McGlynn & O'Neill betting bans

[A N Mouse]

Oh, and if the appeal isn't heard until May would a two month ban for the months of june and july rule him out of european fixtures, or would it only apply to domestic fixtures?

[sligoman]

Do Bohs still have to pay him during the ban? Not really fair on them if they do considering he wasn't even their player when the incidents occured. Get Derry to pay his wages for the 2 months ;).

[Réiteoir]

Do Bohs still have to pay him during the ban? Not really fair on them if they do considering he wasn't even their player when the incidents occured. Get Derry to pay his wages for the 2 months ;).

Or get them to pay his 2 wages for the 1 month - in accordance with his contracts he had then

[dong]

Or get them to pay his 2 wages for the 1 month - in accordance with his contracts he had then

Nice:D

[marinobohs]

Shagging your sister is still shagging your sister, just because she was of the age of consent doesn't make it any less wrong.

Dempsey copped to one count, McGlynn to five. Extrapolating a harsher sentence is hardly illogical.

I'm from Dublin so will bow to your (obviously) superior knowledge about the subject of incest :cool: if you cannot see any difference between betting on your own team and betting on teams in a different division then fair enough. I believe there is a difference and that to punish the latter more harshly than the former does not make sense.

[Dodge]

if you cannot see any difference between betting on your own team and betting on teams in a different division then fair enough. I believe there is a difference and that to punish the latter more harshly than the former does not make sense.
Still peddling this line? The facts are that McGlynn bet on multiple games in his division, not just those in the lower league. His influence on these games was exactly the same as the influence Dempsey had on the game he made a bet on (that wasn't even solely dependent on that result)

Glynn's case is closer to Morrow's than Dempsey's so why are you continuallty trying to compare the two (in mcGlynn's favour)?

[marinobohs]

Still peddling this line? The facts are that McGlynn bet on multiple games in his division, not just those in the lower league. His influence on these games was exactly the same as the influence Dempsey had on the game he made a bet on (that wasn't even solely dependent on that result)

Glynn's case is closer to Morrow's than Dempsey's so why are you continuallty trying to compare the two (in mcGlynn's favour)?

Dempseys case - insider trading. Mc Gynn case - not, End of. I thought he said it was first division games but accept the point if you know different. There is a massive difference in betting for/against your own team -as recognised by the players union and anybody looking at the issue rationally- and betting on external games. Both are wrong but to suggest the latter is more serious is laughable.

[Dodge]

I never once suggested it was more serious. I've tried to explain to you (countless times) how betting on mulitple games could lead to greater disciplinery measures and whether you accept my rationale or not, the result is the same.

Oh and, again, dempsey bet was a €20 double on galway to beat pats and Man City to beat newcastle. Your definition of insider trading astounds me

[marinobohs]

I never once suggested it was more serious. I've tried to explain to you (countless times) how betting on mulitple games could lead to greater disciplinery measures and whether you accept my rationale or not, the result is the same.

Oh and, again, dempsey bet was a €20 double on galway to beat pats and Man City to beat newcastle. Your definition of insider trading astounds me

Done to death at this stage so OK - Dempsey is a poor innocnent child caught up in a purely accidental circumstance whearas McGlynns case was an obvious starting point for his attempt at world domination. Whatever:rolleyes:

[A N Mouse]

I'm from Dublin so will bow to your (obviously) superior knowledge about the subject of incest :cool: if you cannot see any difference between betting on your own team and betting on teams in a different division then fair enough. I believe there is a difference and that to punish the latter more harshly than the former does not make sense.

Sure that just mean you have a slim chance of incest any time you pull, what with not knowing you're father an all :D

I don't particularly wish to go back to it, but the point I was going for was something (incest) was always wrong, but sleeping with your (just) underage girlfriend, while against the rules, is, possibly, a morally gray area. So while everyone can agree about the first, expecting the punishment for one count of it to be greater than multiple counts of the other - to use your own words - defies logic.

[Dodge]

Where did I claim Dempsey was innocent?

As it happends I've absolutely no problem with mcGlynn betting on LOI games, but then I wasn't trying to make this personal. i was trying to point out some facts for you, seeing as you refused to acknowledge them

[Mr A]

Let's try these 'seriousness equations' to see if the point can be got across:

Betting on your own team > than betting on other fixtures.
5 offences > 1 offence.

[marinobohs]

Where did I claim Dempsey was innocent?

