Match Fixing Thread - 18.05.22 10 Arrested in LOI Match Fixing Probe

[DannyInvincible]

PFAI response. http://pfai.ie/news/pfa-ireland-statement-re-athlone-town-investigation

Well known TV pundits were engaged to back the players' case. Bit bizarre. And the use of a low conviction rate as if it were indicative of innocence and the general bombast towards the end is quite entertaining.

Any idea who the pundits were? A "leading" coach was also engaged to offer his verdict on the supposed evidence and allegations, say the PFAI. At least we've greater knowledge as to the qualifications of the so-called experts engaged by the players though. Have the FAI been as transparent in revealing the respective qualifications of their panel of so-called experts? We know a sports consultant from Austria was introduced (seemingly because the PFAI put that info in the public domain), but what about the other three? Who were they?

This all sounds pretty shabby:


"Instead, the FAI arbitrarily convened a three man panel to study the footage in conjunction with evidence of irregular betting patterns. No rule exists for such a panel but it was nonetheless asked to determine if these players performed in an adequate or illogical manner. Of these three, only two reached an opinion that they had while a third, though expressing reservations, said he felt there was not enough evidence. At the hearing, one of these experts did not appear and his opinion was withdrawn while another, who had expressed reservations, changed his view. A further expert was introduced, a sports consultant from Austria, who had never seen a League of Ireland match before and he refused to say whether he felt the actions of the player in question was deliberate or not."

[DannyInvincible]

That's exactly what I think they're saying: that if the FAI was really serious about this there would be lifetime bans.

Are life-time bans for being found guilty of match-fixing common? Are there (m)any precedents in other jurisdictions to use as a benchmark or indicator as to what might generally be deemed appropriate? Personally, I'd say a 12-month ban from the game - which is also one's livelihood - is pretty serious.

Just looking at this page on Wikipedia for some possible further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match-fixing_in_English_football

The examples in the article are from English football, but it seems life-time bans may have been more likely in the old days. There are cases mentioned from 1915 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915_British_football_betting_scandal) and 1964 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_British_betting_scandal) where multiple players were banned from football for life.

More recently, however, it seems punishment for the same offence hasn't been as stringent. There was the following case in 2008, for example:


"Unusual betting patterns were reported for a match between Accrington Stanley and Bury on the final day of the 2007–08 season. A Football Association investigation resulted in five players, four of whom played for Accrington Stanley and the other for Bury, being charged with betting on a Bury win. Jay Harris was banned from playing for a year, David Mannix for ten months, Robert Williams and Peter Cavanagh for eight months, and Andrew Mangan for five months. Each player was also fined between £2,000–5,000."

All players who were found guilty there, bar one, received bans of less than 12 months from the FA.

Edit: On the other hand, I'm just seeing a case here from 2014, where FIFA punished two English players found guilty of match-fixing in Australia with life-time bans: http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/26617976

[mcgonigle]

On a separate note is it just me or has Roddy been very quiet since rejoining Athlone? I understand him not commenting on the investigation (well somewhat) but usually he has something to say about everything.

[Charlie Darwin]

On a separate note is it just me or has Roddy been very quiet since rejoining Athlone? I understand him not commenting on the investigation (well somewhat) but usually he has something to say about everything.
His commentary is confined to his Star column now. Roddy only comments when there's financial gain in it for him. He had a few things to say about the investigation after he took over, typical stuff like if any of his players did that he'd do far worse than the FAI ever would but they're all good lads, etc.

[ToberonaTornado]

Account of actions in the case and opinion by Richie Sadlier.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/richie-sadlier-athlone-town-bans-set-a-dangerous-precedent-1.3214520?mode=amp

[Ezeikial]

Account of actions in the case and opinion by Richie Sadlier.

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/richie-sadlier-athlone-town-bans-set-a-dangerous-precedent-1.3214520?mode=amp

Cant access it - what does he say?

[nigel-harps1954]

Cant access it - what does he say?


Here's the article for anyone who cannot see it. I think it's an excellent read from Sadlier and he raises a lot of very valid questions.



I once missed an open goal in a Championship game.

The ball bounced at my feet with nobody in front of me and embarrassingly I sliced it wide. I did it on international duty too, while playing for the Republic of Ireland (https://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?tag_location=Ireland&article=true) under-19’s against Denmark (https://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?tag_location=Denmark&article=true) at Dalymount Park (https://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?tag_location=Park&article=true). On neither occasion was I accused of trying to deliberately manipulate the result for financial gain. I guess I was lucky there was no suspicious betting patterns associated with either game.

Dragos Sfrijan and Igors Labuts were not so fortunate. They have both been banned by the FAI for one year from all football-related activity for offences relating to match-fixing.



