McGlynn & O'Neill betting bans

**Dodge** · 20/04/2010, 3:04 PM

I said in the previous thread that McGlynn would get more of a ban than Dempsey despite Bohs fans thinking he'd get slap on wrist

my reasoning was that Dempsey bet on one game he wasn't involved in (for €20) and McGlynn bet on several games he wasn't involved in. Now the stakes haven't been mentioned but I'd assume that if they were very low, then McGlynn's statement at the time would've said so

the fact the ban is in time rather games is interesting to me

**micls** · 20/04/2010, 3:07 PM

Originally Posted by shantykelly

yes, but its arguable that dempsey's case was the line in the sand. following his case, everyone involved in the league SHOULD have known that betting on league matches by players, staff and officials was against the rules. if you get caught after such a high profile case, then you basically have to take your oil.

i agree that the 2 month ban was harsh, but i dont think that the punishment meted out to dempsey can be used as the standard. his was the first (that I know of), and he had an arguable (albeit dodgy) defence. mcglynn (and morrow, and others) was caught after this well publicised case (and punishment). they couldn't use the 'didn't know' defence and get away with it. ignorance of the law is no defence.

But your last line contradicts the rest of your post.

If ignorance is no defence then there's absolutely no reason Dempsey's ban should be less than McGlynns The law is the law and the punishments should be the same whether they knew about it or not.

It's unfair to claim Dempsey can plead ignorance and the others cant. The situations are different. Dempsey bet on his own team. McGlynn didnt. For all we know McGylnn could have thought the Dempsey situation only meant you couldnt bet on your own team.

Neither has an excuse though, the rules are their and it's up to themselves to educate themselves on it.

The discrepancy in punishments is ridiculous though imo.

**Dodge** · 20/04/2010, 3:11 PM

Oh and the reason Dempseys league ban was reduced was because he had already served a 3 game (without pay) ban imposed by Pats.

**marinobohs** · 20/04/2010, 3:36 PM

Originally Posted by danthesaint

so ya saying McGlynn wont appeal... if dempsey can and win, no reason why mcglynn shouldnt

and tbh i thought Dempsey 5 game ban should have stood.....

Decisions should not be reached with a view to them being appealed. The Dempsey precedent was there and to impose a much stiffer sentence for betting on games in a different division is beyond logic - effectively saying it is better to bet on games involving your own club

The problem is not penalising a player for breaking the rules it is the complete inability of the so called administrators to act in a competent or consistent way.Again.

**shantykelly** · 20/04/2010, 3:37 PM

Originally Posted by micls

But your last line contradicts the rest of your post.

If ignorance is no defence then there's absolutely no reason Dempsey's ban should be less than McGlynns The law is the law and the punishments should be the same whether they knew about it or not.

It's unfair to claim Dempsey can plead ignorance and the others cant. The situations are different. Dempsey bet on his own team. McGlynn didnt. For all we know McGylnn could have thought the Dempsey situation only meant you couldnt bet on your own team.

Neither has an excuse though, the rules are their and it's up to themselves to educate themselves on it.

The discrepancy in punishments is ridiculous though imo.

agree that it is a contradiction, but thats my view on it - ignorance of the law is no defence. in saying that, i can see the fai punishing dempsey and expecting the rest of the league to learn from it, therefore they may have felt they didnt need to be overly harsh. when you then get three fellas from derry caught in the act, i'd say the exasperation would have been pretty high - 'ah jeez boys, did we not already deal with this? feck him, ban him for two months'. the last year has shown the fai to be anything but consistent when applying rules, a lot of the time there decisions seem to be based on emotion more than logic or precedent. cork and derry are a great example of this.

**marinobohs** · 20/04/2010, 3:41 PM

Originally Posted by shantykelly

agree that it is a contradiction, but thats my view on it - ignorance of the law is no defence. in saying that, i can see the fai punishing dempsey and expecting the rest of the league to learn from it, therefore they may have felt they didnt need to be overly harsh. when you then get three fellas from derry caught in the act, i'd say the exasperation would have been pretty high - 'ah jeez boys, did we not already deal with this? feck him, ban him for two months'. the last year has shown the fai to be anything but consistent when applying rules, a lot of the time there decisions seem to be based on emotion more than logic or precedent. cork and derry are a great example of this.

Do you know what SK, the really really scary thing is that this (above) is quite probobly what happened

Staggering way to deal with things in this day and age but pretty much par for the course for the FAI.

**Mr A** · 20/04/2010, 3:54 PM

I don't accept that the FAI have to be forever tied to precedent in former cases (Otherwise they'd be doomed to repeat mistakes forever), especially given the Morrow case has happened in the meantime.

They may well take the view here though that any betting on LOI is pretty much equally serious. Or maybe that although McGlynn's offence was more minor that there were more of them. All speculation, but I don't see any reason to throw the rattle out of the pram regarding the FAI's handling of it without further detail.

I see every reason to ask what the hell McGlynn was thinking though. Again- he has no one to blame but himself.

**pineapple stu** · 20/04/2010, 4:26 PM

Does anyone know if anythign was sent to individual players in the wake of the Dempsey case?

If, for example, all players were sent a letter from the FAI explicitly outlining the rules on betting and noting that there were going to be tougher sanctions for it in the future, then tough.

**A N Mouse** · 20/04/2010, 5:46 PM

Fair enough it's all we have for precedent, but the Dempsey case is a red herring.

The judgement in the Morrow case came from on high, and in light of such the fai must be seen to be taking a tough line on this.

