bcci didn't ban bond as far as I know. it was nzc which did it. as to bcci indirectly pressurising nzc to do so, they are within their rights, as icl as a rebel league would've been a cancer unchecked, as the promoters of that league had no vision, or any idea to expand the league into fc nature. bcci with ipl assimilated t20 cricket into the calendar, while at the same time without compromising on regular season cricket including first class. ICL, had left unchecked, would.ve easily robbed players left, right and center into playing only t20 cricket, whcih, within years would've spelt doom for the game as we know it.
so look at the big picture, bond's banning was in the greater good of cricket.
I am no soldier for BCCI, but they get sometimes more than their share of curses here.
I feel there are bigger dangers for cricket in the form of Ireland's players used at will by english cricket, whcih potentially can damage irish cricket in the long run, and the question of minnows not getting a shot at next world cup. there is the case of NZC facing shortage of funds and player attrition (hamish marshall and ian o brien migrated to england, and play in county cricket, people talk abt ipl stealing talent from countries, but this goes under discussed), West Indies crippled by shortage of leadership and Pakistan in turmoil owing to controllable and un controllable factors. These for me are critical issues that require immediate and urgent actioining upon than global implementation of udrs or moaning abt someone's ban for playing in rebel leagues.
.