I was involved in the hearing of their case earlier this week, which I’ll return to in a moment, but first, consider what evidence you’d assume was uncovered. Given the severity of the charges against them, what burden of proof would you apply to the prosecution?

You’d imagine incriminating phone or bank records would be required. Maybe suspicious gambling records or proven links to gambling syndicates would do the job. A paper trail would be ideal, obviously, but even strong circumstantial evidence might do.

Either way, you’d expect the case to involve evidence of some kind, particularly given the seriousness of the offence. Not in Ireland, it seems. Under the FAI’s watchful eye, if there are betting irregularities associated with a game, just making a mistake on the pitch is proof of a player’s involvement.



To explain the background, this case was triggered by a report the FAI received in May from the Uefa Betting Fraud Detection System (BFDS). The report highlighted irregular betting patterns associated with Athlone Town’s defeat to Longford Town (https://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?tag_location=Longford%20Town&article=true) on April 29th.The investigation that followed led to charges being brought against Sfrijan and Labuts, due to mistakes they each made in the build-up to two of Longford’s goals. This was based solely on the opinions of three men the FAI had asked to review the footage. (https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/richie-sadlier-getting-down-and-dirty-to-stop-a-player-leaving-1.3191057)

To go back a little further, in late 2015 the FAI sold the international online viewing rights of the League of Ireland to a company called TrackChamp. The deal was structured in such a way, that to view the live footage, subscribers needed to have an active gambling account. Betting was no longer peripheral to the viewing experience, it was a requirement of entry. There were questions raised at the time about the wisdom of such a deal but the FAI said it was confident it was for the good of the game.

Guilty verdictI was asked by the PFAI for my take on the footage of the two goals. I was originally hesitant, not wanting to compromise my ability to comment publicly on the case. I also warned Stephen McGuinness, PFAI general secretary, he shouldn’t presume my opinions would match his. Obviously I was aware of the wider context, but I approached it in the way I would any other game.

As I expected, both players were guilty of poor defensive play. So too were several of their team-mates. I outlined this in my report, wondering why no other players were similarly cited.

I concluded that I did not see anything in the footage I believed to be evidence of match-fixing. It was in keeping with the standard of play you’d expect from a team bottom of the First Division. In fact, it wasn’t far off what can be regularly seen in the division above.

A guilty verdict was returned on Thursday. In addition to what the committee considered to be “deliberately inadequate” performances by the players, their financial arrangements were described as “insufficient and unconvincing”.

I think the point is the players earn so little from playing football it aroused further suspicion. I found this puzzling, given that any contract agreements between clubs and players must be signed off by the FAI’s integrity officer, Fran Gavin (https://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?tag_person=Fran%20Gavin&article=true), before they’re officially accepted by the FAI. If the terms were acceptable when they first joined the club, why is the FAI citing them now as grounds for concern?


The PFAI say they will take their case to CAS if necessary and they might have to. First, though, they must go before an appeals panel put together by the FAI. They’ve already faced a three-man disciplinary committee, selected by the FAI.

The case for the prosecution originally hinged on the testimony of a three-man panel of experts who viewed the match footage, all of whom were also selected by the FAI. The FAI, remember, are the ones taking the case against both players. The independence offered by CAS may offer some hope.

Serious issuesSome serious issues arise as a result of this case.

Firstly, given the seriousness of the offences for which the FAI have found the players guilty, would it not be more appropriate to give lengthier bans? It’s not the greatest deterrent to would-be match-fixers to stay away from the league. If the League of Ireland wasn’t on the map for crooked footballers prior to this case, it certainly is now.

Secondly, if this verdict is upheld and the precedent is established here, every footballer in the league should worry. The burden of proof is outlined as “comfortable satisfaction” in cases of match manipulation. So even when there is no evidence at all to link the two, the FAI will be comfortably satisfied of your guilt if you play badly in a game where there’s suspicious betting patterns. Regular observers know there’s often poor play, so it will be betting patterns that determine the vulnerability of the players involved.

I don’t have the figures from before the signing of the TrackChamp deal, but the average market for First Division games is approximately €650,000 according to Uefa’s BFDS. That’s for each game. On average. In the First Division. I wonder whether the FAI believes there’s a link between the two. I suppose we could just go and ask their integrity officer.

[Philosophizer]

He certainly does. I take back what I said yesterday that it was a better outcome than I had expected. I presumed that for that FAI to reach a guilty conclusion they must have found some incriminating evidence. Apparently not! Another fine mess they've made...

[sadloserkid]

Dolan also said he was involved in the viewing of footage and saw nothing approaching conclusive. Shambles of an investigation.

[NeverFeltBetter]

If the investigation and verdict was as badly handled as the various commentators have claimed, surely CAS and whoever else will order it overturned?