As it happends I've absolutely no problem with mcGlynn betting on LOI games, but then I wasn't trying to make this personal. i was trying to point out some facts for you, seeing as you refused to acknowledge them

Most posters here and the PFAI accept that McGynn case was less serious than Dempsey due to the fact that McGynn was not involved in the clubs involved in the game(s) bet on . You dont accept this premise wheras I do so lets leave it there and move on.

[Dodge]

Most posters here and the PFAI accept that McGynn case was less serious than Dempsey due to the fact that McGynn was not involved in the clubs involved in the game(s) bet on . You dont accept this premise wheras I do so lets leave it there and move on.

Are you siggesting the FAI should base their disciplinary measures on what the PFAI and "most posters" believe is right? If you read any of my posts on this I've consistently pointed out two facts to you (McGlynn bet on multiple games and got a longer ban). You're the person who has a problem with this, not me.

(Oh and the PFAI backed dempsey too if you wanna start an argument about them too...)

But you're right, lets move on...

[Schumi]

Really?

I think most people would consider paedophilia a lot worse than 2 consenting adults having incest?
I think most people would rather that this bizarre analogy hadn't been brought up at all.

[Dodge]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/kenny-gary-is-only-small-fry-in-corrupt-ireland-1534603.html

Found this while looking back over the Dempsey stuff

Interesting enough in light of the Morrow and McGlynn cases

[A N Mouse]

I think most people would rather that this bizarre analogy hadn't been brought up at all.

You try explaining wrong from slightly less wrong to a bohs fan then.

[osarusan]

Does anybody know what (if anything) the FAI rulebook (or another applicable rulebook) says about this?

If the FAI don't differentiate between a player betting on a game when they're not involved but their team is, and betting on a game between 2 teams to which the player is unconnected, then it would be logical that 5 bets would be punished more harshly than one bet.

If they do differentiate between the two, i can only imagine that the former is viewed as more serious than the latter, and would be punished more seriously also.

We are (or at least I am) just going on what we imagine to be the more serious offence, but in order to comment of the appropriateness of any punishment, we need to know if the rulebook makes a distinction between the two.

[A N Mouse]

Does anybody know what (if anything) the FAI rulebook (or another applicable rulebook) says about this?

If the FAI don't differentiate between a player betting on a game when they're not involved but their team is, and betting on a game between 2 teams to which the player is unconnected, then it would be logical that 5 bets would be punished more harshly than one bet.

If they do differentiate between the two, i can only imagine that the former is viewed as more serious than the latter, and would be punished more seriously also.

We are (or at least I am) just going on what we imagine to be the more serious offence, but in order to comment of the appropriateness of any punishment, we need to know if the rulebook makes a distinction between the two.

From the previous thread

RULE 100. BETTING / GAMBLING
Anyone who directly or indirectly bets, instructs someone to bet on their behalf, or provides others with
information for the purpose of betting or gambling on a result, conduct or progress of a match or
competition in which that person or his club is participating or has control over, shall be subject to
disciplinary sanctions.

Open to some interpretation, but the main point of discussion would be what constitutes the same competition, as there only seems to be one offence.

[Schumi]

You try explaining wrong from slightly less wrong to a bohs fan then.

Rovers versus Pats. Easy. :)

[marinobohs]

You try explaining wrong from slightly less wrong to a bohs fan then.

Nobody from Bohs brought up this disgusting analogy so don't link us to it. Guess its just the way your mind works :rolleyes:

[marinobohs]

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/league-of-ireland/kenny-gary-is-only-small-fry-in-corrupt-ireland-1534603.html

Found this while looking back over the Dempsey stuff

Interesting enough in light of the Morrow and McGlynn cases

Ah yes, the FAI should base decisions on what Stephen Kenny thinks :confused: oh and way to go on the whole moving on thing :o

[Dodge]

I linked to the Kenny article, not for his comments on Dempsey, but rather his comment on the culture of gambling in Derry.

But continue to bring it around in circles as you see fit...

[A N Mouse]

Nobody from Bohs brought up this disgusting analogy so don't link us to it. Guess its just the way your mind works :rolleyes:

So, would you still think the punishment was overly harsh were McGlynn still a Derry player?

Would any ban include non-domestic fixtures?

And have you learnt to count yet?

