McGlynn & O'Neill betting bans

[brendy_éire]

BOHEMIANS midfielder Gareth McGlynn will launch an appeal after being hit with a two-month ban for gambling on League of Ireland matches during his time with Derry City......The winger has received the same punishment as Derry backroom staff member Colum O'Neill, who staked on six Candystripes matches.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/bohs-mcglynn-set-to-launch-appeal-against-twomonth-ban-for-betting-2143828.html?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe somewhat harsh, though it does send a clear message to players that it won't be tolerated.

Fenlon hinted that they may appeal the decision.

[Mr A]

Seems a tad harsh when he didn't bet on actual Derry games and lost every time. But then the LOI is a small community and there's always a real chance people have inside info even if it's not their team playing. Stupid boy for doing it, he only has himself to blame.

[danthesaint]

Seems a tad harsh when he didn't bet on actual Derry games and lost every time. But then the LOI is a small community and there's always a real chance people have inside info even if it's not their team playing. Stupid boy for doing it, he only has himself to blame.

yeah especially when ya think Gary Dempsey only got 5 games and he back against Pats :mad:

[Ezeikial]

yeah especially when ya think Gary Dempsey only got 5 games and he back against Pats :mad:

Maybe the FAI feel that the Gary Dempsey case should have been a warning to other players (and it should have been!!), and they are trying to take a tough stance on offenders.

[marinobohs]

Maybe the FAI feel that the Gary Dempsey case should have been a warning to other players (and it should have been!!), and they are trying to take a tough stance on offenders.

I have posted my own views against players bertting on ANY LOI gamesany times but lets be clear the only message sent out by this draconian ban is the inability of the incompetent/corrupt (delete as appropriate) so called administrators of football here to apply any sort of consistency in the application of "make it up as you go along" rules - based more on the club involved than any form of administrative justice.
The sooner the better Platium One, Osama Bin Laden or even ,God help us, Fianna Fail take over running the LOI and get rid of the Abbotstown freak show the better for Irish football.

[shantykelly]

whilst i have no time for the fai and a lot of respect for mcglynn as a player, after the dempsey case when it was stated quite clearly in the media that players CAN'T bet on LOI games, you would have to be either a) an idiot who doesnt pay attention to their own league and thus deserves to get caught, or b) someone who doesnt give a damn about the rules of their own league, and thus deserves to get caught.

it is a bit over the top, but i think he deserves more than just a slap on the wrist. and yes, i would even say that if he was still a derry player. he broke the rules AFTER a high profile case on the same issue, he has no defence.

[A N Mouse]

I have posted my own views against players bertting on ANY LOI gamesany times but lets be clear the only message sent out by this draconian ban is the inability of the incompetent/corrupt (delete as appropriate) so called administrators of football here to apply any sort of consistency in the application of "make it up as you go along" rules - based more on the club involved than any form of administrative justice.
The sooner the better Platium One, Osama Bin Laden or even ,God help us, Fianna Fail take over running the LOI and get rid of the Abbotstown freak show the better for Irish football.

Away wi you.

Don't pretend for an instant that if he were still a Derry player you would have a problem with a two month ban.

You want to talk about consistency, then in fairness he should be given the same punishment as morrow got.

[marinobohs]

whilst i have no time for the fai and a lot of respect for mcglynn as a player, after the dempsey case when it was stated quite clearly in the media that players CAN'T bet on LOI games, you would have to be either a) an idiot who doesnt pay attention to their own league and thus deserves to get caught, or b) someone who doesnt give a damn about the rules of their own league, and thus deserves to get caught.

it is a bit over the top, but i think he deserves more than just a slap on the wrist. and yes, i would even say that if he was still a derry player. he broke the rules AFTER a high profile case on the same issue, he has no defence.

Nobody is arguing that he did/did not break the rules, my point related the inability of the FAI to administer their own rules. Dempsey got 2 game ban (after appeal) yet McGlynn gets two months - both offences are wrong but it is accepted that McGlynn did not bet on any matches involving his (then) club. This decision in effect makes it less serious to bet on your own clubs matches than another clubs matches and that is ridiculous.
furthermore, since the Dempsey case, there has been no amendment to the rule therefore making this decision even more ludicrous.
Consistent application of its own rules is patently beyond the jokers in Abbotstown.

[marinobohs]

Away wi you.

Don't pretend for an instant that if he were still a Derry player you would have a problem with a two month ban.