[Briuk]

If the investigation and verdict was as badly handled as the various commentators have claimed, surely CAS and whoever else will order it overturned?

The problem here is that the betting market showed clearly that the game was fixed. Odds were ridiculous.

[pineapple stu]

The game may have been rigged, but it doesn't follow that the two guys banned are the ones who rigged it

[DannyInvincible]

The problem here is that the betting market showed clearly that the game was fixed. Odds were ridiculous.

That is a problem alright, but to deprive two workers of their livelihoods for a year, effectively on the basis of mere suspicion rather than any solid evidence of personal wrongdoing, is very serious. If CAS were to uphold the FAI's stance (and it's hard to see how they would), I could see the players going beyond that stage of appeal and taking their cases to an actual court of law.

[gufcfan]

It's absolute nonsense to say that this serves as a deterrent. There's no proof they did anything and even if they did, the people that profited from it most were out the gap at the final whistle.

[osarusan]

Does anybody know if there is some common, UEFA-approved burden of proof in cases such as these? Or even a common approach to dealing with these cases? It is hard to imagine that the FAI process is something that UEFA would be happy with, but maybe I am wrong.

[DannyInvincible]

Are Athlone going to be deducted points as a punishment or will only the two players be punished? Is there a procedure for punishing the club as well? Is it even appropriate that an entire club be punished when one or two of its players may have conspired with an external party or parties to manipulate the club's results?

What would have happened, for example, if the match against Longford had been fixed as a draw or even won by a specific number of goals due to the concession of a certain number of goals having been manipulated? Would Athlone be permitted to hold on to any point(s) gained despite two of their players having been found guilty of fixing the match concerned? Surely not.

Obviously, Athlone lost the game against Longford in question 3-1, but, as it stands, the goal that Athlone scored in that game still counts towards their goal difference in the league table, so they did take something from the game that could potentially impact where they (and, by extension, other clubs) finish in the table. And if Longford's three points from that game have been won as a result of the match being fixed, surely that brings the integrity of the entire result into question. Ideally, wouldn't it be expunged from the record and replayed? However, it could then of course be argued that you're punishing Longford too despite them having done nothing wrong. It's a really messy situation.

[DannyInvincible]

Does anybody know if there is some common, UEFA-approved burden of proof in cases such as these? Or even a common approach to dealing with these cases? It is hard to imagine that the FAI process is something that UEFA would be happy with, but maybe I am wrong.

Just looking into this now.

Article 12 of the 2017 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/UEFACompDisCases/02/48/23/06/2482306_DOWNLOAD.pdf#page=14) covers potential match-fixing:


Article 12: Integrity of matches and competitions and match-fixing

1. All persons bound by UEFA’s rules and regulations must refrain from any behaviour that damages or could damage the integrity of matches and competitions and must cooperate fully with UEFA at all times in its efforts to combat such behaviour.

2. The integrity of matches and competitions is violated, for example, by anyone:


a. who acts in a manner that is likely to exert an unlawful or undue influence on the course and/or result of a match or competition with a view to gaining an advantage for himself or a third party

b. who participates directly or indirectly in betting or similar activities relating to competition matches or who has a direct or indirect financial interest in such activities;

c. who uses or provides others with information which is not publicly available, which is obtained through his position in football, and damages or could damage the integrity of a match or competition;

d. who does not immediately and voluntarily inform UEFA if approached in connection with activities aimed at influencing in an unlawful or undue manner the course and/or result of a match or competition;

e. who does not immediately and voluntarily report to UEFA any behaviour he is aware of that may fall within the scope of this article.

3 If filed after the relevant competition stage has finished, complaints regarding match-fixing can have no impact on the sporting result of the competition or match in question and, therefore, the match cannot be replayed, unless the competent disciplinary body decides otherwise.

The standard of proof required to prove an allegation of match-fixing appears to be outlined in article 24 (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/uefaorg/UEFACompDisCases/02/48/23/06/2482306_DOWNLOAD.pdf#page=20):


Article 24: Evaluation of evidence and standard of proof

1. The competent disciplinary body has absolute discretion regarding the evaluation of evidence.

2. The standard of proof to be applied in UEFA disciplinary proceedings is the comfortable satisfaction of the competent disciplinary body.

It seems then that the FAI are fully entitled to use whatever means they wish to judge the evidence and that the standard of "comfortable satisfaction" is actually a UEFA-approved test or threshold. I know Richie Sadlier and others have been critical of such a seemingly soft standard (indeed, I would be myself), but, in light of what is outlined in the regulations above, the FAI appear to have pursued this case by the book and I'd probably amend the thoughts I expressed above in relation to how CAS might deal with any appeal pursued by the players concerned as a result. If the FAI are found by CAS to have adhered to the regulations of the governing confederation in their investigation and punishment of the players found guilty, I suspect CAS would uphold the association's verdict.

