McGlynn & O'Neill betting bans

[marinobohs]

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.

just to be clear I never said the FAI did not take account of the amounts or frequency (as Dodge said only they know) I said that the closeness of the player to the game should be at least as important a factor in my opinion.

for all we know all or none of these factors may have been involved in reaching the decision - my point has been consistently that there is no clarity around the application of the law therefore my opinion was reached based on the precedent of the Dempsey case (As I clarified the Morrow case - in my opinion - was considerably more serious as he played in the games).

If you care to read back I have not "moved the goalposts" on this :confused:

[A N Mouse]

For all the reasons outlined above the discretionary nature of the disciplinary process is a necessary evil. To which I'll add, unless someone can show evidence to the contrary, these offences we're talking about are the thin end of the wedge when the rule in question likely extends all the way to match fixing.

I would like to say we should be aware of minimum punishments, but any kind of shopping list punishments would only serve to highlight inadequacies in the system, and create even more cries of injustice. I do think we should be asking for more transparency in this - putting decisions in context - and the referee assessments.

So, again, while in this instance the 5>1 argument can be used to justify the punishment, the decision cannot be viewed in isolation from the decision handed down by fifa in the morrow case.

With hindsight the Dempsey case should have been handled more severely - I'm unaware of any precedent at the time. But this failing, rightly or wrongly, merely adds to pressure to be seen to be serious about the issue at this juncture.

[marinobohs]

For all the reasons outlined above the discretionary nature of the disciplinary process is a necessary evil. To which I'll add, unless someone can show evidence to the contrary, these offences we're talking about are the thin end of the wedge when the rule in question likely extends all the way to match fixing.

I would like to say we should be aware of minimum punishments, but any kind of shopping list punishments would only serve to highlight inadequacies in the system, and create even more cries of injustice. I do think we should be asking for more transparency in this - putting decisions in context - and the referee assessments.

So, again, while in this instance the 5>1 argument can be used to justify the punishment, the decision cannot be viewed in isolation from the decision handed down by fifa in the morrow case.

With hindsight the Dempsey case should have been handled more severely - I'm unaware of any precedent at the time. But this failing, rightly or wrongly, merely adds to pressure to be seen to be serious about the issue at this juncture.

So Mc Glynn should be punished severely because someone else might be "match fixing" ? truely bizarre justification for the severity of the decision. Nobody at any stage linked the current case with anything remotely connected with match fixing. I am aware of the rumours about match fixing but if the FAI way of dealing with it is this, then they are even more corrupt/incompetent than I thought (and I would not have believed that possible).:rolleyes:
Similarly, to suggest that the Dempsey case should have been dealt with "more severly" because someone might match fix is on a par with shooting shop lifters because someone somewhere might be a murderer :o

[SkStu]

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

i did say in my post "if that is the approach that the FAI has taken". I was making my point based on the arguments here and using the arguments of the majority here as a possible/likely approach by the FAI. Is there a problem?

Of course we dont know for sure but the FAI make a lot of decisions without us knowing the full story and it doesnt stop the hypothesizing and debate here.

If you want me to put it another way, someone here simply taking a 5>1 approach in this issue is seriously flawed. In the same way as the "3 Strikes" american justice/punishment/jail system.

[Dodge]

If you want me to put it another way, someone here simply taking a 5>1 approach in this issue is seriously flawed. In the same way as the "3 Strikes" american justice/punishment/jail system.

In fairness I don't think anyone took that approach. People who mentioned it (myelf included) tended to offer it as a possible reason for the ban, in response to Bohs fans (mainly marino) who couldn't accept ANY reason for McGlynn getting a longer ban then Dempsey

[marinobohs]

In fairness I don't think anyone took that approach. People who mentioned it (myelf included) tended to offer it as a possible reason for the ban, in response to Bohs fans (mainly marino) who couldn't accept ANY reason for McGlynn getting a longer ban then Dempsey

for the record I accepted LONG ago the 5>1 argument existed (try reading previous posts) I did not accept it was justified. big difference.

[A N Mouse]

So Mc Glynn should be punished severely because someone else might be "match fixing" ? truely bizarre justification for the severity of the decision. Nobody at any stage linked the current case with anything remotely connected with match fixing. I am aware of the rumours about match fixing but if the FAI way of dealing with it is this, then they are even more corrupt/incompetent than I thought (and I would not have believed that possible).:rolleyes:
Similarly, to suggest that the Dempsey case should have been dealt with "more severly" because someone might match fix is on a par with shooting shop lifters because someone somewhere might be a murderer :o

I really think you should heed your own advice.

