Shock for India as ICC rejects BCCI’s review plea


Dubai, Aug 6:
In yet another blow for India, the ICC today rejected BCCI‘s review plea on Judicial Commissioner’s verdict pronouncing James Anderson not guilty in his altercation with Ravindra Jadeja, saying that it was satisfied with the manner in which the decisions have been reached.

A miffed BCCI had yesterday requested ICC CEO Dave Richardson to appeal against the verdict of Judicial Commissioner Gordon Lewis who had found both the players not guilty of breaching ICC’s code of conduct during the first Test in Trent Bridge.

“The International Cricket Council (ICC) today confirmed that it has received and considered the written decision of His Honour Gordon Lewis AM in respect of his findings that England?s James Anderson and India’s Ravindra Jadeja were not guilty of breaching the ICC Code of Conduct for Players and Player Support Personnel, following an extensive disciplinary hearing held in Southampton on Friday,” ICC said in a statement.

“After assessing the content of the decision, the ICC is satisfied with the reasons provided and has elected not to exercise its discretion to appeal against the decision relating to James Anderson, pursuant to clause 8.3.2 of the ICC Code of Conduct,” the statement said. ”This outcome is the result of two exhaustive and thorough disciplinary processes and, after considering the written decision, the ICC is satisfied with the manner in which the decisions have been reached,” CEO Richardson said.

Richardson said it was a complicated case and no purpose would be served by prolonging the process through further appeal proceedings. ”It was a complicated and sensitive matter relating to charges brought against two players at different levels of the ICC Code of Conduct. There appears to have been vastly conflicting evidence on both sides, with a total of 13 witnesses who gave testimony.

“After carefully considering the decision by Gordon Lewis, whose vast experience was invaluable to the process over recent weeks, we believe that no further purpose would be served by prolonging the process through further appeal proceedings,” said Richardson.