The players may still wish to take the case to a court of law if they have no luck with CAS, however; I could be wrong, but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be entitled to bring a civil case for deprivation of livelihood (or something along those lines) if they really thought it was worth their while. The FAI and UEFA are still subject to the law of the land, after all.

The famous Bosman ruling, for example, which arose after Jean-Marc Bosman sued RFC Liège, the Belgian football association and UEFA for restraint of trade, came as a result of the European Court of Justice ruling in the player's favour in 1995. CAS was established in 1984, yet it wasn't they who dealt with the Bosman case.

[DannyInvincible]

A 2009 CAS case - FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v. UEFA (CAS 2009/A/1920) - involving a Macedonian club, Pobeda, who participated in Champions League qualifying against Armenian club FC Pyunik in 2004 discussed here is also relevant as it appears to confirm that direct evidence, such as bank transaction records, would not be required to establish that match-fixing had occurred: https://books.google.ie/books?id=vBOUBDuEtj8C&lpg=PA165&ots=7prnB6nb0Y&dq=match%20fixing%20rules%20uefa%20proving&pg=PA164#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://i66.tinypic.com/2vanuwg.png

UEFA originally sanctioned the club, it's president and the club's captain for match-fixing after investigating the fixture in question. All three sanctioned parties then appealed against UEFA to CAS. Witness statements had been provided as evidence in that case, however, which isn't the case in the Athlone case, to the best of my knowledge. A life-ban from footballing activities was deemed by CAS to amount to an appropriate punishment for Pobeda's president, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, along with an eight-year ban from European competition for the club. However, witness statements were not deemed to amount to sufficient or "comfortably satisfying" evidence in order to establish the guilt of Nikolce Zdraveski, the club's captain.

Seeing as there weren't even any witness statements submitted as evidence against Athlone's Igors Labuts and Dragoș Sfrijan, perhaps an appeal by them would have a chance of success, after all, at least on the basis of this precedent.

[DannyInvincible]

I've also come across some other articles relating to how CAS has dealt with appeals relating to match-fixing in the past. This is one from Asser International discusses a number of cases in terms of the standard of proof and the admissibility/evaluation of evidence: http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/the-cas-jurisprudence-on-match-fixing-in-football-what-can-we-learn-from-the-turkish-cases-part-2-the-procedural-aspects-by-thalia-diathesopoulou


...

The CAS Code does not define the applicable standard of proof in CAS proceedings. As a result, sports-governing bodies may explicitly specify a pre-determined standard of proof in their regulations. Indeed, in the Bin Hammam, Köllerer and Adamu cases, the CAS recognized the autonomy of a sports federation in determining the applicable standard of proof by acknowledging that ‘in the absence of any overarching regulation, each association can decide for itself which standard of proof to apply’. Specifically, in the context of UEFA match-fixing proceedings, UEFA has embedded the standard of ‘comfortable satisfaction’ as the applicable standard of proof in Articles 2.05 of the UEFA Champions League (UCL) Regulations and 2.08 of the UEFA Europa League (UEL) Regulations. However, even in cases where the standard of proof is enshrined in the applicable regulations, the CAS is not impeded to deviate from this standard. In any case, it is interesting to analyse the reasoning of the panels in coming to the conclusion that the comfortable satisfaction standard or another standard of proof is applicable.

The first time the CAS was called to adjudicate on the standard of proof to be used in match-fixing disputes was in the Pobeda case. Since then, in a number of awards, including the most recent example of the Turkish cases, the CAS has attempted to establish certain general principles on the standard of proof to be applied in match-fixing cases. However, this has not been done in an entirely consistent way.

...

With regard to the evidentiary measures in match-fixing proceedings, it is well-established jurisprudence that sports federations and arbitral tribunals enjoy considerable discretion and are not necessarily barred from taking into account evidence, which may not be admissible in civil or criminal state courts.

...

Here is a piece by Emilio García (a doctor in law and head of disciplinary and integrity at UEFA), which discusses match-fixing generally before going into greater detail on the case of Klubi Sportiv Skënderbeu v. UEFA (CAS 2016/A/4650) and the standard of proof required: http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/uefa-s-betting-fraud-detection-system-how-does-the-cas-regard-this-monitoring-tool-by-emilio-garcia


The Panel went on to say that ‘[i]n order to come to the conclusion that a match is fixed […] the analytical information needs to be supported by other, different and external elements pointing in the same direction’. With this in mind, the Panel noted that ‘the final conclusions drawn are not only based on analytical data and the absence of any “normal” explanation, but indeed take into account several external factors corroborating the theory that the abnormal betting behaviour was likely to be explained by match-fixing: suspicious actions of players that took place on the field of play, suspicions raised by an opponent after the match, the emergence of a betting pattern in respect of the Club whereby it would concede late goals when the tie was no longer competitive and the fact that the Hong Kong Jockey Club, a prominent Asian bookmaker, removed the Club from live markets before the end of a game’.