You want to talk about consistency, then in fairness he should be given the same punishment as morrow got.

back in the real world...... punishment should reflect the crime not the club/player involved. Derry, Bohs, Shels, Pats,Shams or whoever should have all rules applied consistently. Simple enough I would have thought.
i understand Morrow admitted betting on matches he played in - presumably you accept that is more serious ?

[brendy_éire]

Dempsey got 2 game ban (after appeal) yet McGlynn gets two months - both offences are wrong but it is accepted that McGlynn did not bet on any matches involving his (then) club. This decision in effect makes it less serious to bet on your own clubs matches than another clubs matches and that is ridiculous.

Dempsey argued, though, that he thought it was ok as he wasn't playing in the actual matches. Not that I buy that.
McGlynn may still appeal his ban too.


furthermore, since the Dempsey case, there has been no amendment to the rule therefore making this decision even more ludicrous.
Consistent application of its own rules is patently beyond the jokers in Abbotstown.

Do the rules need amending though? It was made clear after the Dempsey case that betting on LoI matches is forbidden.
Maybe the only amendment could be some form of standardised suspension period?

[marinobohs]

Dempsey argued, though, that he thought it was ok as he wasn't playing in the actual matches. Not that I buy that.
McGlynn may still appeal his ban too.



Do the rules need amending though? It was made clear after the Dempsey case that betting on LoI matches is forbidden.
Maybe the only amendment could be some form of standardised suspension period?

So the argument is that before the Dempsey case it was not forbidden ? that it was not clear (or that Dempsey did not understand) ? The point is the exact same rules were applied in both cases with startlingly different results and that is called inconsistency. Unfortunately quite regular for the gombeens in the FAI (as Derry should well know) who appear incapable of anything but "make it up as you go along" administration.

[OneRedArmy]

So the argument is that before the Dempsey case it was not forbidden ? that it was not clear (or that Dempsey did not understand) ? The point is the exact same rules were applied in both cases with startlingly different results and that is called inconsistency. Unfortunately quite regular for the gombeens in the FAI (as Derry should well know) who appear incapable of anything but "make it up as you go along" administration.Its fairly common practice in many walks of life to increase penalties and sanctions when rule breakers explicitly ignore a prior warning. As happened in this case.

I'd have banned O'Neill for life personally and McGlynn for at least a season.

Wonder if the FAI will get round to Dundalk at any stage?

[marinobohs]

Its fairly common practice in many walks of life to increase penalties and sanctions when rule breakers explicitly ignore a prior warning. As happened in this case.

I'd have banned O'Neill for life personally and McGlynn for at least a season.

Wonder if the FAI will get round to Dundalk at any stage?

What prior warning ? McGynnis punished because Dempsey was caught ? utter crap, show me where penalty in law increases for a first offence without change to rule/law ?. Presumably nothing to do with the player leaving derry.......

[twoenz]

Betting for your own team isn't really much different than a win bonus though.

[Nah Nah Nah Nah]

There's no way whatsoever that his ban should have been greater then Dempseys

[danthesaint]

There's no way whatsoever that his ban should have been greater then Dempseys

i thought about it originally, but after reading some of the comments above maybe it should, if he was a stupid **** to get caught after dempsey, then maybe its not too harsh....

[eelmonster]

Wonder if the FAI will get round to Dundalk at any stage?

The players allegedly involved in betting on that game (and others) are no longer at Dundalk.

[marinobohs]

i thought about it originally, but after reading some of the comments above maybe it should, if he was a stupid **** to get caught after dempsey, then maybe its not too harsh....

Yea, Dempsey - 2 games for betting against his own team. McGynn 8 games for betting on first division games. Not too hrsh at all :confused:

[danthesaint]

Yea, Dempsey - 2 games for betting against his own team. McGynn 8 games for betting on first division games. Not too hrsh at all :confused:

so ya saying McGlynn wont appeal... if dempsey can and win, no reason why mcglynn shouldnt

and tbh i thought Dempsey 5 game ban should have stood.....

[shantykelly]

yes, but its arguable that dempsey's case was the line in the sand. following his case, everyone involved in the league SHOULD have known that betting on league matches by players, staff and officials was against the rules. if you get caught after such a high profile case, then you basically have to take your oil.

i agree that the 2 month ban was harsh, but i dont think that the punishment meted out to dempsey can be used as the standard. his was the first (that I know of), and he had an arguable (albeit dodgy) defence. mcglynn (and morrow, and others) was caught after this well publicised case (and punishment). they couldn't use the 'didn't know' defence and get away with it. ignorance of the law is no defence.

