St Pats in player betting allegations

[Rovers Maniac]

How many times? Even the guy who wrote the article said on radion on Friday that the rumours are unsubstantiated? There was talk on here after the games that the gmaes were fixed and its just snowballed. The LOI is small. Some players backed Galway and told their mates to. Their mates told their mates etc and before you know it the papers are screaming FIX

Its complete and utter ********

I am pretty sure Quinn said this was not the end of it last night on MNS, worrying times in Inchicore. Either way Kelleher is no fool and won't be pumping money into a team when the players are betting against the team.

[Dodge]

Yet you say, "some players backed Galway and told their mates to"

I thought it was just Dempsey's Beaten double?

If you honestly believe what you're typing, then you are very naive Dodge.

I never said it was just Dempsey. I know full well that players of practically every club bet on the league.

The amounts, from the players I know or have spoken to, are not anything that worries me.

Until Quinn says more than has been said on internet message boards, I won't be taking him too seriously

[Battery Rover]

Don't know if anyone has posted the actual rule regarding betting on matches yet but here it is

RULE 100. BETTING/GAMBLING
Anyone who directly or indirectly bets, instructs someone to bet on their behalf, provides others with confidential information or enables another person to bet for that participants own benefit on a result, conduct or progress of a match or competition in which that person is participating or has control over
the result, conduct or progress of a match or competition shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions.

[deadman]

How many times? Even the guy who wrote the article said on radion on Friday that the rumours are unsubstantiated? There was talk on here after the games that the gmaes were fixed and its just snowballed. The LOI is small. Some players backed Galway and told their mates to. Their mates told their mates etc and before you know it the papers are screaming FIX

Its complete and utter ********

The original article was only written because Sadlier admitted to PQ he had concerns about betting within his squad. And Sadlier called the meeting with the players. Sadlier has substantiated the original story by his actions.

Followed up by Dempsey coming forward ... because he knew he'd be caught ... and only after he consulted the PFAI. why didn't he admited it when the squad met last thursday. this is only the tip of the iceberg. Sadlier could have said what Longford said last week: 'this is complete nonsense' but he didn't.

Dempsey will probably take the fall for everyone else, almost impossible to prove if others are betting in cash

[charliesboots]

The original article was only written because Sadlier admitted to PQ he had concerns about betting within his squad. And Sadlier called the meeting with the players. Sadlier has substantiated the original story by his actions.

Followed up by Dempsey coming forward ... because he knew he'd be caught ... and only after he consulted the PFAI. why didn't he admited it when the squad met last thursday. this is only the tip of the iceberg. Sadlier could have said what Longford said last week: 'this is complete nonsense' but he didn't.

Dempsey will probably take the fall for everyone else, almost impossible to prove if others are betting in cash

Loads of assumptions in there that you're stating as facts

Assumption 1:

"The original article was only written because Sadlier admitted to PQ he had concerns about betting within his squad. And Sadlier called the meeting with the players. Sadlier has substantiated the original story by his actions."

Wrong - Quinn contacted Sadlier to say he was running a story on rumours of players betting against Pats. Sadlier called a meeting of the players to tell them the story was to be printed. Quinn printed story about rumours and included part about meeting.

Assumption 2:

"Followed up by Dempsey coming forward ... because he knew he'd be caught ... and only after he consulted the PFAI. why didn't he admited it when the squad met last thursday."

How do you know when Dempsey owned up and how do you know it was only after he consulted the FAI? You don't.

Finally (and this isn't an assumption)

Sadlier could have said what Longford said last week: 'this is complete nonsense' but he didn't.

Do you really think it that would have been the responsible thing to do, bury your head in the sand? No, he did the responsible thing, took the PR hit and uncovered one case of a player betting against the club (so far).

[Dodge]

The original article was only written because Sadlier admitted to PQ he had concerns about betting within his squad. And Sadlier called the meeting with the players. Sadlier has substantiated the original story by his actions.

Not true. Sadlier was originally contacted by the tabloid. Then called meeting to give them a heads up about the story and said the club were going to investigate everything. The initial iinvestigation (i.e. the first time Dempsey was asked) was when Dempsey told them of his bet. Club suspended him immediately (didn't release his name). Dempsey went to PFAI, and they released his statement.

So again, rumours have overtaken facts

[monutdfc]

I haven't read all this thread, but to throw in my own 2 cent:

• What Dempsey did was stupid, but no more than that. FFS, people are calling for life bans for a €10 double that included Manchester City!

• Players bet all the time. The rule is far from clear:
  "Anyone who directly or indirectly bets, instructs someone to bet on their behalf, provides others with confidential information or enables another person to bet for that participants own benefit on a result, conduct or progress of a match or competition in which that person is participating or has control over
  the result, conduct or progress of a match or competition shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions. "
  
  Does that mean that no LoI player can bet on any LoI game (being a participant in the same "competition"), or simply they cannot bet on the league winners, FAI Cup winners etc. Personally, I think its the latter that was the intended meaning.

