Kale without whites for 7 months

The bribery episode in Indian cricket seems to have ended with more questions than answers. As the three-member committee, comprising of BCC...

The bribery episode in Indian cricket seems to have ended with more questions than answers. As the three-member committee, comprising of BCCI president Jagmohan Dalmiya, Kamal Morarka and Ranbir Singh Mehendra, pronounced its verdict banning Abhijit Kale for seven months, it seemed to have opted for a soft option.

Kale had been under suspension since November last after national selectors Kiran More and Pankaj Roy had complained to the Board about his offer of money to them for a place in the national side that toured Australia in 2003. Today8217;s decision would keep the Maharashtra batsman out of the field for another seven months.

Dalmiya said that the disciplinary committee was of the opinion that though a strong case of offering money was made out against Kale, in the absence of any direct proof, no extreme or severe punishment was meted out to him.

8216;8216;Since there is cogent proof of Kale8217;s trying to influence the selectors, which he had admitted in his letter, the committee held him guilty of gross misconduct and indiscipline. Taking into account Kale8217;s future career and his unconditional apology as well as the suspension he had undergone since November 2003, the disciplinary committee decided that he would remain suspended till December 31, 2004,8217;8217; Dalmiya said.

By slapping a seven-month ban on Kale, the Board has flexed its authoritative muscle. But it is the tenure of punishment that comes under question since the domestic season begins only late October. This means that the 30-year-old Maharashtra batsman has been kept away from only two months of active cricket. Secondly, the two National selectors 8212; Kiran More and Pranab Roy 8212; have escaped without any censure. The committee, while taking exception to the selectors sitting over the matter for two to three weeks, has recommended that a code of conduct for selectors be framed. 8216;8216;The Disciplinary Committee also felt that the two selectors More and Roy should have intimated Kale8217;s attempts to influence them forthwith to the Board instead of delaying it,8217;8217; said Dalmiya.

This, in effect, suggests that there is, indeed, a problem. Agreed it is unlawful for a player to offer bribe to selectors. But what if the selectors are willing to accept such 8216;offers8217;? For the moment, the BCCI has smartly managed to brush these uncomfortable questions under the carpet in the garb of lack of evidence.