[Dodge]

I said in the previous thread that McGlynn would get more of a ban than Dempsey despite Bohs fans thinking he'd get slap on wrist

my reasoning was that Dempsey bet on one game he wasn't involved in (for €20) and McGlynn bet on several games he wasn't involved in. Now the stakes haven't been mentioned but I'd assume that if they were very low, then McGlynn's statement at the time would've said so

the fact the ban is in time rather games is interesting to me

[micls]

yes, but its arguable that dempsey's case was the line in the sand. following his case, everyone involved in the league SHOULD have known that betting on league matches by players, staff and officials was against the rules. if you get caught after such a high profile case, then you basically have to take your oil.

i agree that the 2 month ban was harsh, but i dont think that the punishment meted out to dempsey can be used as the standard. his was the first (that I know of), and he had an arguable (albeit dodgy) defence. mcglynn (and morrow, and others) was caught after this well publicised case (and punishment). they couldn't use the 'didn't know' defence and get away with it. ignorance of the law is no defence.

But your last line contradicts the rest of your post.

If ignorance is no defence then there's absolutely no reason Dempsey's ban should be less than McGlynns The law is the law and the punishments should be the same whether they knew about it or not.

It's unfair to claim Dempsey can plead ignorance and the others cant. The situations are different. Dempsey bet on his own team. McGlynn didnt. For all we know McGylnn could have thought the Dempsey situation only meant you couldnt bet on your own team.

Neither has an excuse though, the rules are their and it's up to themselves to educate themselves on it.

The discrepancy in punishments is ridiculous though imo.

[Dodge]

Oh and the reason Dempseys league ban was reduced was because he had already served a 3 game (without pay) ban imposed by Pats.

[marinobohs]

so ya saying McGlynn wont appeal... if dempsey can and win, no reason why mcglynn shouldnt

and tbh i thought Dempsey 5 game ban should have stood.....

Decisions should not be reached with a view to them being appealed. The Dempsey precedent was there and to impose a much stiffer sentence for betting on games in a different division is beyond logic - effectively saying it is better to bet on games involving your own club :rolleyes:

The problem is not penalising a player for breaking the rules it is the complete inability of the so called administrators to act in a competent or consistent way.Again.

[shantykelly]

But your last line contradicts the rest of your post.

If ignorance is no defence then there's absolutely no reason Dempsey's ban should be less than McGlynns The law is the law and the punishments should be the same whether they knew about it or not.

It's unfair to claim Dempsey can plead ignorance and the others cant. The situations are different. Dempsey bet on his own team. McGlynn didnt. For all we know McGylnn could have thought the Dempsey situation only meant you couldnt bet on your own team.

Neither has an excuse though, the rules are their and it's up to themselves to educate themselves on it.

The discrepancy in punishments is ridiculous though imo.

agree that it is a contradiction, but thats my view on it - ignorance of the law is no defence. in saying that, i can see the fai punishing dempsey and expecting the rest of the league to learn from it, therefore they may have felt they didnt need to be overly harsh. when you then get three fellas from derry caught in the act, i'd say the exasperation would have been pretty high - 'ah jeez boys, did we not already deal with this? feck him, ban him for two months'. the last year has shown the fai to be anything but consistent when applying rules, a lot of the time there decisions seem to be based on emotion more than logic or precedent. cork and derry are a great example of this.

[marinobohs]

agree that it is a contradiction, but thats my view on it - ignorance of the law is no defence. in saying that, i can see the fai punishing dempsey and expecting the rest of the league to learn from it, therefore they may have felt they didnt need to be overly harsh. when you then get three fellas from derry caught in the act, i'd say the exasperation would have been pretty high - 'ah jeez boys, did we not already deal with this? feck him, ban him for two months'. the last year has shown the fai to be anything but consistent when applying rules, a lot of the time there decisions seem to be based on emotion more than logic or precedent. cork and derry are a great example of this.

Do you know what SK, the really really scary thing is that this (above) is quite probobly what happened :rolleyes: Staggering way to deal with things in this day and age but pretty much par for the course for the FAI.

[Mr A]

I don't accept that the FAI have to be forever tied to precedent in former cases (Otherwise they'd be doomed to repeat mistakes forever), especially given the Morrow case has happened in the meantime.