However you may, through no fault of your own, have stumbled upon the seed of an idea that gives credence to one of your milder accusations.

It goes something like this:

Fifa give Morrow lengthy ban;

In light of Fifa decision the fai see a need to be equally strict with McGlynn.

They hand down a decision which can be justified*, with respect to Dempsey case.

Also, in light of Fifa decision, the fai see, belatedly, they may have been too lenient in the Dempsey case. They should have made an example of him - by upholding their original decision - but that boat has sailed. So now McGlynn is a scapegoat.

However this may be hard for you to accept, as despite telling us how heinous Dempsey's misdeed was for the 100 odd posts of this thread, and an undetermined number of times in other threads, you seem to now feel he may have been hard done by.

* please note the distinction between saying something can be justified and something is justified. For example someone can see where you're coming from, while still disagreeing with you

[blue til i die]

Has been reduced to one month.

[MariborKev]

FAI Statement

The FAI Appeal Committee today heard appeals on behalf of Mr. Gareth McGlynn and Mr. Colum O’Neill in relation to the recent case in which both men were found by the Independent Disciplinary Committee to have breached Rule 100 (betting / gambling) of the FAI rule book.

Following the appeals, the FAI Appeal Committee made the following decisions:

The two-month ban on all football fixtures imposed on Mr. McGlynn has been reduced to one month;
A fine of €500 will be imposed on Mr. McGlynn;
The two-month ban on all football fixtures imposed on Mr. O’Neill has been reduced to one month.

These suspensions will begin with immediate effect.

ENDS

[SkStu]

proper order.

[marinobohs]

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:

Guess I called that one right :rolleyes: and the circus goes on...........

[marinobohs]

I really think you should heed your own advice.

However you may, through no fault of your own, have stumbled upon the seed of an idea that gives credence to one of your milder accusations.

It goes something like this:

Fifa give Morrow lengthy ban;

In light of Fifa decision the fai see a need to be equally strict with McGlynn.

They hand down a decision which can be justified*, with respect to Dempsey case.

Also, in light of Fifa decision, the fai see, belatedly, they may have been too lenient in the Dempsey case. They should have made an example of him - by upholding their original decision - but that boat has sailed. So now McGlynn is a scapegoat.

However this may be hard for you to accept, as despite telling us how heinous Dempsey's misdeed was for the 100 odd posts of this thread, and an undetermined number of times in other threads, you seem to now feel he may have been hard done by.

* please note the distinction between saying something can be justified and something is justified. For example someone can see where you're coming from, while still disagreeing with you

At no point did I say Dempsey was "hard done by" - i was pointing out the absurdity of your argument that Dempsey should have been treated more harshly because of alledged match fixing that may/may not have occured subsequently. Nor did I say Dempseys crime was "heinous" at any point - I used it as a benchmark for comparison of the two penaltys and said in my opinion Dempseys offence was more serious because he was closer to the event (his team were involved). Other than that your post is spot on :rolleyes:

Sad to say the most sense you made on this thread involved incest, paedophilia and animals...:cool:

[A N Mouse]

At no point did I say Dempsey was "hard done by" - i was pointing out the absurdity of your argument that Dempsey should have been treated more harshly because of alledged match fixing that may/may not have occured subsequently. Nor did I say Dempseys crime was "heinous" at any point - I used it as a benchmark for comparison of the two penaltys and said in my opinion Dempseys offence was more serious because he was closer to the event (his team were involved). Other than that your post is spot on :rolleyes:

That's good, because I just reworded what I had said in the previous post, that you took umbrage with.:cool:


Sad to say the most sense you made on this thread involved incest, paedophilia and animals...:cool:

It's bye the bye but
Here's a link to an article about a bizzare little book you might be interested in (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/apr/17/christopher-hitchens-re-reads-animal-farm)

Back on topic. For some reason I thought O'Neill had originally been given a lengthier ban. I think even marinobohs would agree with me that, from the accounts in the press, his actions seemed slightly worse than McGlynns, and possibly warranted a, slightly, harsher approach.

