https://www.facebook.com/AthloneTown...type=3&theater
Ridiculous that we have to wait a month for the next step. This needs dealing with now
Seems the FAI don't actually have any evidence if you believe the PFAI. I'd well believe that they need to find someone to blame regardless of having sufficient proof against any individuals and it'd be interesting to see what CAS make of it if it goes there.
https://theleagueofireland.com/2017/...-athlone-town/
Embarrassing head in the sand statement of slander and prejudice from the PFAI. This is from the union that have still yet to make any statement four years on about their member Colm James' 18 month ban for attempted match fixing
If, if, all the FAI have is the betting patterns and the video footage then I can't see that standing up in the long run. Don't get me wrong it was clearly fixed but proving the involvement of specific individuals will be difficult. How do you prove that it wasn't just incompetence? The guys that fixed this game have done it before and bigger organisations than the FAI haven't proved anything.
Who are the 'members' being charged? Are they 'members' of the playing staff, 'members' of management or 'members' of the adm. of the club?
Very vague statement.
Three players, one of whom is amateur, and one other person charged according to Dan McDonnell.
wonder that other person is he a certain ex mgr/caretaker mgr of theirs that had to leave ireland suddenly for personal reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
A petition has been set up. Every signature helps
https://www.change.org/p/football-as...share_petition
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the PFAI are throwing out red herrings claiming that the FAI’s evidence won’t stand up in court. This isn’t going to court: Athlone and its players are in a private members' association (for want of a better phrase) with FAI and UEFA rule books that they agreed to be bound by. Those rule books have a lower threshold of evidence than criminal proceedings incourt. If the FAI applies the rules systematically with due process for those concerned the only appeal against an adverse finding is the first step on the road to CAS, not the courts.
This amateur player involved is then a local? As I understood all the foreigners were paid to play in the club.
Yeah certainly looks like the amateur player involved has to be Irish. Indo article below from May quotes seven professional players on the squad are from outside Ireland, exactly seven non-Irish have played for them this season (Grigorovs, Hernandez, Invernizzi, Labuts, Rodrigues, Sfrijan, Viegas)Quote:
Originally Posted by Briuk
http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-35694328.html
I think the club should be charged as then there only has to be evidence of strange betting patterns and unusual results on the field to support the unusual betting patterns.
You'd have to have good compelling evidence to prove an individual player was at fault.
Athlone were performing better when they were trying to lose games, I see even Shelbourne are ahead of them now.
They were quoting one of the FAI's selected "experts". The "expert" was quoted as saying that "there is not enough conclusive evidence to prove in a court of law that players conspired to affect the outcome of the game and therefore breach Rule 105". Granted, the PFAI did state the following:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
"For such charges to be levelled, the evidence against [the players concerned] should be overwhelming."
That appears to be a normative expression of PFAI preference for a particular judicial procedure or evidentiary threshold - the PFAI being an external and independent representative organisation attempting to exert moral pressure upon the FAI, of course - rather than a descriptive clarification as to what would be legally correct or in strict accordance with the specific rules of UEFA and/or the FAI that apply in cases of suspected match-fixing.
Just quoting the most startling bit of the PFAI statement:
"The sole basis for the charges are that there were suspicious betting patterns and a panel of three experts were of the opinion that some of players actions were suspicious. No other “evidence” whatsoever has been proffered. Indeed one of three experts states “there is not enough conclusive evidence to prove in a court of law that players conspired to affect the outcome of the game and therefore breach Rule 105”.
The allegations that have been made against these players are of the most serious nature. There is nothing more damaging to a players integrity. For such charges to be levelled, the evidence against them should be overwhelming. Unless there is further evidence which the FAI is with-holding, basing charges of this nature on these two players on the subjective opinion of two out of three people, watching TV footage and hand picked by the prosecutor, the FAI, is astonishing."
