Reports: 2011 World Cup-winning member was in touch with a bookie, suspects IPS officer
Meanwhile, Mishra refused to identify the player.
Updated - Aug 23, 2018 12:01 pm
The 2013 Indian Premier League (IPL) betting and spot-fixing scandal marred the reputation of the event to a significant extent. Teams like Chennai Super Kings (CSK) and Rajasthan Royals (RR) had to face the wrath of suspensions for two seasons. Even MS Dhoni’s name got involved after which the veteran sued a leading daily for linking his name to the corruption charges.
After the news broke of corruption broke out, the Supreme Court of India had directed a probe against the team owners and several others. In 2014, BB Mishra, a senior IPS officer, was appointed as a chief investigator in the grave matter. Recently, he made a startling revelation about a lead that he received during his 60-day probe into the corruption matter.
He mentioned that he had received information about a member of India’s 2011-World Cup winning squad that he was in constant touch with a bookie during the 2008/09 season. The officer mentioned that the bookie was keen to reveal further information about the player, but refrained from doing so in the last minute. Meanwhile, Mishra refused to identify the player as per reports in The Indian Express.
He was willing to give the evidence
“This thing happened during an international cricket match, probably in the run-up to the match. Just a day or two before the match. It happened in 2008-09. It was a phone conversation (between the player and the bookie) that was recorded… It would have taken a lot more time. There are two voices on the telephone. Allegedly one is that of the player and the other one is of the bookie,” he mentioned.
“If I have to investigate, I have to take voice samples of the player and the voice samples of the bookie. Send it for a forensic opinion. That takes a month. And then, why do I have to do it when it was not part of my charter? I would have confronted the player with the information I got from the bookie. But (that) evidence didn’t come from the bookie though I knew the evidence existed, I could not pursue it.
“I knew of this specific instance where the bookie had confided in somebody else, I got that information, the bookie accepted that information before me also, he was willing to give the evidence but in the last minute he decided not to,” the investigating officer added.