As a matter of interest here is a related Irish League story from todays paper.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14774216.html
Printable View
As a matter of interest here is a related Irish League story from todays paper.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14774216.html
I think the authorities are just underestimating how pish Glenavon have been in the latter half of the year.
Shagging your sister is still shagging your sister, just because she was of the age of consent doesn't make it any less wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Dempsey copped to one count, McGlynn to five. Extrapolating a harsher sentence is hardly illogical.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
I think most people would consider paedophilia a lot worse than 2 consenting adults having incest?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Parker
FFS who dragged this down to paedophilia?!
It was him not me :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Sorry, but I couldn't not respond to that claim!
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 !Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
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.
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?
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 thenQuote:
Originally Posted by sligoman
Nice:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Réiteoir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
Sure that just mean you have a slim chance of incest any time you pull, what with not knowing you're father an all :DQuote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
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.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
(Oh and the PFAI backed dempsey too if you wanna start an argument about them too...)
But you're right, lets move on...
I think most people would rather that this bizarre analogy hadn't been brought up at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by micls
http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...d-1534603.html
Found this while looking back over the Dempsey stuff
Interesting enough in light of the Morrow and McGlynn cases
You try explaining wrong from slightly less wrong to a bohs fan then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schumi
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 threadQuote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
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.
Rovers versus Pats. Easy. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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:Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
Ah yes, the FAI should base decisions on what Stephen Kenny thinks :confused: oh and way to go on the whole moving on thing :oQuote:
Originally Posted by 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...
So, would you still think the punishment was overly harsh were McGlynn still a Derry player?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
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?
See answer to your third question (above)Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
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 assertionQuote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
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.
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 areasQuote:
Originally Posted by passerrby
priest supporting a club other than bohs = ??
Incest, paedophilia and now animal farm..... simply bizarreQuote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs