Tendulkar on Sunday filed a 14-point written response to a notice sent by Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer Justice (Retd) DK Jain. It was with regards to a Conflict of Interest complaint filed by the Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association (MPCA) member Sanjeev Gupta.
“At the outset, the Noticee (Tendulkar) denies the contents of the Complaint in totality (except the statements specifically admitted herein). No part of the Complaint should be deemed to be admitted by the Noticee for lack of specific denials,” Tendulkar wrote in his response.
“The Noticee (Tendulkar) has received no pecuniary benefit/ compensation from the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise in his capacity as the Mumbai Indians 'ICON' 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. Accordingly, there is no conflict of interest, either under the BCCI Rules or otherwise,” Sachin explained.
As far as his role in the Cricket Advisory Committee is concerned, Tendulkar mentioned that he was appointed as a member of the BCCI committee in 2015, which was years after his involvement with the MI.
“The Noticee was appointed to the panel of the Cricket Advisory Committee (CAC) in the year 2015. The Hon'ble Ethics Officer will appreciate that the Noticee was named as the 'ICON' for Mumbai Indians much prior to his empanelment with the CAC which fact has always been in the public domain.
“Accordingly, the BCCI aware of the Noticee's association with the Mumbai Indians Franchise at the time of his appointment to the CAC,” Tendulkar added.
Tendulkar, in his disclosure, further makes it clear that the role of an in no way is a position either in the management or the governance of the franchise.
“The Complaint wrongly assumes that the Noticee's association with the Mumbai Indians IPL Franchise is in the capacity of ‘governance’, ‘management’ or ‘employment’ – thereby attracting a conflict under Rule 38 (4).
“His 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 potential.
“A mentor cannot be qualified as ‘management’ of the Franchise. If the Complainant's absurd logic were to be applied, a physiotherapist, trainer or a masseur would also be qualified as ‘management’ of the Franchise,” Tendulkar responded, making it clear that he is answerable to none of the support staff.
Tendulkar also made it clear that in case Ombudsman wants to ‘continue proceedings’, he would ‘request for a personal hearing along with his legal representatives.’