Sreesanth takes on BCCI in ugly war, says might play for another country

Former India pacer S Sreesanth took on Twitter to vent out his anger against Kerala High Court verdict which restored the life ban imposed on him by BCCI in connection with IPL spot-fixing case. Sreesanth has hinted that he might play for another country.

He said since BCCI has banned him from playing in India, he has the freedom to play cricket for any other country.

"BCCI has imposed the ban, not ICC. If not India, I can play for any o

ther country, because I am 34 now and I can only play for maximum six more years," Sreesanth was quoted as saying by media reports.

"As a person who loves cricket, I want to play cricket. And not only that, BCCI is a private firm; it is only us who say that this is the Indian team, but you know BCCI is a private body after all," he added.

 

pic.twitter.com/ih4wJDcse3

— Sreesanth (@sreesanth36) October 17, 2017

 

This is the worst decision ever..special rule for me?what about real culprits?What about chennai super kings ? And what about Rajasthan ?

— Sreesanth (@sreesanth36) October 17, 2017

And what about the accused 13 names in Lodha report?? No one wants to know about it?i will keep fighting for my right..God is great 🇮🇳✌🏻💒

— Sreesanth (@sreesanth36) October 17, 2017

Thanks a lot for all the support Nd encouragement given so far. I assure u all that I'm not giving up..I will Keep at it..Nd alwys believe

— Sreesanth (@sreesanth36) October 17, 2017

Anyway all I have is my family and lots of dear ones who still believes in me..I will keep fighting and make sure I don't give up..

— Sreesanth (@sreesanth36) October 17, 2017

 

Sreesanth and two other Rajasthan Royals bowlers -- Ankeet Chavan and Ajit Chandila -- were handed life bans for their alleged involvement in the 2013 corruption and spot-fixing scandal in the IPL.

On Tuesday, a division bench of the Kerala High Court ruled that the ban imposed by the Board cannot be overturned or reduced, thereby negating a single bench judgement of the same court in August, which had asked the Board to lift the ban.