money comes back to the Indian economy."

"The BCCI is not giving money to the Chinese, it is attracting on the contrary. We should make decision based on rationale rather than emotion," he added.

New Delhi, Jun 13: Five centrally contracted Indian cricketers including Cheteshwar Pujara, Ravindra Jadeja and KL Rahul have been issued notices by National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA) for failing to disclose their whereabouts as the BCCI cited "password glitch" as the reason for delay.

The other players to have received the notice include women stars Smriti Mandhana and Deepti Sharma, who are among the five cricketers in the 110 strong National Registered Testing Pool (NRTP). Speaking to PTI, NADA DG Navin Agarwal confirmed that BCCI has sent an official explanation for their five NRTP players' failure to submit whereabouts.

"There are two ways to fill up the whereabouts form in the ADAMS (Anti Doping Administration & Management Systems) software. Either athlete does it himself or association fills it up on his or her behalf," Agarwal said. "Now athletes in some discipline aren't educated enough or do not have access to internet and find themselves unable to handle the whereabouts clause of the ADAMS or upload the filled up

"They use assistance of their concerned federations. So federations have accepted responsibility of uploading their whereabouts," Agarwal said.

He said cricketers too at times find it tough to complete the process on their own. "Similarly in cricket also, although these people are well qualified and they can do it, perhaps they don't have the time for whatever reasons, so the federation concerned, the BCCI has taken upon itself the responsibility of uploading their whereabouts." So why didnt BCCI upload the the three-month whereabouts this time?

"Well they have given an explanation which appears to be reasonable but a decision will be taken. They have said that there has been a glitch with regards to password in ADAMS. Now they have said that issue has been resolved," Agarwal added. NADA DG added that "BCCI's explanation will be discussed as to whether it will be counted as one of three filing failures or not. It will be decided on the explanation given and how they (BCCI) proceed from here."

While country has been under lockdown, the rule to submit three months of whereabouts is mandatory. Three such failures to disclose leads to one Anti Doping Rule Violation (ADRV), which could lead up to two years of suspension upon hearing.

While BCCI has "officially gagged" its employees from talking to the media, it couldn't be ascertained that why as normal a glitch as a password error took days to resolve. A BCCI veteran, who has been privy to cricket operations, asked why the five cricketers were not told to upload the form themselves.

"This was lockdown period where they are not living out of suitcases. Some of the names have also engaged in multiple instagram chats and podcasts which their agents are managing," he said.

"If cricket operations team were having a glitch in fixing password, well the five cricketers could have been asked to do so and they would have done it individually with some guidance. "Probably NADA would be lenient this time but if it becomes an official warning, then who's responsible," he added.