They may well take the view here though that any betting on LOI is pretty much equally serious. Or maybe that although McGlynn's offence was more minor that there were more of them. All speculation, but I don't see any reason to throw the rattle out of the pram regarding the FAI's handling of it without further detail.

I see every reason to ask what the hell McGlynn was thinking though. Again- he has no one to blame but himself.

[pineapple stu]

Does anyone know if anythign was sent to individual players in the wake of the Dempsey case?

If, for example, all players were sent a letter from the FAI explicitly outlining the rules on betting and noting that there were going to be tougher sanctions for it in the future, then tough.

[A N Mouse]

Fair enough it's all we have for precedent, but the Dempsey case is a red herring.

The judgement in the Morrow case came from on high, and in light of such the fai must be seen to be taking a tough line on this.

[Dodge]

Spot on, the fact it's for time (rather than games) shows it's an international thing rather than just for our league

And again without knowing the full facts I can't see how marinobohs is so certain that the ban is excessive.

[Mr_Parker]

Does anyone know if anythign was sent to individual players in the wake of the Dempsey case?

If, for example, all players were sent a letter from the FAI explicitly outlining the rules on betting and noting that there were going to be tougher sanctions for it in the future, then tough.

What is it they say, ignorance of the law is no defence? Why would they send such out? They don't send out all the other rules to individual players.

[osarusan]

They don't send out all the other rules to individual players.

He's talking about a possible change in the rules. If no rule change (or even change of attitude toward extent of punishment for breaking the rules) has been made clear, then McGlynn, for example, has a right to question how two such different punishments were rationally arrived at.

[A N Mouse]

He's talking about a possible change in the rules. If no rule change (or even change of attitude toward extent of punishment for breaking the rules) has been made clear, then McGlynn, for example, has a right to question how two such different punishments were rationally arrived at.

If we're going to persist in comparing apples and oranges then surely McGlynn should be looking at a thirty game ban, reduced to twelve on appeal?

[osarusan]

If we're going to persist in comparing apples and oranges then surely McGlynn should be looking at a thirty game ban, reduced to twelve on appeal?

But I don't think we are comparing apples and oranges.

If I understand this correctly, McGlynn placed 5 bets on teams and games he wasn't involved in, Dempsey placed a bet on a team (not a game) he was involved in. I'd personally say that Dempsey has committed the more serious offence, but that isn't reflected in the punishment. McGlynn should have the right to have it explained to him how the FAI reached their decision, and how that decision is in line with the ban given to Dempsey.

For what it's worth, I think that the amounts of money wagered shouldn't be a factor in punishment, as it's a principle that's being broken.

[Dodge]

You've answered McGlynn's question there. Dempsey was one bet, McGlynn's was a series of bets.

The morality of which teams were involved doesn't matter as far the rules are concerned once the player isn't involved in the game

[osarusan]

The morality of which teams were involved doesn't matter as far the rules are concerned once the player isn't involved in the game
If it is the case that it doesn't matter which teams the bets are on as long as the player isn't playing, then the punishment would be fair enough, given the multiple bets.

Are you sure this is the case, Dodge? Seems strange to me that betting against your own team would be classed the same as betting on teams in another division.

[Dodge]

Not at all sure, but it makes sense to me

Like I said betting against your own team (when not playing)
might be (more) morally wrong but I don't think there's any material difference to betting on other teams

Oh and the amounts should matter too IMO. If players are betting huge sums there could be a temptation to try and influence it. Someone having a small 'flutter' is unlikely too (and I'm not saying this was the case for anyone involved in any of the cases which have come to public)

[Mr_Parker]

He's talking about a possible change in the rules. If no rule change (or even change of attitude toward extent of punishment for breaking the rules) has been made clear, then McGlynn, for example, has a right to question how two such different punishments were rationally arrived at.

The rules change nearly every year as do the scales of punishments for lots of things. He has the right to ask but the point I was making is that players should not expect to be hand fed every rule change, that is up to every individual to acquaint themselves with and/or their club to keep them informed.

[pineapple stu]

I'm just saying that part of the Dempsey thing was the player saying he awsn't aware that it was wrong to bet on a match in which he wasn't playing. If, in the aftermath, the FAI sent out a circular to all players to clarify the point (because they seem to be taking the matter very seriously), then that could explain why McGlynn got hit with such a large ban. I know it's common in some sports to send out circulars to all players clarifying what is and isn't a banned substance, for example (hence why I've no sympathy for any player who claims he thought the cough medicine he was taking was harmless).