Or, using your flawless logic, would you agree that Derry can feel harshly treated last year because the precedent for an incorrectly registered player was a fine and points deduction; and when they were robbing peter to pay paul it was mainly ifa clubs they cheated, so it wasn't as serious if it had been a fellow loi team.

Or is that just the way your mind works?

[marinobohs]

So, would you still think the punishment was overly harsh were McGlynn still a Derry player?

Yes, as I said many posts ago - equal treatment irrespective of club (do keep up)

Would any ban include non-domestic fixtures?
Doubt it. FAI ban only (they could seek to widen ban). Would require a FIFA /UEAFA ban for non domestic as far as I know

And have you learnt to count yet?
What the F***K are you talking about ??????

Or, using your flawless logic, would you agree that Derry can feel harshly treated last year because the precedent for an incorrectly registered player was a fine and points deduction; and when they were robbing peter to pay paul it was mainly ifa clubs they cheated, so it wasn't as serious if it had been a fellow loi team.
There is no precedent that I am aware of for the number of rules Derry broke (registration, salary cap etc) not sure what point is RE LOI V IL teams.

Or is that just the way your mind works?
See answer to your third question (above)

[A N Mouse]

See answer to your third question (above)


I was refering to your seeming inability/reluctance to admit to something that the majority of people who can count would, probably, agree is an indisputable fact:

5 > 1

I see all may not be lost as you correctly recognised that Derry were treated differently as the scale of their wrong-doing was unprecedented. Perhaps the matter may have been dealt with differently had only one player's contract been in question.

I don't know maybe you got excited by my previous, undignified, outburst, but hopefully having confined myself to a footballing context you can see where I'm going with this.

McGlynn broke the same rule as Dempsey on a bigger scale.

I'll let that sink in...

...


...


...Therefore a bigger punishment can be justified.

Now, before you start telling us how betting against your own team is more wrong than betting against some teams in a lower division lets examine your answer to the suggesting that something can be justified like this (nonsensically).


not sure what point is

Which leaves us with your assertion


Yes, as I said many posts ago - equal treatment irrespective of club (do keep up)

Now I don't want to get you excited here, but I'm going to reference animal farm. As your worldview seems to reflect the writing on the wall.

marinobohs worldview: All clubs are equal, but bohs are more equal than others.

Now as a football fan that's perfectly acceptable, but sometimes even I take a step back from my paranoid delusions and have to admit that the world really isn't out to get me.

[passerrby]

so to surmise its
incest = bad
phydos = very bad
players betting on matches = terrrible
priests betting on matches = ok as long as he is moved to another parish

[A N Mouse]

so to surmise its
incest = bad
phydos = very bad
players betting on matches = terrrible
priests betting on matches = ok as long as he is moved to another parish

You've almost got it. Just add in the gray areas

priest supporting a club other than bohs = ??

[marinobohs]

I was refering to your seeming inability/reluctance to admit to something that the majority of people who can count would, probably, agree is an indisputable fact:

5 > 1

I see all may not be lost as you correctly recognised that Derry were treated differently as the scale of their wrong-doing was unprecedented. Perhaps the matter may have been dealt with differently had only one player's contract been in question.

I don't know maybe you got excited by my previous, undignified, outburst, but hopefully having confined myself to a footballing context you can see where I'm going with this.

McGlynn broke the same rule as Dempsey on a bigger scale.

I'll let that sink in...

...


...


...Therefore a bigger punishment can be justified.

Now, before you start telling us how betting against your own team is more wrong than betting against some teams in a lower division lets examine your answer to the suggesting that something can be justified like this (nonsensically).



Which leaves us with your assertion



Now I don't want to get you excited here, but I'm going to reference animal farm. As your worldview seems to reflect the writing on the wall.

marinobohs worldview: All clubs are equal, but bohs are more equal than others.

Now as a football fan that's perfectly acceptable, but sometimes even I take a step back from my paranoid delusions and have to admit that the world really isn't out to get me.

Incest, paedophilia and now animal farm..... simply bizarre

Love the way you highlight a quote by me saying all clubs should be treated equal as prove I think (marinobohs worldview) Bohs should be treated differently ????? Again bizarre

By the way, while I had great sympathy for Derry and especially the fans I did NOT say they were treated badly/differently I said I was not aware of a similar precedent case, hardly the same thing by any (lack of) logic.

