To be fair, the way they found guilty sounds pretty flimsy.
To be fair, the way they found guilty sounds pretty flimsy.
Was just thinking that. You don't want this to be a situation where the FAI just wants any kind of Guilty verdict just so they can say they did something. Of course, a truly independent, in-depth investigation of the issue might have unearthed things the FAI didn't want unearthed.
In fairness I actually did the minutes for the three man panel meeting so I know exactly what went on:
Attendance:
Lim till I die (minute taker)
Larry (chair of fai three man panel)
Curly (panel member)
Moe (panel member)
Larry: ah Jaysus lads tis an awful situation in Athlone what are we going to do about it?
Moe: Ah shur fit up two foreign lads.
Curly: Grand job. Cake??
All: Yes
Meeting adjourned.
Athlone statement:
"Athlone Town AFC rejects findings of FAI investigation.
The Board of Management of Athlone Town AFC rejects the outrageous findings made by the FAI against two of the club's players.
While the club is extremely disappointed, it is not surprised, by the decisions.
Our position is that today's determinations fly in the face of the evidence presented before the disciplinary committee, and are perverse.
The club is left with the conclusion that the outcome was predetermined and reflects a face saving exercise for certain people within the game rather any forum where truth or justice could prevail.
The club would advise people to be slow to reach judgment about the players following such a flawed process.
The scepticism expressed by the club in the ability of the “independent” disciplinary committee to apply a legal standard of proof has unfortunately come to pass.
At this stage the club supports the player's appeal against the findings and any avenues taken by the two, who strongly deny the charges, aimed at overturning these decisions.
We also fully support the PFAI's statement in relation to the findings.
Before the process commenced the club raised its concerns about the fairness of the investigation, the manner in which the probe was conducted and in particular the so called independence of the decision makers.
In reality none of our concerns were significantly addressed, and the decisions leave us in no doubt that the entire process was utterly flawed.
While the club willingly and fully participated in the process it has been our strong belief the FAI's findings had been predetermined, and have little to do what was presented before those hearing the case.
We had hoped to get a fair hearing with determinations based on the facts.
Since the investigation began we believe there has been a blatant attempt to find parties associated with Athlone Town AFC guilty of some wrong doing before any sort of due process had commenced.
The very public manner in which this investigation has been handled has caused significant and long lasting damage to the club, its officials, players and staff.
Our complaints against the process are many and detailed.
It is our opinion that the evidence presented against the players was exceptionally flimsy, and based on opinion only.
The club takes exception to the use of the FAI's description of "clear and overwhelming" evidence of match manipulation being present in the case.
It was anything but.
In relation to Dragos Sfrijan who was found to have attempted to manipulate matches amounted to nothing more than a missed kick.
Yet he has been found him guilty of manipulating the outcome of a game despite the fact he was carrying a significant and serious injury (dislocated shoulder) at the time.
Another complaint was that no evidence of any betting profits was tendered or offered, and the amount supposedly bet on the game against Longford Town is unknown to the investigators.
Those in the media who quote six figure sums being involved either know something UEFA and FAI say is unknown to them or have been given misleading information in a further attempt to blacken the club's name.
No evidence of a conspiracy exists.
There was no evidence of profits been made by players or anybody related to the players notwithstanding the fact that complete disclosure have been made no such evidence existed.
It is extraordinary that the players were convicted on no more than opinion evidence that could never come close to standing up in a Court of law or any truly independent investigatory forum.
Indeed no real effort was made by the FAI to involve the Gardaí in a criminal investigation.
If they stand fully behind the verdicts and have confidence in them then we call for the immediate intervention of the Gardaí and or Europol and Interpol.
It also appears extraordinary to use that while the FAI say it has a zero tolerance policy to match fixing that the penalty deemed to be appropriate for match fixing and manipulating the outcome of games is one of 12 months ban.
To us it seems like saying that somebody is only a little bit pregnant.
The sanctions are nonsensical, and reinforce our position that in truth no evidence exists that the players were involved in match fixing.
We believe that this decision has now set a very dangerous precedent not only for football but for all sports.
We will issue further statements on our next step following discussions with the relevant parties."
Why have Labuts and Sfrijan got a 12 month ban for successful match-fixing while Colm James got an 18 month ban for attempted match-fixing?
Plot Twist:
Match fixing investigation fixed.
Fixing of match fixing investigation investigated.
Just looking at this bit from the Athlone statement:
"It also appears extraordinary to use [sic] that while the FAI say it has a zero tolerance policy to match fixing that the penalty deemed to be appropriate for match fixing and manipulating the outcome of games is one of 12 months ban.
To us it seems like saying that somebody is only a little bit pregnant."
What do the club mean by that in this context? Are the club suggesting that if the FAI were serious about enforcing their purported zero-tolerance policy and were truly convinced of the players' guilt then the FAI would have dished out longer bans? You couldn't really say a 12-month ban was lenient, surely.
That's all a bit dodgy to say the least. If the FAI really had wanted to investigate in depth and back their verdict with solid evidence, they would probably have needed to involve experts on organized crime. When the whole story emerged, it was said that information had also been forwarded to the Gardai, but there was no follow-up on that, at least not publicly. Why was that, did the Guards think there isn't enough of a case in there, or did the FAI say "we'd appreciate if we could deal with it on our own"?
Now they're left with a case where they singled out two scapegoats to take all the blame, while the evidence against them seems to be very questionable. If the players and the PFAI take this to court (CAS or whatever other court is applicable), the FAI will have a lot of questions to answer, I think.
That's exactly what I think they're saying: that if the FAI was really serious about this there would be lifetime bans.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
Just looking at this page on Wikipedia for some possible further info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match-...glish_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 and 1964 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgonigle
Account of actions in the case and opinion by Richie Sadlier.
https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/soc...14520?mode=amp
Cant access it - what does he say?Quote:
Originally Posted by ToberonaTornado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezeikial
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie Sadlier
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...
Dolan also said he was involved in the viewing of footage and saw nothing approaching conclusive. Shambles of an investigation.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
The game may have been rigged, but it doesn't follow that the two guys banned are the ones who rigged it
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Briuk
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.
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.
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.
Just looking into this now.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Article 12 of the 2017 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations covers potential match-fixing:
The standard of proof required to prove an allegation of match-fixing appears to be outlined in article 24:Quote:
Originally Posted by UEFA
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by UEFA
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.
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=vBO...page&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.
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/p...diathesopoulou
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/p...-emilio-garciaQuote:
Originally Posted by Oskar van Maren
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/...nderbeu-v-uefaQuote:
Originally Posted by Emilio García
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.
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>
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Regardless of how it can happen, it has to be proven as far as I'm concerned.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by total hoofball
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Emilio García
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 (CAS 2010/A/2172), the CAS panel outlined the following (at paragraphs 53 and 54) in respect of the assessment of the evidence available:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAS
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A