Whether it complies with the FAI's own rules or not, it does nevertheless seem rather astonishing (from a purely ethical sense) that:
i) the FAI - under the watchful eye of UEFA and in whose interest it now is, as investigator and prosecutor, to resolve the matter satisfactorily by finding whatever evidence of wrongdoing they can, charging suspected parties and punishing them if found guilty - selected an apparently non-independent and non-transparent panel of three so-called "experts" who, already loaded with the heavy and prejudicial knowledge that suspicious activity had occurred, were tasked with cherry-picking from video footage instances of play that they, in their wholly subjective opinions, perceived to constitute "evidence" of wrongdoing.
ii) the shared view of a mere two (and not even a unanimous three) of these "experts" that charges would be justified against certain players is being treated now by the FAI as tantamount to incriminating "evidence".
That the subjective judgments of two of the panel members would be deemed sufficient enough "evidence" to charge players of wrongdoing in the complete absence of any other incriminating information or material does seem extraordinary and unconscionable. Who were these supposed "experts" and what is the exact nature of their "expertise"? What qualifications enabled them to make reliable and conclusive determinations of this nature, if it is even possible to make a reliable and conclusive determination in a case like this at all?
Audio of Tony O'Donoghue interviewing PFAI solicitor Stuart Gilhooly about the match-fixing allegations surrounding Athlone players: https://www.facebook.com/SoccRepubli...6275680478178/
DI, ethics and morality have nothing to do with this from a legal standpoint. They're red herrings. That the process is transparent and applies rules fairly is important. (How confident am I that that will happen? We'll see....) The PFAI are clearly engaging in agenda-setting and denigrating the process as their first line of defence: the FAI experts are not impartial, not even expert, and not even convinced by the evidence as this carefully-selected fragment of communication from them suggests - so our members cannot get a fair hearing in a court of law (where, of course, this case wouldn't be heard anyway) and have to take their chances in the FAI kangaroo court, with the only appeal to the UEFA drumhead court martial.
Neither you nor I (and probably nobody else on this site) know who the experts are. Maybe they're JD's drinking buddies, or maybe they're barristers. Or the ghost of Paul the Octopus. Or investigators or actuaries who work with bookies on matters such as this. Or retired coppers. Or bent coppers (apparently in plentiful supply at the moment!) As for deciding to bring charges, there needs only be a belief that there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full hearing, at which those accused have the right to hire legal representation to mount a full and robust defence. The experts themselves do not and cannot attribute guilt. And maybe that presumption of innocence is why none of the accused have been publicly named in any official documentation.
Encasing expert in quotation marks denigrates both their status and the status of the process - which, I suspect, quite pleases the PFAI, who are doing what any organisation would to protect members' interests, even if it means playing the man not the ball - but seems a little OTT given that we know absolutely nothing of them.
On soccer republic Gilhooley said that they were prepared to fight it all the way to CAS, which is a court within the confines of sport, and if necessary the legal courts. If these players are denied a livelihood because of a decision based on insufficient evidence then they probably have every right to sue the FAI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
I don't know how you can prove match fixing conclusively. That's why some players carry a dodgy reputation around with them but are still allowed to play. In Athlone.
Allegedly.
Yeah, it's so difficult to make it stick, very difficult for the authorities. They'd need to be very silly to have any payments received recorded anywhere they handed over bank statements for.
All well and good, but CAS is an arbitration court for settling disputes, not a criminal court governed by national legislation and a constitution that guarantees rights. AFAIK, sporting disputes tend to go this route before national courts will hear them, unless there has been a clear, prejudicial breach of process. If there is insufficient evidence the players should be exonerated. Nobody could disagree with that. But even circumstancial evidence can be damning if there is enough of it. And the point I've been trying to make is that the FAI/CAS route has a lower threshold of evidence than criminal law (beyond reasonable doubt) - something like 'the preponderance of evidence' which simply means that in all probability the evidence is true. I rather think it would suit the PFAI to have criminal trials as we have a lousy record of prosecuting corruption here and acquittals are more likely, whereas the sports court route is far more risky for those charged.Quote:
Originally Posted by derm
And neither do any of us here, I'll wager (if that's not an unfortunate turn of phrase!) But that's why there are organisations like Federbet who use actuarial analysis of betting patterns - http://federbet.com/match-fixing/ . They seem fairly clued-in for boffins - http://federbet.com/about-us/ - you'd hope that the FAI would have their number on file somewhere! (I know, hope and FAI in the same sentence...)Quote:
Originally Posted by derm
I'd be genuinely interested if somebody could give a bit of background on it. I'd agree with Mr A that it's unlikely the players had accounts helpfully named Swag deposit A/C and Bribes current A/C in the local AIB!