Yes, McGlynn commited a number of breaches (never denied) the argument was that betting on ones own club is worse than betting on an outside club - a point you are incapable of addressing. Similarly Morrow was worse again in my opinion because he bet on games he actually played in.


Time to exit this charade but before I go a couple of tips for you which I hope you find usefull

(1) Get an adult to read other peoples posts with you - they can explain the big words/sentences that appear to be beyond you :confused:.
(2) Lay of the Dutch Gold before posting, you will be amazed at the difference it makes :rolleyes:

[osarusan]

Yes, McGlynn commited a number of breaches (never denied) the argument was that betting on ones own club is worse than betting on an outside club - a point you are incapable of addressing. Similarly Morrow was worse again in my opinion because he bet on games he actually played in.

But the point being made to you is that the rulebook doesn't seem to make the distinction between betting on matches involving your own team and matches not involving your own team, as long as you're not playing in the matches. Now you may not like that, or agree with it (I think the former is more serious also) but if that is what the rulebook says, the multiple bets by McGlynn would be punished more strictly than the single bet by Dempsey.

[marinobohs]

But the pojnt being made to you is that the rulebook doesn't seem to make the distinction between betting on matches involving your own team and matches not involving your own team, as long as you're not playing in the matches. Now you may not like that, or agree with it (I think the former is more serious also) but if that is what the rulebook says, the multiple bets by McGlynn would be punished more strictly than the single bet by Dempsey.

The ruling appears to be less than specific to be fair. Perhaps if it is that black and white (as you suggest) then a standart penalty should apply (X games per breach) this would be the logic of your argument but is clearly not the present situation. As ever as long as decisions are made on an ad hoc basis there will be speculation of favouritism/discrimination. Ban will probobly be reduced to one month on appeal anyway - no logic but the authorities seem to allow for "roll back" when making decisions :rolleyes:

[CMcC]

Firstly I support Bohs.

At first glance I thought this punishment was outrageous considering the Dempsey punishment.

However I can see the arguement made here and understand the point re the frequency and volume of the offence. Some posters here mentioned 5 bets vs Dempsey's 1 bet.

Now, similiarly I would assume most people would consider Dempsey's offence potentially more serious as he would (potentially) have more of a chance to influence the outcome of a game his club were playing in - considering he's a squad player of the club participating in the game the bet was struck on.

More issues would need to be teased out, like how a player missing the game could in itself have as much influence on the outcome as one actually playing (e.g. Rooney missing a game for Man United could influence their performance thus potentially influencing the result)

This could be irrelavant however because IMO the key factor to consider is that (my understanding of the rule as posted earlier) the rule doesnt mention specifically your own team must be playing in the game to make it an offence. It mentioned the competition which raises a number other questions such as:

1) Does that mean players with a premier club can bet in the first division as thay are not in that competition and vice versa.

2) Obviously cup competitions are a no no, but what happens when their club exits the cup? Are they fair game then to have a punt.

3) What happens in the situation where say a Limerick player decided to have a punt on say Bohs or Rovers in their first European tie this season?

Also if point 1 above can be argued, at least argued its open to interpration does that mean, as someone posted, that as some of the bets struck (but not all) were in the 1st division they could be off the table and not an offence?
Therefore bringing his 5 offences verses Dempsey's 1 offence down to possible 2 or 3 : 1.
I dont have details of the exact bets struck - maybe someone could post it.

The key issue here is that maybe the tack to take would be that the rule is too loose and open to interperation and that it was reasonable to assume you could bet in 1st Division matches. That would not obsolve him from the stupid move to back in Premier games but it may mean the punishment is looked at again.

What would be interesting re the punishment is if the FAI could be pushed to say they took frequency and volume into the equation (as some have argued on this thread) to counter the precedent arguement and it would be IMO a better arguement in an appeal situation. Its reasonable to assume it may have had some bareing.

The player was an idiot. Bohs should not have to pay him a cent though. He didnt declare this when signing for the club (i assume) and when signing a player you have to assume he has not violated any rules of the association that would make him unable to do the duties he is employed to do. He should not be paid for the duration of the ban as he cannot fulfil his contractual obligations through no fault of the club and, more importantly, not as a result of fulfilling any club duty, but through his own idiotic actions.

[marinobohs]

Firstly I support Bohs.

At first glance I thought this punishment was outrageous considering the Dempsey punishment.

However I can see the arguement made here and understand the point re the frequency and volume of the offence. Some posters here mentioned 5 bets vs Dempsey's 1 bet.

