The Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has yet again poured cold water on the ambitions of banned former cricketers Danish Kaneria and Saleem Malik for a comeback to cricket related activities.

In a response to requests made to the PCB by the duo banned over fixing, the PCB rejected the requests and gave detail for the basis of the rejection of their requests.

Kaneria who was willing to undergo a rehabilitation programme, was told that he was banned for life by the ECB’s Cricket Discipline Commission after it was established that he had ‘knowingly induced or encouraged Mervyn Westfield not to perform on his merits in the Durham match.’

“You subsequently challenged the decision before the Appeal Panel of the Cricket Disciplinary Commission, which was upheld. Then, you appealed before a commercial bench of the High Court in London, which was dismissed. Then, you appealed before the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which was rejected,” the PCB reminded the former leg-spinner.

The PCB said its rehabilitation programme is offered to players upon conclusion of the respective periods of ineligibility and not for players who are serving life bans.

“The life ban was imposed by the ECB and upheld by all ICC Members as per Article 9 of the ICC/PCB Anti-Corruption Code, and the only way it could have been overturned was by way of appeal, an avenue which have already been explored Article 6.8 of the ECB Anti-Corruption Code, which is applicable in this case, clearly states only the chair of the anti-corruption tribunal, which has imposed a period of ineligibility on a player, had the discretion to permit the player to participate,” the PCB said.

The PCB, therefore, advised Kaneria to approach the ECB as per Article 6.8 of the ECB Anti-Corruption Code if he wants to undergo a rehabilitation programme or wanted his ban lifted.

On a request of Saleem Malik, the PCB told former captain that he had failed t to respond to transcripts provided by ICC of April 2000 conversation.

“You chose not to respond to the contents of the transcripts of a conversation that took place in April 2000. In the backdrop of the above, the PCB will be unable to proceed any further until such time you respond on the said matter,” the PCB said.

“The denial and avoidance to respond to the transcripts doesn’t change the admission when, in a 5 May 2014 letter to the then PCB Chairman, you wrote: “Sir, after consultations and on my free will, I have reached a decision that I am ready to accept my wrongdoing, apologise to the fans and want to start by rehabilitation process. I fully understand the consequence of my decision and am ready to cooperate to every extent with ICC and PCB for my rehabilitation program. I would request PCB to talk to ICC if required and start my rehabilitation program at the earliest.”