'Individual 2', 'Individual 3': The unsolved mystery of these two names mentioned in Mudgal report

While the Supreme Court has stuck to its decision to not reveal the name of players mentioned in the Mudgal Committee report in connection with the Indian Prmier League (IPL) spot-fixing and betting scandal, there has been a lot of speculation around two names – mentioned as 'Individual 2' and 'Individual 3' in the report.

New Delhi: While the Supreme Court has stuck to its decision to not reveal the name of players mentioned in the Mudgal Committee report in connection with the Indian Prmier League (IPL) spot-fixing and betting scandal, there has been a lot of speculation around two names – mentioned as 'Individual 2' and 'Individual 3' in the report.

Earlier BCCI sources identified ‘Individual 3’ in the Mudgal committee report as a Team India player but contradicted the panel’s findings that former cricket chief N Srinivasan and others did not take action against him for violating the players’ code.

The findings of the Mudgal report have said that ICC boss N Srinivasan along with four other BCCI officials were aware of violation of the Players Code of Conduct by Individual 3, but no action was taken.

On the other hand, the mystery around 'Individual 3' – reportedly said to be another cricketer, is yet to be solved. Mudgal Committee had reported about Individual No. 2 being "in regular touch" with Gurunath Meiyappan – Srinivasan's son-in-law.

The BCCI has been insisting over the fact that the Supreme Court shouldn't reveal the names of these two players as their careers are at stake. The question is, why, and for how long can the BCCI shield cricketers who have been involved in any sort of spot-fixing or betting scandal?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. You can find out more by clicking this link

Close