• Does the rule mean it is illegal for players/family/friends to bet on their own team to win (absent confidential information)? It would appear yes, it is 'illegal' - I didn't know that!

• For all the flak that Stephen McGuinness takes here, for once he was dead right; all that were published were allegations and rumour. Suddenly RTE were reporting it as fact, and the meeting Sadlier called to warn the players about the report suddenly became the start of an investigation.

• We have all heard these rumours before. A first division player on low wages in a meaningless end-of-season game, the temptation must surely be there. But it is very difficult to prove and even though we might have our suspicions until it is proven everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence. (Not withstanding the fact that as Sheridan previously posted it is not very easy to fix the actual result of a game without a number of co-conspirators). That is not happening here, and Gary Dempsey's €10 double though true is not material in the context of how this was reported.

[geysir]

The rule is far from clear:
"Anyone who directly or indirectly bets, instructs someone to bet on their behalf, provides others with confidential information or enables another person to bet for that participants own benefit on a result, conduct or progress of a match or competition in which that person is participating or has control over
the result, conduct or progress of a match or competition shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions. "

Does that mean that no LoI player can bet on any LoI game (being a participant in the same "competition"), or simply they cannot bet on the league winners, FAI Cup winners etc. Personally, I think its the latter that was the intended meaning.

I read it as the "competition" is the league, the player participates in the league, even if he doesn't participate in the actual game he is still in breech of the rule.

[Dodge]

I read it as the "competition" is the league, the player participates in the league, even if he doesn't participate in the actual game he is still in breech of the rule.

So why does the rule state "match or competition"? Must be some difference

[Mr A]

A match could be just a friendly perhaps?

[holidaysong]

So why does the rule state "match or competition"? Must be some difference

You could bet on a team in an individual match (Bohs to beat Cobh for example) or on a team to win a competition (Bohs to win the FAI cup for example). That could be the difference there.

[Rovers1]

rules are rules, Dempsey should be punished, nothing too harsh though. Yer man Quinn on MNS last night was very arrogant, ive read a few of his pieces in the mail and he seems to the exact type of journo who will look for the bad news story, and not the positive one.

[Hibs4Ever]

Yer man Quinn on MNS last night was very arrogant, ive read a few of his pieces in the mail and he seems to the exact type of journo who will look for the bad news story, and not the positive one.

He's a tw@t

[Jersey Cow]

His story proved correct and no doubt others will emerge!!
Having said that, Dempsey is a good guy, what he did was stupid and should receive a 3 game ban MAXIMUM for his sillyness.....he didn't even play FFS and had no control over how the match panned out!!

[Rovers1]

what he did was stupid and should receive a 3 game ban

agreed, plus your probably right about more stories surfacing too. Imagine how many papers will sell tomorrow morning if the Mail reports on another bet scandal involving the LOI!

[Redie]

As usual any off-the-field-of-play story that provides an opportunity to knock Irish soccer gets way more publicity by our lazy media who cannot be bothered to report on all the good things that happen on the pitch. As many have already stated Dempsey should get a short ban, possibly a fine and a sever warning and that should be the end of it.

Remember the countries leading Bookmakers have come out and stated that as far as they're concerned there was nothing irregular in relation to betting pattern on either of the St. Pats matches in question, one stated that they made a profit on one of the games and another said that it was an error on their part that they lost a bit of money on one of the games.

If this is such a problem in Irish soccer then maybe the bookies should consider not offering bets on domestic soccer - but then turkey's don't vote for Christmas.

Finally does anyone seriously that the countries GAA and Rugby players don't place bets on matches they are involved in.

[Sheridan]

Talk of a life ban is ridiculous (it would have to come from FIFA anyway.) Storm in a teacup, but he needs to be made an example of nonetheless to show that the FAI are serious about this issue. And, frankly, because he said it had been blown out of proportion (it has, Gary, but you don't go saying that when you've been caught red-handed doing something you shouldn't have been.)

6-8 match ban and €1k fine, circulate a statement on gambling to all players in the league and then consign it to the history books.

[Dodge]

If it goes quickley, he could get a GAA style 12 week ban...

[Martinho II]

Right, then back to my previously ignored post, how did the papers get wind of it before Dempsey admitted to his €20 flutter?

Something got the papers talking and surely it wasn't a €20 beaten docket.

from readin pete mahons comments in the mail yesterday I would safely hazard a guess that he went to the media.. think of the facts he is quoted as saying that he saw pats players coming out of the bookies.. i rest my case...

[geysir]

So why does the rule state "match or competition"? Must be some difference

Could well be.
It does hinge on the definition of "competition"
and what is meant by "progress of a competition"

What I took for granted, without thinking about it too much, was betting on the progress of a competition, that the League is a competition and a series (a match) is a part of the progress of the competition.
And the player is participating in the competition.
So I think he is in breach because he participates in the competition.

Holiday Song suggests that it could be betting on the result of a competition which may be so, but I think it is more than that.
I would get one of those GAA soliciters that are well proven in the dark arts of technicalities
Clearly the player was just silly at worst but could well suffer excess punishment because of tabloid fever mixed in with the howls of the moral majority.