**Dodge** · 20/04/2010, 5:57 PM

Spot on, the fact it's for time (rather than games) shows it's an international thing rather than just for our league

And again without knowing the full facts I can't see how marinobohs is so certain that the ban is excessive.

**Mr_Parker** · 20/04/2010, 7:45 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

Does anyone know if anythign was sent to individual players in the wake of the Dempsey case?

If, for example, all players were sent a letter from the FAI explicitly outlining the rules on betting and noting that there were going to be tougher sanctions for it in the future, then tough.

What is it they say, ignorance of the law is no defence? Why would they send such out? They don't send out all the other rules to individual players.

**osarusan** · 20/04/2010, 9:34 PM

Originally Posted by Mr_Parker

They don't send out all the other rules to individual players.

He's talking about a possible change in the rules. If no rule change (or even change of attitude toward extent of punishment for breaking the rules) has been made clear, then McGlynn, for example, has a right to question how two such different punishments were rationally arrived at.

**A N Mouse** · 20/04/2010, 9:47 PM

Originally Posted by osarusan

He's talking about a possible change in the rules. If no rule change (or even change of attitude toward extent of punishment for breaking the rules) has been made clear, then McGlynn, for example, has a right to question how two such different punishments were rationally arrived at.

If we're going to persist in comparing apples and oranges then surely McGlynn should be looking at a thirty game ban, reduced to twelve on appeal?

**osarusan** · 20/04/2010, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

If we're going to persist in comparing apples and oranges then surely McGlynn should be looking at a thirty game ban, reduced to twelve on appeal?

But I don't think we are comparing apples and oranges.

If I understand this correctly, McGlynn placed 5 bets on teams and games he wasn't involved in, Dempsey placed a bet on a team (not a game) he was involved in. I'd personally say that Dempsey has committed the more serious offence, but that isn't reflected in the punishment. McGlynn should have the right to have it explained to him how the FAI reached their decision, and how that decision is in line with the ban given to Dempsey.

For what it's worth, I think that the amounts of money wagered shouldn't be a factor in punishment, as it's a principle that's being broken.

**Dodge** · 20/04/2010, 10:15 PM

You've answered McGlynn's question there. Dempsey was one bet, McGlynn's was a series of bets.

The morality of which teams were involved doesn't matter as far the rules are concerned once the player isn't involved in the game

**osarusan** · 20/04/2010, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Dodge

The morality of which teams were involved doesn't matter as far the rules are concerned once the player isn't involved in the game

If it is the case that it doesn't matter which teams the bets are on as long as the player isn't playing, then the punishment would be fair enough, given the multiple bets.

Are you sure this is the case, Dodge? Seems strange to me that betting against your own team would be classed the same as betting on teams in another division.

**Dodge** · 21/04/2010, 3:09 AM

Not at all sure, but it makes sense to me

Like I said betting against your own team (when not playing)
might be (more) morally wrong but I don't think there's any material difference to betting on other teams

Oh and the amounts should matter too IMO. If players are betting huge sums there could be a temptation to try and influence it. Someone having a small 'flutter' is unlikely too (and I'm not saying this was the case for anyone involved in any of the cases which have come to public)

**Mr_Parker** · 21/04/2010, 8:40 AM

Originally Posted by osarusan

He's talking about a possible change in the rules. If no rule change (or even change of attitude toward extent of punishment for breaking the rules) has been made clear, then McGlynn, for example, has a right to question how two such different punishments were rationally arrived at.

The rules change nearly every year as do the scales of punishments for lots of things. He has the right to ask but the point I was making is that players should not expect to be hand fed every rule change, that is up to every individual to acquaint themselves with and/or their club to keep them informed.

**pineapple stu** · 21/04/2010, 9:15 AM

I'm just saying that part of the Dempsey thing was the player saying he awsn't aware that it was wrong to bet on a match in which he wasn't playing. If, in the aftermath, the FAI sent out a circular to all players to clarify the point (because they seem to be taking the matter very seriously), then that could explain why McGlynn got hit with such a large ban. I know it's common in some sports to send out circulars to all players clarifying what is and isn't a banned substance, for example (hence why I've no sympathy for any player who claims he thought the cough medicine he was taking was harmless).

But my more broad point was, as Dodge noted, that if we don't know all the facts, we can't really comment on whether the ban was excessive or not.

**marinobohs** · 21/04/2010, 1:19 PM

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

I'm just saying that part of the Dempsey thing was the player saying he awsn't aware that it was wrong to bet on a match in which he wasn't playing. If, in the aftermath, the FAI sent out a circular to all players to clarify the point (because they seem to be taking the matter very seriously), then that could explain why McGlynn got hit with such a large ban. I know it's common in some sports to send out circulars to all players clarifying what is and isn't a banned substance, for example (hence why I've no sympathy for any player who claims he thought the cough medicine he was taking was harmless).

But my more broad point was, as Dodge noted, that if we don't know all the facts, we can't really comment on whether the ban was excessive or not.

Agree with you stu, if any notification was sent out. I am not aware of any.

- if the FAI notified all players that future cases (post Dempsey) would carry a higher penalty
- the players union and/or players were notified of change in penalty decided by FAI/FIFA etc
- the angel gabriel appeared telling McGlynn to end his evil ways or face eternal damnation (transfer to SRFC).

If ANY of the above happened I would revise my earlier view, but I am not aware of same and (in answer to Dodge) will have to base my assesment on what I know - including the precedent Dempsey case.

Also to suggest it is not worse to bet against your own team because you are not in the team is not correct. McGlynns bets related (as I understand) to games in the first division, to say this is the same as Dempsey betting against his own club is strange, to attempt to justify a harsher sentence defies logic.