The Panel also attributed considerable weight to the betting patterns surrounding the four European matches under examination: ‘The Panel particularly considers the emergence of a betting pattern […] to be convincing evidence that the Club is at least indirectly involved in match-fixing activities. This betting pattern consists of the fact that it was observed in four different matches of the Club in either the UEFA Champions League or the UEFA Europa League in the first half of the 2015/2016 sporting season, that the actual bookmakers’ odds started to divert considerably from the calculated odds at the end of the match when the tie was no longer competitive (i.e. when it was clear that the Club would lose the tie on the basis of the aggregate score or that it would win the tie).

All in all, the Panel concluded that the ‘analytical information derived from the BFDS is valuable evidence that, particularly if corroborated by further evidence, can be used in order to conclude that a club was directly or indirectly involved in match-fixing‘.

Another piece (free registration is needed to view) that "builds on Mr Garcia’s piece [above] by exploring the impact of the [CAS] Decision [in respect of Skënderbeu]" and asks "specifically whether or not betting alerts alone can meet the standard of proof required to persuade a disciplinary panel that a party has breached integrity rules (in this case UEFA's rules prohibiting match-fixing)": https://www.lawinsport.com/articles/item/can-suspicious-betting-alerts-prove-match-fixing-the-case-of-ks-skenderbeu-v-uefa

The impression I get from reading all of the above is that direct or documentary evidence of match-fixing isn't required by CAS in order to satisfy the burden of proof threshold, whilst the CAS panel's interpretation of the notion of "comfortable satisfaction" could potentially differ from that of the respondent or disciplinary body in question. From my reading of it, this may well leave some room for a successful appeal to CAS by the two Athlone players.

[Martinho II]

the thing I dont get is that athlone players gave their mobile phones records and bank a/c details to the investigation and it was found clean but how come these two players were charged? <MOD SNIP- please thing before posting allegations you cannot prove>

[total hoofball]

If you're fixing a LOI match you certainly wouldn't be arranging it over texts or whatsapp and would want to accept proceeds in either cash or a foreign bank account well away from the jurisdiction

[sidewayspasser]

If you're fixing a LOI match you certainly wouldn't be arranging it over texts or whatsapp and would want to accept proceeds in either cash or a foreign bank account well away from the jurisdiction
Exactly. It doesn't say a lot that the phone records and bank accounts are clean. Can the FAI be sure they don't have other accounts in their home countries, and second phones with foreign SIMs? Probably not. And even if they don't have further bank accounts abroad, proceeds could be paid to an uncle/brother/cousin/friend/whoever.

[total hoofball]

Proceeds can be forwarded onto recipient months/years following the fix to avoid detection, sure you may not get your proceeds at all if you're caught out like Labuts and Sfrijan. No sign of funds in their bank accounts or family/OH/friends etc. is what you would expect in this instance. Only the Gardai can try to practically investigate if any money trail yet exists.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Regardless of how it can happen, it has to be proven as far as I'm concerned.

[DannyInvincible]

If you're fixing a LOI match you certainly wouldn't be arranging it over texts or whatsapp and would want to accept proceeds in either cash or a foreign bank account well away from the jurisdiction

Very true. García makes the following point on the nature of match-fixing, which is of course a form of corruption, meaning those engaging in it will naturally attempt to conceal and avoid potential detection of their activity as best they can on account of the very essence of what it is they're involved in:


What the CAS ruling on Skënderbeu shows is that action can be taken if you have a proper monitoring system. Again, monitoring is not the sole solution to this problem, but it represents an additional evidentiary tool and can play an important role in legal proceedings. We should remember that match-fixing is linked to corruption and that the parties involved will inevitably “seek to use evasive means to ensure that they will leave no trail of their wrongdoing” (CAS 2010/A/2172, Mr. Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA, para. 54 (http://arbitration.kiev.ua/uploads/kucher/2172.pdf#page=15)). Importantly, the legal framework governing match-fixing is clearly different for ordinary courts, where “the applicable rules in terms of procedure, proof (types of evidence and standard of proof) and substance are not the same as those that apply before UEFA and the CAS” (CAS 2011/A/2528, Olympiacos Volou FC v. UEFA, para. 136). In this context, a monitoring system can play a key legal role in safeguarding the integrity of a competition.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course. The absence of material or documentary evidence of wrongdoing doesn't necessarily prove that the two Athlone players are innocent, but (purely personally-speaking here) I still think that if you're going to indict individual players, the process should be more rigorous than the flimsy, low-proof-threshold and fundamentally speculative process undertaken by the FAI.