I was more or less agreeing with all of that. When I discussed the ethical side of things, I was simply giving my own personal view, just as the PFAI were giving theirs when they said the evidence "should be overwhelming", but neither my ethical opinion nor the PFAI's will make any difference to the FAI's rule-book, unless the exertion of public moral pressure upon the FAI by the PFAI somehow convinces the FAI to amend their procedures and standards, which I don't think is very likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
Heh, maybe I'm hesitant to simply take authority at its word, or maybe it's just the fact it's the FAI that makes me sceptical. :)Quote:
Encasing expert in quotation marks denigrates both their status and the status of the process - which, I suspect, quite pleases the PFAI, who are doing what any organisation would to protect members' interests, even if it means playing the man not the ball - but seems a little OTT given that we know absolutely nothing of them.
The fact we know absolutely nothing of the panel (bar their description as "experts") is the very reason I've encased the term in quotation marks. If the process was more transparent and we were actually aware of the nature of the panel members' expertise or their qualifications to make judgments on cases of suspected match-fixing, I'd be much more inclined to put trust in the process, their purported probity and their purported prudence.
I don't dispute any of that. I was just saying that the PFAI has promised to fight this all the way. The league's reputation is set for another battering no matter which way this goes :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eminence Grise
You non-conformist rebel, you! Agree on the FAI, though!Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
Ugh. It's going to be ugly alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by derm
Match fixing? it's not that difficult to prove a case against clubs as Uefa have proved it a number of times and it has stood up to the CAS test.
It's a simple formula, very strange betting patterns + very strange outcomes in games = match fixing = sanctions against clubs.
What's more difficult to prove without compelling evidence or/and utter stupidity, is a case against individuals
I suspect the FAI are making a bit of show here as if they are doing something, but don't want to hurt the club into extinction.
Just Ban them from European Competitions for 3 years, that'll teach them
From what im told, the local player charged is obviously not involved with the guys who came in from Europe. He was found to have been betting on Irish games through the investigation. Not sure if he was betting on Athlone games but when details were given to the FAI they obviously seen Paddy Power or whatever and checked his betting accounts.
If that's true, how long is the ban for sheer stupidity?:rolleyes:
I believe he was betting on games from the Premier Division.Quote:
Originally Posted by ATFC-1887
Athlone Town make statement and have a right rant at whole process and FAI
The Board of Management of Athlone Town AFC would like to express its disappointment and anger over the manner in which the club has been treated since allegations concerning match fixing first emerged.
Indeed the claims are on such a scale that they have brought an unprecedented and highly negative level of international and national media attention to the club.
The club, which denies any wrongdoing, has at all times indicated its willingness to cooperate fully with the process initiated by UEFA and investigated by the FAI.
The club has done so honestly, and in an open and transparent fashion.
As part of the investigatory process the club has adhered to confidentiality agreements which each and every member of the club was obliged to commit to under the threat of charge for non-cooperation.
However in the club’s opinion the process has descended into a witch hunt rather than a probe to establish the truth.
The club firmly believes that the investigation/disciplinary process is deeply flawed.
In our opinion the investigators have acted with perceived bias, and have ignored basic human rights, civil liberties, and natural justice to which each and every person is entitled.
The club has repeatedly stated its firm view that the investigation should have been a matter for An Garda Síochána or another police authority.
This is because we believe the FAI lacks the investigative abilities or resources to enable it to find evidence (if any existed), to support the most serious of allegations being made against the club.
Match manipulation/matches being unduly influenced.
The club has grave concerns about the FAI’s decision to charge two players under Rule 99, namely bringing the game into disrepute, Rule 105 manipulating match results, and Rule 106 betting/gambling.
The club welcomes recent statements on the matter from the PFAI and shares the PFAI’s reservations about the basis on which these charges have been brought.
It also amazes us that the process is deemed to be independent when the Football Association of Ireland are the investigative authority, the prosecutor, and the tribunal determining the issues.