Now, similiarly I would assume most people would consider Dempsey's offence potentially more serious as he would (potentially) have more of a chance to influence the outcome of a game his club were playing in - considering he's a squad player of the club participating in the game the bet was struck on.

More issues would need to be teased out, like how a player missing the game could in itself have as much influence on the outcome as one actually playing (e.g. Rooney missing a game for Man United could influence their performance thus potentially influencing the result)

This could be irrelavant however because IMO the key factor to consider is that (my understanding of the rule as posted earlier) the rule doesnt mention specifically your own team must be playing in the game to make it an offence. It mentioned the competition which raises a number other questions such as:

1) Does that mean players with a premier club can bet in the first division as thay are not in that competition and vice versa.

2) Obviously cup competitions are a no no, but what happens when their club exits the cup? Are they fair game then to have a punt.

3) What happens in the situation where say a Limerick player decided to have a punt on say Bohs or Rovers in their first European tie this season?

Also if point 1 above can be argued, at least argued its open to interpration does that mean, as someone posted, that as some of the bets struck (but not all) were in the 1st division they could be off the table and not an offence?
Therefore bringing his 5 offences verses Dempsey's 1 offence down to possible 2 or 3 : 1.
I dont have details of the exact bets struck - maybe someone could post it.

The key issue here is that maybe the tack to take would be that the rule is too loose and open to interperation and that it was reasonable to assume you could bet in 1st Division matches. That would not obsolve him from the stupid move to back in Premier games but it may mean the punishment is looked at again.

What would be interesting re the punishment is if the FAI could be pushed to say they took frequency and volume into the equation (as some have argued on this thread) to counter the precedent arguement and it would be IMO a better arguement in an appeal situation. Its reasonable to assume it may have had some bareing.

The player was an idiot. Bohs should not have to pay him a cent though. He didnt declare this when signing for the club (i assume) and when signing a player you have to assume he has not violated any rules of the association that would make him unable to do the duties he is employed to do. He should not be paid for the duration of the ban as he cannot fulfil his contractual obligations through no fault of the club and, more importantly, not as a result of fulfilling any club duty, but through his own idiotic actions.

It appears (nothing is certain) that the rule prohibits a player betting on any competition he is taking part in -would this include a different division ? unclear. Unlikely (but not certain) that a player not involved in Europe would be prohibited from betting on a european game.
Agree fully that rule is unspecific and as I said this leaves interpretation and penalty in the hands of FAI, an organisation not known for consistency or fairness. Also agree that McGynn was stupid (easy answer is for a pro footballer not to bet on games in Ireland) and that Bohs should not pay him for an ban resulting from issues not related to Bohs.

[Dodge]

I'd imagine the FAI left the rule as vague as it is to prevent all possible loopholes. It really as simple as "if you play in the league of Ireland, you can't bet on any games involving League of Ireland teams"

My wording, but to be honest, any LOI player who bets is looking for trouble. Plenty of other things people can bet on

[micls]

But the point being made to you is that the rulebook doesn't seem to make the distinction between betting on matches involving your own team and matches not involving your own team, as long as you're not playing in the matches. Now you may not like that, or agree with it (I think the former is more serious also) but if that is what the rulebook says, the multiple bets by McGlynn would be punished more strictly than the single bet by Dempsey.
However in football 2 offences which break the same rule do not always have the same punishment.

I.e. 2 offences considered 'violent conduct' could get significantly different bans if one is considered more serious.

When there is no specified punishment there is room to punish diferrent offences in different ways.

Just because the same general rule was broken by both does not automatically equate to the severity of the offense. So the FAi could decide that under this rule betting against your own team is worse and deserves a longer punishment, as with violent conduct.

[marinobohs]

I'd imagine the FAI left the rule as vague as it is to prevent all possible loopholes. It really as simple as "if you play in the league of Ireland, you can't bet on any games involving League of Ireland teams"

My wording, but to be honest, any LOI player who bets is looking for trouble. Plenty of other things people can bet on

Totally agree Dodge and whats more bearing in mind the "ambiguity" of the rule I think any player gambling on any LOI match is stupid to take the risk.
I suppose one amusing aspect is that none of those caught to date seem to have made any money out of it - so if it was fraud/cheating they were not very good at it :rolleyes:

Much simpler to have a rule banning betting on specified matches (Prem. first FAI Cup etc) and a specific penalty for breach. this would clarify the situation and forever end the "I didn't think it was wrong" defence (which can thereafter be reserved for Derry players charged with incest/paedophile or animal linked offences :o).