CAS justify the "comfortable satisfaction" test, however, seemingly on the basis that having an effective means of tackling match-fixing in order to stamp it out in the interests of football's integrity and the public's confidence in the game is deemed to constitute a greater good and that the forgoing of a requirement for a higher standard of proof is the necessary sacrifice to be made in the pursuit of achieving that greater good. CAS also cite the investigative limitations of sports governing bodies compared to national or state authorities as justification for the lower threshold. In the case of Mr. Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA (http://arbitration.kiev.ua/uploads/kucher/2172.pdf) (CAS 2010/A/2172), the CAS panel outlined the following (at paragraphs 53 and 54) in respect of the assessment of the evidence available:


53. As far as the assessment of the available evidence is concerned, the Panel endorses the position articulated in CAS 2009/A/1920 FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v/ UEFA:


"Taking into account the nature of the conduct in question and the paramount importance of fighting corruption of any kind in sport and also considering the nature and restricted powers of the investigation authorities of the governing bodies of sport as compared to national formal interrogation authorities, the Panel is of the opinion that cases of match fixing should be dealt in line with the CAS constant jurisprudence on disciplinary doping cases. Therefore, the UEFA must establish the relevant facts “to the comfortable satisfaction of the Court having in mind the seriousness of allegation which is made” (CAS 2005/A/908 nr 6.2)."

54. In the particular case, when assessing the evidence, the Panel has well in mind that corruption is, by nature, concealed as the parties involved will seek to use evasive means to ensure that they leave no trail of their wrongdoing.

[Mr A]

Everything about this is depressing. Clearly some very dodgy stuff happened in Athlone. Too many people called it out after watching them play and the betting patterns point to this being the case. But the prosecution does sound flimsy. The defence doesn't sound great either- getting 3 'TV pundits' in but only one 'top coach'? WTF?!? But some of the stuff being said about any player who makes a mistake being under suspicion is just outright disingenuous. There was a huge amount of context here, these guys have been involved in a lot of dodgy matches, and in Labuts case at least under severe suspicions before. It's a hard thing to prove but there were any number of red flags here. But it suits some to ignore a lot of that to have another cut at the FAI. Every element of this is horrible for the club and the league. And it'll drag on for some time yet.

[outspoken]

Everything about this is depressing. Clearly some very dodgy stuff happened in Athlone. Too many people called it out after watching them play and the betting patterns point to this being the case. But the prosecution does sound flimsy. The defence doesn't sound great either- getting 3 'TV pundits' in but only one 'top coach'? WTF?!? But some of the stuff being said about any player who makes a mistake being under suspicion is just outright disingenuous. There was a huge amount of context here, these guys have been involved in a lot of dodgy matches, and in Labuts case at least under severe suspicions before. It's a hard thing to prove but there were any number of red flags here. But it suits some to ignore a lot of that to have another cut at the FAI. Every element of this is horrible for the club and the league. And it'll drag on for some time yet.

Best post I've seen anywhere on this situation yet.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Everything about this is depressing. Clearly some very dodgy stuff happened in Athlone. Too many people called it out after watching them play and the betting patterns point to this being the case. But the prosecution does sound flimsy. The defence doesn't sound great either- getting 3 'TV pundits' in but only one 'top coach'? WTF?!? But some of the stuff being said about any player who makes a mistake being under suspicion is just outright disingenuous. There was a huge amount of context here, these guys have been involved in a lot of dodgy matches, and in Labuts case at least under severe suspicions before. It's a hard thing to prove but there were any number of red flags here. But it suits some to ignore a lot of that to have another cut at the FAI. Every element of this is horrible for the club and the league. And it'll drag on for some time yet.

So it is, but so be it. Call it hearsay, circumstantial or whatever else, but relying on just that is what will keep this from dragging on and on. It simply isn't good enough to look at a few miskicks,declare the two bent, and hope that the "red flags" as you say will satisfy everyone. If the Garda or Interpol or whoever need to be gotten involved, then all parties should do that.

[Mr A]

The descriptions of the prosecution (and these have all come from the defence so are not unbiased) indicate that the red flags were not brought into it much but that it focussed on just the lead up to specific goals. That might be unfair though, and I doubt the FAI can come out and correct the record even if it's wrong. The whole thing is an unholy mess. Would fully support a Garda investigation being launched. Not sure what the laws are around match fixing though.

[gufct]

The descriptions of the prosecution (and these have all come from the defence so are not unbiased) indicate that the red flags were not brought into it much but that it focussed on just the lead up to specific goals. That might be unfair though, and I doubt the FAI can come out and correct the record even if it's wrong. The whole thing is an unholy mess. Would fully support a Garda investigation being launched. Not sure what the laws are around match fixing though.
If this goes to a court of law the judge would throw it out for lack of evidence before it even came to trial. The main man @ Atfc is a barrister and will know exactly how to handle this.