The fact of the investigator appointing ‘independent experts’ to substantiate the claims made in the UEFA Report, indicates that no substantive evidence of any description exists and the full cooperation provided by the club and its members has yielded it no evidence upon which the charges are based.
The club also has strong concerns about the evidence tendered by three experts cited by the FAI in its decision to charge the players.
Looking at the reports tendered the three experts themselves disagree and in particular one stating;
“There is not enough conclusive evidence to prove in a Court of law that players conspired to affect the outcome of the game and therefore breach the Rules”.
We also do not accept that their evidence can be considered as being independent.
The club does not wish to impugn the reputation or integrity of any individual but we believe that the members of the panel of experts appointed by the FAI, are too close to the entity conducting the investigation.
We can confirm that strong lobbing took place by officials of the FAI to the executive of the club requesting that we consider the appointment of one of the three experts to the vacant managerial position on two occasions.
The club did speak to the individual concerned but did not offer him the post.
Statement continued.
Accordingly, we believe that in the interests of natural justice, fairness and transparency that the individual concerned should have excused himself from involvement in the process.
The perception of bias alone clouds any opinion which he has tendered in respect of the issues under scrutiny.
Coupling of unrelated charges to UEFA betting fraud detection system report (1st May, 2017).
The investigation was initiated on the basis of an unauthored report from UEFA indicating as follows;
“There is clear and overwhelming betting evidence that the course or result of this match (Longford Town FC v. Athlone Town AFC 29th April 2017) was unduly influenced with a view to gaining corrupt betting profits.
The betting evidence ultimately indicates that bettors had prior knowledge of Athlone Town AFC suffering a minimum 2 goal defeat, in a match which contained at least 2 first half goals, and at least 4 goals in total”, in effect allegations of match fixing and attempts to manipulate the outcome of that particular game.
It was always been the club’s understanding the investigation concerned alleged match fixing and attempts to manipulate the outcome of certain first team games.
The club was therefore highly surprised and upset to discover that two other members have been charged with matters totally unconnected to claims that large sums of money had been wagered on international betting markets, the providence of such information being unknown.
The two individuals are being subjected to charges alleging they placing several bets on teams competing in League of Ireland competitions amounting to a total amount of approximately €34.06.
None of those bets were placed on the outcome of the Longford Town game which has been the subject of so much speculation.
We have grave concerns about how charges independent of match fixing allegations have been coupled with, and announced in the same press release as, the decision to charge players in connection with match fixing claims.
We are of the opinion that not even our harshest critics would accept that several bets with Irish bookies totalling about €34.06 have anything to do with an alleged mysterious Chinese football agent attempting to manipulate games in several different jurisdictions to make a six figure killing on the Asian markets.
(It should be noted that to date no evidence has been presented to substantiate the match fixing claims or found the evidence upon which the charges have been based.)
The club has conducted its own independent investigations and same has revealed that no red flags were put up by Irish bookmakers in relation to the outcome of the game at the centre of the investigation or any other of our games. So why throw these charges in as part of the match fixing charges?
In light of what seems to be a free exchange of information between the FAI and bookmakers, we can only speculate that the FAI is engaged in a thorough investigation of all individuals at all of the leagues clubs.
This we assume is being done to prevent the practice of players, coaches and officials betting on games involving their own club and indeed all clubs associated with the league competitions.
Our concerns about getting a fair hearing will heightened in the extreme if it is a case that the exchange between the Irish bookmakers and the investigator has been carried out in relation to Athlone Town AFC members only.
If it was only applied in respect of our club then we fear that a trawl has been undertaken to ensure the process produces a scapegoat.
Such a step we believe will wrongly destroy the reputations of people who are in no way linked to the match fixing allegations.
It should further be noted that the integrity workshop which was delivered on the 29th March, 2017 clearly indicates that there is a duty on the Football Association of Ireland to investigate all aspects of the games under dispute.
However there does not appear to be any evidence presented to support the charges which indicates that the investigators interviewed all the participants in the Longford game including match officials, club officials and all parties associated with that game.
Media coverage and public pronouncements.
Media coverage of the affair has also lead the club to believe it has not been subjected to an investigation where either it or any individual associated with Athlone Town AFC have been assumed innocent until proven otherwise.
