McGlynn & O'Neill betting bans

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dodge

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

---

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 marinobohs

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.

---

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.

(Oh and the PFAI backed dempsey too if you wanna start an argument about them too...)

But you're right, lets move on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by micls

Really?

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

---

I think most people would rather that this bizarre analogy hadn't been brought up at all.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schumi

I think most people would rather that this bizarre analogy hadn't been brought up at all.

---

You try explaining wrong from slightly less wrong to a bohs fan then.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

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 thread

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

You try explaining wrong from slightly less wrong to a bohs fan then.

---

Rovers versus Pats. Easy. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

You try explaining wrong from slightly less wrong to a bohs fan then.

---

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 Dodge

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

---

Ah yes, the FAI should base decisions on what Stephen Kenny thinks :confused: oh and way to go on the whole moving on thing :o

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Nobody from Bohs brought up this disgusting analogy so don't link us to it. Guess its just the way your mind works :rolleyes:

---

So, would you still think the punishment was overly harsh were McGlynn still a Derry player?

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

So, would you still think the punishment was overly harsh were McGlynn still a Derry player?

Yes, as I said many posts ago - equal treatment irrespective of club (do keep up)

Would any ban include non-domestic fixtures?
Doubt it. FAI ban only (they could seek to widen ban). Would require a FIFA /UEAFA ban for non domestic as far as I know

And have you learnt to count yet?
What the F***K are you talking about ??????

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.
There is no precedent that I am aware of for the number of rules Derry broke (registration, salary cap etc) not sure what point is RE LOI V IL teams.

Or is that just the way your mind works?

---

See answer to your third question (above)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

See answer to your third question (above)

---

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:

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

not sure what point is

---

Which leaves us with your assertion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Yes, as I said many posts ago - equal treatment irrespective of club (do keep up)

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passerrby

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 areas

priest supporting a club other than bohs = ??

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:

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 assertion



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.

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.

---

Incest, paedophilia and now animal farm..... simply bizarre

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinobohs

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.

---

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.