[DannyInvincible]

There could be a criminal aspect to this if there is a Garda investigation into the alleged match-fixing, whilst there could also be a separate civil aspect to it if the two players fail in any appeal they make against the FAI to CAS and seek redress (along deprivation of livelihood lines) from an ordinary court of law. If the players were found guilty of criminal activity by a court of law, however, I'd imagine the chances of them obtaining a civil remedy would be virtually nil.

[DannyInvincible]

The descriptions of the prosecution (and these have all come from the defence so are not unbiased) indicate that the red flags were not brought into it much but that it focussed on just the lead up to specific goals. That might be unfair though, and I doubt the FAI can come out and correct the record even if it's wrong. The whole thing is an unholy mess. Would fully support a Garda investigation being launched. Not sure what the laws are around match fixing though.

Some info on that and past Irish cases discussed here, particularly on pages 96 and 97: https://books.google.ie/books?id=X7G8BAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA96&dq=match%20fixing%20rules%20uefa%20proving&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q&f=false

Here's a section on the applicable existing laws:

http://i63.tinypic.com/2ewh305.png

[total hoofball]

Athlone's Jason Lyons now banned for 7 matches for placing bets on fixtures he was not involved in

https://www.thesun.ie/sport/football/1561529/athlone-town-hit-by-another-betting-scandal-as-jason-lyons-is-banned-for-seven-matches/

[littlebray]

Presumably this was the €34.08 referred to by the club.

[gufct]

His total stake in his bets was €8 Half the players in the league could be suspended at this rate.

[outspoken]

It's just come out in the sun he in fact bet on 3 matches he was invovlved in. Disgracefully short ban if that's the case

[Lim till i die]

Will you get up the yard ffs.

How much money was staked and on what outcome??

No coincidence athlone and bray are at the centre of this.

Disgrace indeed....

[Longfordian]

He deserves the ban for stupidity but I agree that he wasn't trying to do anything particularly dishonest.

[Mr A]

In a number of instances, the 22 year-old, who placed what were small wagers on accumulators, bets involving multiple matches, was found to have bet on games in which he was involved, including one in which he captained the team. There was, however, no suggestion that he tried to improperly influence the outcome of the games.
Full story: https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soccer/national-league/fai-hit-athlone-town-with-disrepute-charge-over-statement-1.3229554?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Any player dumb enough to include games he is involved in in a bet deserves all he gets.

[brendy_éire]

Any player dumb enough to include games he is involved in in a bet deserves all he gets.

Idiot. Surprised he got such a short ban.

[NeverFeltBetter]

How is it only 7 games!?

[DannyInvincible]

I think it's fair to assume from Lyons' punishment that the penalty for merely betting on games (without trying to improperly manipulate results) is a lot less severe than the penalty for match-fixing.

Is it not odd though that Lyons was found guilty of just the former despite the fact he had played in three of the seven games on which he'd placed bets? Considering he wasn't found guilty of match-fixing, is it also fair to assume then that he had bet on Athlone to win those three games? All players are expected to try and win every game in which they participate anyway, so betting on your team to win obviously wouldn't alter that presumed intention or objective. Had he bet on his club to draw or lose those games though, might he now be facing a sterner penalty (because that would surely be evidence of an incentive to throw the games)? Or is it possible that he did bet on such outcomes but a panel reviewed footage and determined that there was nothing suspicious about the way he played in those games? Surely that's unlikely.

I'm assuming the amount of money involved would also influence the severity of punishment? Lyons placed small wagers on accumulators, but would he have received a longer ban had greater sums of money been involved?

[Mr A]

Taken from another thread:


https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/irish-second-tier-matches-draw-650-000-in-bets-nzkn77f8x?t=ie

A First Division match in the League of Ireland is attracting up to €650,000 in bets on global exchanges, an inquiry into alleged match-fixing has been told.
While First Division games attract average crowds of less than 500, they are attracting huge interest from overseas gamblers, mainly in Asia. Details of the vast sums being wagered on second-tier Irish football were revealed at the Football Association of Ireland’s (FAI) internal disciplinary hearing into two Athlone Town players who have been banned for 12 months for match fixing.
Games in both the Premier Division and First Division of the SSE Airtricity League are being streamed on international betting websites following a 2015 deal between the FAI and Trackchamp. The four-year contract is said to be worth €120,000 a year.
The Irish Premier Division attracts an average of €2.5m bets per match, while the average attendance was just under 1,500 per game last season. By contrast a Premier League match in England attracts an average of €203m in wagers, while a Pro14 rugby game attracts €1.2m. A GAA match would draw just €50,000 in bets globally per game because of low understanding of the rules.
Evidence about betting on Irish league games was given to the disciplinary hearing by Sportradar, a betting analytics firm which has contracts with Fifa and Uefa. Alex Inglot, its director of communications, said an average of €650,000 in wagers on a First Division Irish football game was tracked globally by Sportradar. He said Asia was typically the source of more than 70% of these bets.
“It stands to reason that if you start offering streams and coverage on a global level, where it wasn’t global before, then you will see more engagement in that sport, and that will be heavily tied to interests in betting,” said Inglot.

