Laxman and Tendulkar were sought explanations following a complaint from MPCA life member Sanjeev Gupta for their dual role as mentors of SRH and Mumbai Indians respectively apart from being members of the CAC. BCCI

VVS Laxman condemned strongly the allegations of conflict of interest against him for being a part of the Cricket Advisory Committee apart from his role as a mentor of the Sunrisers Hyderabad, alleging lack of communication from the Vinod Rai-led panel. Laxman, who was sought explanation for his dual role said in his official response to Ombudsman-cum-Ethics-Officer, that the CoA, despite having promised them a broader role earlier, only has been using the CAC for selection of senior national coaches.

"On December 7, 2018, we had written to the the Committee of Administrators requesting them to clarify the scope of our role and responsibilities. To this date, there has been no reply. Since no tenure had been mentioned in the letter of intent issued in 2015, it was only reasonable to expect some communication on whether the CAC was still in existence. Unfortunately that hasn't been forthcoming," Laxman wrote in his affidavit filed through his lawyer as reported by PTI on Monday (April 29).

Laxman and Tendulkar were sought explanations for conflict of interest after notices were served to them by an Ombudsman following a complaint from Madhya Pradesh Cricket Association's (MPCA) life member Sanjeev Gupta for their dual role as mentors of SRH and Mumbai Indians respectively apart from being members of the CAC. While Tendulkar said in his reply that he didn't receive any monetary benefit from the Mumbai franchise, Laxman wrote in his reply:

"It will be worthwhile to note that the reason I agreed to be a member was because of the various inputs we were originally tasked with contributing towards the sustained growth of Indian cricket," he wrote in his reply. "The opportunity to be involved meaningfully in India's climb towards becoming a cricketing superpower post retirement was privilege enough for me to turn down the offer of remuneration of being a part of CAC," Laxman said in his affidavit, point 3 (c).

"The allegation of the complainant are baseless as we are in no manner selectors of either players or coaches and CAC is not a permanent body," he added.

In 2015 when he was asked to be part of the CAC, he was told that the scope of the role of the committee would be to focus on improving overseas performances of the national team and developing pathways to track youngsters' careers from the U-19 level to India A to the international team, to help manage workload for pacers and much more on those lines. However, Laxman said that nothing such happened thereafter. "...none of the CAC members has (sic) been called on to give our opinion on any subjects except to be invited to be involved in the selection of national coaches and, once, the selection of junior national selectors. However, this is by no means a regular process and I am in no manner to be considered a selector."

Lastly, he urged the Ombudsman to review the "Conflict of Interest clause from the perspective of whether in the performance of my duties as a CAC member, I am being influenced by external factors. It is my respectful submission that when I am barely required to discharge any duties as a member of the CAC," wrote Laxman.