Embarrassing times don’t seem to end for Rahul Johri, CEO of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI).

If acting secretary Amitabh Choudhary called Johri a “most tainted person” on Thursday, treasurer Anirudh Chaudhry has written that Johri “may join” the Team India players and support staff in undergoing a thorough “sensitization process.”

Lawyer Veena Gowda, one of the three members of the “independent committee” which probed allegations of sexual allegations against Johri, had recommended just that for the CEO.

Typically, Chief Administrator Vinod Rai cared two hoots for what Ms Gowda had to say. His sole agenda had been to quickly get Johri back in office, after the two other members of the “independent committee” found nothing wrong with the CEO’s conduct.

Late in the day, The Telegraph obtained Anirudh’s email to other key players of the BCCI on the Hardik Pandya-K.L. Rahul issue.

Excerpts from Anirudh’s “points of relevance”:

• “The players who appeared on the (Karan Johar) show have definitely brought the game and Indian cricket and cricketers into disrepute by their words and admitted conduct. The consequences for bringing the game into disrepute are definitely something which would have to be considered. If I remember correctly, Mr Steve Smith and Mr David Warner were banned for a year (by Cricket Australia).
  
• I do not have the latest version of the BCCI contracts with me and request that a copy of the same be provided. However, the provisions of the earlier contracts and the practice in place would have required these contracted players to seek permission to appear on the show. Was such permission sought? Was such permission granted? If so, by whom?
  
• What also has to be kept in mind is whether the punishment, if the players are found guilty of violation of rules etc. or for bringing the game into disrepute, is going to be a token punishment or one that proves to be a deterrent for such acts and words. There can be no consideration whatsoever about the need of a particular player to bat at a particular position etc. when the punishment is being decided. No comparison with a former player is of any value or worth when deciding upon the quantum of punishment as that would only be giving validity to act in a derogatory, crass and disgusting manner if a player meets a certain level of talent and performance.
  
• It must be noted that the comments such as the ones that have been made would definitely have painted a large, red target on the back of the players for potential recruiters of the organised syndicates who attempt to indulge in match-fixing across the globe. The very first caution that the ICC’s Anti-Corruption officers give, in briefing the players, is to beware of situations of honey traps and the comments made on the show make it seem that the players may just be ripe for the plucking.
  
• The Administrative Manager of the team (Sunil Subramaniam) must be directed to ensure that on the eve of every match and, on match days, players are maintaining strict discipline regarding their timings and conduct as is expected of professional, contracted sportspersons.
  
• Lastly, agents of players need to be regulated. It is a requirement of the Justice R.M. Lodha committee’s reforms and it is a need of the hour if the reports that one hears from Australia are anything to go by.”