Click it and Unblock the Notifications
Sporting Buzz
-
Who Won Yesterday's IPL Match 41? SRH vs RCB, IPL 2024 on April 25: Royal Challengers Bangalore End Losing Streak -
Pakistan vs New Zealand: Ben Sears, William O'Rourke Star In NZ Win in 4th T20I; Kiwis Take 2-1 Lead -
Dominant Gauff double bagels Rus at Madrid Open -
IPL 2024: RCB Secure Win In 250th IPL Match - Season-Wise Performance, Top Performers Over The Years -
IPL 2024: SRH vs RCB Award Winners, Man of The Match, Post-Match Presentation, Scorecard & Records -
SRH vs RCB IPL 2024 Highlights: Rajat Patidar, spinners help Royal Challengers break six-match losing streak; Sunrisers suffer third loss in 8 games -
IPL Points Table 2024 After Today's Match, SRH vs RCB On April 25: Check Indian Super League Standings And Results -
Nadal cruises past teen Blanch to tee up De Minaur rematch in Madrid -
SRH vs RCB: 'Statpadder' Virat Kohli faces Fans Wrath after 118.3 Strike Rate -
Osaka eliminated by Samsonova in Madrid Open
New Delhi, Nov 17: The Supreme Court-appointed Justice Mukul Mudgal Committee, which investigated the allegations of spot fixing and betting in the 2013 edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL), has said that sidelined BCCI president N. Srinivasan's son-in-law Gurunath Meiyappan was involved in betting.
The Mudgal committee report says that Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) officials were aware of Meiyappan's activities but they did not act on it. While exonerating Meiyappan of spot-fixing charges, the committee said he was involved in betting.
The committee also says that the then owner of Rajasthan Royals Raj Kundra was in contact with bookies.
The report gives a clean chit to sidelined BCCI president N. Srinivasan on both counts.
Regarding Meiyappan, the Mukul Mudgal committee said: "Investigations have confirmed that this individual was a team official of a franchise. He was frequently meeting individual 2 in his hotel room. This strengthens the conclusion of the committee ... that individual 1 was in close touch with individual 2."
"The forensic report of the voice sample analysis further confirms the voice of this individual in the conversation with the person acting as a go between, between this individual and bookies. Consequently, the divergent in the two reports dated 8.2.2014 and 9.2.2014 about the voice sample belonging to this individual gets resolved and the report thus becomes unanimous about the betting activity of this individual."