The club feels that everyone at Athlone AFC has collectively been found guilty in the minds of the public of match fixing and it was only a matter of formality before investigators published what they believed to be strong evidence displaying wrongdoing.
The fact Athlone Town AFC itself has been exonerated, has had no charges levied against it and will not face any sanctions such as a points deduction following the investigation, may have been missed by the media.
Such a clarification was totally ignored by the FAI in its press release last weekend.
Indeed we have asked the FAI to confirm that the investigation part of the process is at an end.
However this is something which they have yet to do.
This is particularly disappointing as it adds to the deep reputational damage the club continues to suffer as a result of the allegations.
Already the club has lost a major sponsor, and regrettably the club’s future is far from assured.
We have also been troubled how certain unsubstantiated material has become deemed factual in media reports.
Pretty much every report says that hundreds of thousands of Euro were staked on the Longford Town game.
When we asked the FAI to confirm details of the amount of money allegedly placed on the Asian betting markets we were informed that they did not know where the reported figure cited in media reports had come from.
At no stage has the Fai sought to clarify this point with any media outfit.
This implies to us that at no time has there been any evidence of large sums of money been wagered on the outcome of games in which Athlone Town AFC were involved.
Police investigation.
At the outset, the club called for the involvement of An Garda Síochána and or Eurpol/Interpol.
If UEFA believed that larges sum of money had been wagered on the outcome of the games and a belief that players had been involved in manipulation of the results of the game, one would have expected that the appropriate investigative experts from UEFA would have conducted the investigation rather than leaving same to an inexperienced investigation department of the association.
We now understand that while the UEFA Report was furnished to the Gardaí no investigations have been undertaken to date.
Conclusion.
In conclusion the club is sadly of the opinion that the entire process is completely flawed, does not respect the members human rights, natural rights, and indeed constitutional rights.
The club is seeking legal advice and will take all steps necessary upon such recommendations to vindicate the rights of the individuals concerned.
The club will decide shortly whether to continue to support the engagement in the disciplinary process or seek vindication through another properly independent forum.
However the club has little or no faith that a fair outcome based on hard facts will be arrived at in circumstances where we feel basic fair procedures and natural justice have been completely absent from the process.
Indeed we believe there have been breaches of the confidential agreements the club signed up to at the start of the investigation.
Clearly confidential matters have found there way into the media and the club fears that a premeditated outcome of wrongdoing has already been arrived at.
The entire process appears to have been one aimed at manufacturing and creating evidence by way of expert opinions should no real hard evidence exist.
It appears to us that somebody somewhere is looking to find some sort of wrong doing at any level simply to justify the bringing of a widely publicized investigation.
Rights including the right of an individual to their good name and their rights to earn a livelihood have been completely ignored from the outset.
We would also like to point out that all individual rights guaranteed under the Irish Constitution as well as the European Convention of Human Rights trump anything contained in the Rules of any national or international sporting organisation or precedents set by the Court of Arbitration of Sport.
Hearing put back 3 weeks. http://www.irishmirror.ie/sport/socc...arebar_twitter
Doubt this is really going anywhere. FAI keen to be seen to take action, and it's clear dodgy stuff has happened, but making it stick is so difficult.
It's not a court of law. The FAI don't need specific proof of anything to pretend they've punished those responsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr A
Should they even bother to establish who is responsible before punishing them?Quote:
Originally Posted by gufcfan
Labuts and Sfrijans banned for 12 months
http://www.sseairtricityleague.ie/ne...gation/id-1051
It's more than I thought would happen - fair play to them.
It'll be interesting to see what the players/the PFAI and Athlone Town themselves do now given their previous reaction to the charges.
Hopefully this will be enough to deter any other dodgy groups with similar motives from getting involved in LOI clubs.
My fear was that the FAI would find nothing, which would just encourage more of these groups into our league.
Are these FAI bans? Or do they apply throughout UEFA or FIFA? Its not clear from that statement.
As far as I'm aware a ban from one association can be enforced in another if the details are passed on. Though I'm not sure if the "new" association would have discretion as regards enforcing it.
PFAI response. http://pfai.ie/news/pfa-ireland-stat...-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.