Certainly questions the notion that things are dealt with on a case by case basis.

[marinobohs]

Back on topic. For some reason I thought O'Neill had originally been given a lengthier ban. I think even marinobohs would agree with me that, from the accounts in the press, his actions seemed slightly worse than McGlynns, and possibly warranted a, slightly, harsher approach.

Certainly questions the notion that things are dealt with on a case by case basis.

As irony appears lost on you I will ignore most of your post and stick to the "on topic" bit ;). Yes, it is strange that O'Neill receives less of a punishment (no fine ?) than McGlynn especially as O'Neill admitted betting on his own team.
Further proof that trying to apply any logic to the decisions of these muppets is a waste of time. By the way great that we are now of one accord on this :cool:

[shantykelly]

so, how many angels did we get dancing on that pin head in the end up?

its the fai. from experience we know that they make it up as they go along. trying to retrospectively apply logic and reason to their actions is doomed to failure.

[A N Mouse]

so, how many angels did we get dancing on that pin head in the end up?

its the fai. from experience we know that they make it up as they go along. trying to retrospectively apply logic and reason to their actions is doomed to failure.

Can we make this a rule, a yellow card offence?

Won't stop me wrecking my head, but might save a few of yours

[Réiteoir]

Statment from the club

Bohemian FC states that it is dissatisfied with the FAI Appeal Committee’s handling of Gareth McGlynn’s appeal heard on Thursday 28 April against the Disciplinary Committee finding of 16 April. But the club has decided not to appeal to arbitration as it is difficult to have faith in a disciplinary system which has departed from procedure and precedent.

Club directors and others associated with the club were prepared to personally fund an appeal but the club has decided not to spend money, time and effort on an appeal in order not to prolong the uncertainty around the player’s availability.

We note that the FAI submitted to the appeals committee that a 10-day period in which to appeal was the norm. However, the player and the club were given one day to appeal as the original ban was due to start the day after the appeal hearing.

On release of the appeal decision the club wrote (Thursday 29 April) to the FAI asking it as a party to the proceedings to request formally that the normal 10-day appeal period, provided for in the FAI’s rule book, be applied. This request to the FAI was refused. This makes the FAI’s arguments in the original and appeal hearings based on the “integrity of the rule book” appear very hollow.

The club also notes that the original formal notice (Thursday 29 April) of the appeal decision clearly indicated a ban of one month but a second formal notice (Friday 30 April) of Mr McGlynn’s ban means that it runs for one month and a day, thus including a league match against Shamrock Rovers. We are unhappy that the appeals committee’s decision was effectively altered within less than 24 hours to include the additional fixture.

[Schumi]

What are the odds that Bohs get fined for this?

[SkStu]

from the Sun.


BOHEMIANS are fuming after it was confirmed that Gareth McGlynn will miss the Dublin derby against Shamrock Rovers.

McGlynn was initially handed a two-month ban — to run from April 30 up to and including June 29 — for placing five bets on League of Ireland games, none of which involved his then club Derry City.

This was reduced to one month on appeal, with the FAI announcing on Thursday that the suspension would begin with immediate effect.

That meant the reduced ban started on April 29, prompting Bohs to believe it would end on May 28, allowing him to play against Rovers the following day. But an FAI spokesman confirmed yesterday the ban would run from April 29 to midnight May 29.

A Bohs source raged: "If you get a two-month ban running from April 30 until June 29 and you are told it's been reduced to one month starting on April 29 then it is reasonable to assume this means it finishes on May 28.

"If the initial ban had been upheld he would have missed between 10 and 12 games. Now, he'll miss at least six and it could be more if two back fixtures against Bray are rearranged for that period."

Bohs and the players' union have decided against seeking a further reduction of the ban by referring it to arbitration, which would cost '5,000. The option of seeking a High Court injunction to allow him play in last night's game against UCD was considered but discounted.

Both Bohs and the PFAI are unhappy the ban began with immediate effect, believing it curtailed their ability to refer the matter to arbitration.

Under rule 116, parties have 10 working days to seek arbitration.

That gave them until May 13, but in the meantime, Bohs would have played four games.

Had the arbiter decided a ban of fewer than four matches was appropriate, a lengthy legal battle for compensation could have ensued.

The source added: "We don't have faith in the process so don't see the point in pursuing it any further."