But my more broad point was, as Dodge noted, that if we don't know all the facts, we can't really comment on whether the ban was excessive or not.

[marinobohs]

I'm just saying that part of the Dempsey thing was the player saying he awsn't aware that it was wrong to bet on a match in which he wasn't playing. If, in the aftermath, the FAI sent out a circular to all players to clarify the point (because they seem to be taking the matter very seriously), then that could explain why McGlynn got hit with such a large ban. I know it's common in some sports to send out circulars to all players clarifying what is and isn't a banned substance, for example (hence why I've no sympathy for any player who claims he thought the cough medicine he was taking was harmless).

But my more broad point was, as Dodge noted, that if we don't know all the facts, we can't really comment on whether the ban was excessive or not.

Agree with you stu, if any notification was sent out. I am not aware of any.

- if the FAI notified all players that future cases (post Dempsey) would carry a higher penalty
- the players union and/or players were notified of change in penalty decided by FAI/FIFA etc
- the angel gabriel appeared telling McGlynn to end his evil ways or face eternal damnation (transfer to SRFC).

If ANY of the above happened I would revise my earlier view, but I am not aware of same and (in answer to Dodge) will have to base my assesment on what I know - including the precedent Dempsey case.

Also to suggest it is not worse to bet against your own team because you are not in the team is not correct. McGlynns bets related (as I understand) to games in the first division, to say this is the same as Dempsey betting against his own club is strange, to attempt to justify a harsher sentence defies logic.

[Mr_Parker]

As a matter of interest here is a related Irish League story from todays paper.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/local/glenavon-are-beaten-docket-with-the-bookies-14774216.html

[Mr A]

I think the authorities are just underestimating how pish Glenavon have been in the latter half of the year.

[A N Mouse]

Agree with you stu, if any notification was sent out. I am not aware of any.

- if the FAI notified all players that future cases (post Dempsey) would carry a higher penalty
- the players union and/or players were notified of change in penalty decided by FAI/FIFA etc
- the angel gabriel appeared telling McGlynn to end his evil ways or face eternal damnation (transfer to SRFC).

If ANY of the above happened I would revise my earlier view, but I am not aware of same and (in answer to Dodge) will have to base my assesment on what I know - including the precedent Dempsey case.

Also to suggest it is not worse to bet against your own team because you are not in the team is not correct. McGlynns bets related (as I understand) to games in the first division, to say this is the same as Dempsey betting against his own club is strange, to attempt to justify a harsher sentence defies logic.

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.

[micls]

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

I think most people would consider paedophilia a lot worse than 2 consenting adults having incest?


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

Similarly most people would consider betting on your own team a lot worse than betting on teams in another division in the country you play in.

The sentence for pedophilia would certainly be very different to incest and likewise people expect a different punishment for betting against your own team or one you have no links to.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

[twoenz]

As a matter of interest here is a related Irish League story from todays paper.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/local/glenavon-are-beaten-docket-with-the-bookies-14774216.html

It's funny because a Distillery player I was chatting to played down their win at the weekend as he'd heard that they'd chucked the match.

[Dodge]

FFS who dragged this down to paedophilia?!

[micls]

FFS who dragged this down to paedophilia?!

It was him not me :D

Sorry, but I couldn't not respond to that claim!

[Dodge]

Oh and BTW where did this idea come
from that it was only first divison games. He's admitted to betting on more than one premier game too

[micls]

Oh and BTW where did this idea come
from that it was only first divison games. He's admitted to betting on more than one premier game too

Just based it on a post above.....should have known better than to trust foot.ier's !

[A N Mouse]

It was him not me :D

Sorry, but I couldn't not respond to that claim!

I apologise for using the analogy I did, but you seem to have grasped the wrong nettle by the horns by bringing up pedophilia. And it was you who brought it, a bit of a stretch to get there from what I wrote -ok not that big but still a stretch.

The morality of it is beside the point, he either broke the rule or he didn't. And he seems to have admitted to having broken it on more than, Dempsey's, one occasion.

What really annoys me about all this is that himself, and a few others - many of them playing in the first division this season - should, probably, be grateful they're allowed to play this year. I know I'm grateful to still have a team to watch.

He should take his feckin oil and draw a line under last season.

IMO any appeal should be overturned and see the punishment increased.