[Mr A]

If you do that you end up with the same punishment for a €5 bet and a €10,000 bet. OK, you could legislate for that too but there'll always be something that was not thought of (as licensing has proved repeatedly).

As mentioned above, a certain level of ambiguity is probably necessary in the rules to prevent people using loopholes in the rulebook.

[SkStu]

im on board with the 5 bets is a greater offence than 1 bet rule that has been argued here. Makes good sense and provides some rationale as to why the ban is on the lengthy side.

However, and this is just by the way, if you are going to say that a bet is a bet is a bet, irrespective of who you betted against or for (i.e. your own team), then i reject the assertion in Dodges posts that the monetary amount of the bet(s) could or should matter. If the offence is just breaching the rule then the other issues should not be looked at. If you were to look at the other issues (amount, team involved) then the issue gets messy and then you could probably argue that Dempseys offence was worse (morally) and that Morrows was worse again (morally). Other than that i agree with the general consensus here and also that McGlynn was stupid.

[MariborKev]

Morrow made money on a number of his. Albeit he was betting on us to win.

[osarusan]

Morrow made money on a number of his. Albeit he was betting on us to win.
Should that make a difference though? The rule is against betting, not winning.



However, and this is just by the way, if you are going to say that a bet is a bet is a bet, irrespective of who you betted against or for (i.e. your own team), then i reject the assertion in Dodges posts that the monetary amount of the bet(s) could or should matter. If the offence is just breaching the rule then the other issues should not be looked at.
I think Dodge's point was that nobody is going to try and influence a game to win 40 or 50 euro, whereas it's more likely when somebody is betting 10,000 or so. But I'd argue that they're different offences - the first is simply betting on a game, the second is actually trying to influence the result of a game, and would merit a much much harsher punishment, if I were writing the rules.

[Dodge]

I reckon that job is vacant osarusan

[MariborKev]

Should that make a difference though? The rule is against betting, not winning.


I agree, I was merely responding to the point about the players not winning any of the bets.

[marinobohs]

I agree, I was merely responding to the point about the players not winning any of the bets.

Mea Culpa MK ! was not aware of Morrows "win(s)". Just struck me that as fraud goes it was not very lucrative :) (but still wrong/contrary to rules none the less)

[BohsFans]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=480ZUVwpAEg

2:32 Fenlon's view on the McGlynn suspension.

[SkStu]

I think Dodge's point was that nobody is going to try and influence a game to win 40 or 50 euro, whereas it's more likely when somebody is betting 10,000 or so. But I'd argue that they're different offences - the first is simply betting on a game, the second is actually trying to influence the result of a game, and would merit a much much harsher punishment, if I were writing the rules.

yes, i understand that Osarusan and i agree but there is only one offence - betting on any game. The FAI punishment suggests, and so do the majority of posts here, that it is the quantity of bets that should be the defining feature of the offence (5>1). By taking this approach they are ruling out the consideration of any other factors (amount of the bets and whether you did or could have influenced the outcome of those bets). Its a remarkably flawed approach to take in my opinion, if that is the approach that the FAI has taken.

personally, i think this will be reduced on appeal. No particular reason for thinking that, i just have a feeling.

[Dodge]

How do you know they they didn't take into account the amounts bet? We're all just guessing here

[MariborKev]

Exactly Dodge.

We already know that Morrow, McGlynn and O'Neill bet or more games and for more money than Dempsey ergo heavier punishment.

[marinobohs]

Exactly Dodge.

We already know that Morrow, McGlynn and O'Neill bet or more games and for more money than Dempsey ergo heavier punishment.

the point is not that simple, surely obvious that there is a difference between betting on a game you are playing in and betting on one you have no connection with ? The rule may not currently say so but nor does it say anything about the size or frequency of the bet(s). You are presuming that the FAI muppets gave added credance to the multiplicity and size of bets involved while ignoring the "closeness" of the player to the fixture, I dont see the logic of this argument at all :confused:

[MariborKev]

MB,

You just keep moving goalposts.

Your point above claiming that no account was taken of the size of the bets. I am merely proposing that the length of ban suggests that some was.

[Dodge]

Or at the very least we can't say either way.