“If you have a stream to view a sport, you feel more engaged in it and more likely to bet.”
Uefa alerted the FAI to “overwhelming betting evidence” that an Athlone Town match with Longford Town last April “was unduly influenced with a view to gaining corrupt betting profits”.
Igors Labuts, a Latvian goalkeeper, and Dragos Sfrijan, a Romanian midfielder, both of Athlone, were found guilty of match-fixing. The Professional Footballers’ Association of Ireland (PFAI) insists the players are innocent and says it will bring the case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland, if necessary.
At the hearings, the players were asked about their earnings from Athlone, which had an average crowd of below 200 at games last year. They said they received only accommodation and food from the club. The disciplinary panel considered this as one of the three key strands of evidence on which its guilty verdict was based.
Athlone Town was notified of a new charge against it by the FAI last week over a statement criticising the verdict. The club now faces a charge of bringing the game into disrepute through its statement.
Last week a third Athlone Town player, Jason Lyons, was banned by the FAI for seven fixtures for betting on League of Ireland games, including three in which he played.
The PFAI has said the FAI should never have signed the deal with Trackchamp. While the English FA recently cut its ties with Ladbrokes, its “official bookmaker” sponsor which was paying it £4m (€4.5m) a year, the FAI signed a new deal with the bookmaker last September.
The FAI declined to comment last week.
In a written submission to the disciplinary hearing into Labuts and Sfrijan, Damien Richardson, an RTE pundit and former club manager, revealed he had been approached to advise an Asian betting syndicate when he was Cork City manager in 2006. Richardson said he took a phone call from what he was first told was an Asian radio station. The person then admitted to being from a betting syndicate and asked Richardson for his opinion on games taking place that weekend. He then offered Richardson a paid role as an adviser to the syndicate.
Richardson hung up and said he thought no more of the incident before he was asked to given an expert opinion in the Athlone case.

[Scrufil]

As an Athlone Town AFC supporter I have been bereft of football this year as a result of staying away from the ground as an act of protest against the current regime running the club. It has been so bad I have actually tuned in to watch English Football, something which I only have a very fleeting interest in. I feel my actions as an Athlone supporter for almost 40 years have been justified by revelations that players from the club have been found guilty of serious offenses within the game. A number of Athlone's followers, advertisers and spectators have been unjustly subjected to the Chairman's negative verbals, which in my opinion, have had a consistent theme of being threatening in nature if you disagree with his stance. However Mr. Hayden let the club's written statement overstep the mark and the FAI are not happy with these published words revolving around the match fixing issue. In the extreme the FAI could ban this individual and the entire Athlone board from football forever. It is the 2nd year in row for a charge of bringing the game into disrepute has been leveled at the club. Does anyone think a lifetime ban is a possibility? That would mean the agreement with the 'outside investors' would become null and void and Athlone could start afresh. It would act to show the FAI up in 'a good light.' (If that is even possible!)
One other issue, not discussed here, is the prospect of Athlone players suing the club for lack of due diligence and by it adversely affecting their playing careers because they were at the club when games were fixed.
Furthermore the club has lost access to a €200,000 grant relating to the creation of an all-weather pitch facility. Is this a final nail in their coffin?

[nigel-harps1954]

Conor Clifford the latest to feel the wrath of betting offences. 6 month ban from October 3rd to April 2nd 2018. Offences were committed in the UK and he's also been fined £600.

[Longfordian]

So a few games this year and a few next year. He’s got a bit lucky there.

[sbgawa]

Wonder do dundalk have to keep paying him ?

[Yossarian]

Wonder do dundalk have to keep paying him ?

He's out of contract at the end of the season anyway but I'd imagine there would be clauses built in to contracts for this type of eventuality. It's capped a really disappointing season for Clifford.

[jinxy lilywhite]

He's out of contract at the end of the season anyway but I'd imagine there would be clauses built in to contracts for this type of eventuality. It's capped a really disappointing season for Clifford.

Are you sure. I thought it was a 2 yr deal he signed

[oriel]

Almost sure it was one year deal for Clifford. Either way if it was a 2 year deal, (unlikely) easily cancelled now given the recent developments.

What a total waste of potential talent.