McGlynn & O'Neill betting bans

[Mr_Parker]

As a matter of interest here is a related Irish League story from todays paper.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14774216.html

[Mr A]

I think the authorities are just underestimating how pish Glenavon have been in the latter half of the year.

[A N Mouse]

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.

Shagging your sister is still shagging your sister, just because she was of the age of consent doesn't make it any less wrong.

Dempsey copped to one count, McGlynn to five. Extrapolating a harsher sentence is hardly illogical.

[micls]

Shagging your sister is still shagging your sister, just because she was of the age of consent doesn't make it any less wrong.

Really?

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

Dempsey copped to one count, McGlynn to five. Extrapolating a harsher sentence is hardly illogical.

Similarly most people would consider betting on your own team a lot worse than betting on teams in another division in the country you play in.

The sentence for pedophilia would certainly be very different to incest and likewise people expect a different punishment for betting against your own team or one you have no links to.

I don't think that's unreasonable.

[twoenz]

As a matter of interest here is a related Irish League story from todays paper.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-14774216.html

It's funny because a Distillery player I was chatting to played down their win at the weekend as he'd heard that they'd chucked the match.

[Dodge]

FFS who dragged this down to paedophilia?!

[micls]

FFS who dragged this down to paedophilia?!

It was him not me

Sorry, but I couldn't not respond to that claim!

[Dodge]

Oh and BTW where did this idea come
from that it was only first divison games. He's admitted to betting on more than one premier game too

[micls]

Oh and BTW where did this idea come
from that it was only first divison games. He's admitted to betting on more than one premier game too

Just based it on a post above.....should have known better than to trust foot.ier's !

[A N Mouse]

It was him not me

Sorry, but I couldn't not respond to that claim!

I apologise for using the analogy I did, but you seem to have grasped the wrong nettle by the horns by bringing up pedophilia. And it was you who brought it, a bit of a stretch to get there from what I wrote -ok not that big but still a stretch.

The morality of it is beside the point, he either broke the rule or he didn't. And he seems to have admitted to having broken it on more than, Dempsey's, one occasion.

What really annoys me about all this is that himself, and a few others - many of them playing in the first division this season - should, probably, be grateful they're allowed to play this year. I know I'm grateful to still have a team to watch.

He should take his feckin oil and draw a line under last season.

IMO any appeal should be overturned and see the punishment increased.

[A N Mouse]

Oh, and if the appeal isn't heard until May would a two month ban for the months of june and july rule him out of european fixtures, or would it only apply to domestic fixtures?

[sligoman]

Do Bohs still have to pay him during the ban? Not really fair on them if they do considering he wasn't even their player when the incidents occured. Get Derry to pay his wages for the 2 months .

[Réiteoir]

Do Bohs still have to pay him during the ban? Not really fair on them if they do considering he wasn't even their player when the incidents occured. Get Derry to pay his wages for the 2 months .

Or get them to pay his 2 wages for the 1 month - in accordance with his contracts he had then

[dong]

Or get them to pay his 2 wages for the 1 month - in accordance with his contracts he had then

Nice

[marinobohs]

Shagging your sister is still shagging your sister, just because she was of the age of consent doesn't make it any less wrong.

Dempsey copped to one count, McGlynn to five. Extrapolating a harsher sentence is hardly illogical.

I'm from Dublin so will bow to your (obviously) superior knowledge about the subject of incest if you cannot see any difference between betting on your own team and betting on teams in a different division then fair enough. I believe there is a difference and that to punish the latter more harshly than the former does not make sense.

[Dodge]

if you cannot see any difference between betting on your own team and betting on teams in a different division then fair enough. I believe there is a difference and that to punish the latter more harshly than the former does not make sense.

Still peddling this line? The facts are that McGlynn bet on multiple games in his division, not just those in the lower league. His influence on these games was exactly the same as the influence Dempsey had on the game he made a bet on (that wasn't even solely dependent on that result)

Glynn's case is closer to Morrow's than Dempsey's so why are you continuallty trying to compare the two (in mcGlynn's favour)?

[marinobohs]

Still peddling this line? The facts are that McGlynn bet on multiple games in his division, not just those in the lower league. His influence on these games was exactly the same as the influence Dempsey had on the game he made a bet on (that wasn't even solely dependent on that result)

Glynn's case is closer to Morrow's than Dempsey's so why are you continuallty trying to compare the two (in mcGlynn's favour)?

Dempseys case - insider trading. Mc Gynn case - not, End of. I thought he said it was first division games but accept the point if you know different. There is a massive difference in betting for/against your own team -as recognised by the players union and anybody looking at the issue rationally- and betting on external games. Both are wrong but to suggest the latter is more serious is laughable.

[Dodge]

I never once suggested it was more serious. I've tried to explain to you (countless times) how betting on mulitple games could lead to greater disciplinery measures and whether you accept my rationale or not, the result is the same.

Oh and, again, dempsey bet was a €20 double on galway to beat pats and Man City to beat newcastle. Your definition of insider trading astounds me

[marinobohs]

I never once suggested it was more serious. I've tried to explain to you (countless times) how betting on mulitple games could lead to greater disciplinery measures and whether you accept my rationale or not, the result is the same.

Oh and, again, dempsey bet was a €20 double on galway to beat pats and Man City to beat newcastle. Your definition of insider trading astounds me

Done to death at this stage so OK - Dempsey is a poor innocnent child caught up in a purely accidental circumstance whearas McGlynns case was an obvious starting point for his attempt at world domination. Whatever

[A N Mouse]

I'm from Dublin so will bow to your (obviously) superior knowledge about the subject of incest if you cannot see any difference between betting on your own team and betting on teams in a different division then fair enough. I believe there is a difference and that to punish the latter more harshly than the former does not make sense.

Sure that just mean you have a slim chance of incest any time you pull, what with not knowing you're father an all

I don't particularly wish to go back to it, but the point I was going for was something (incest) was always wrong, but sleeping with your (just) underage girlfriend, while against the rules, is, possibly, a morally gray area. So while everyone can agree about the first, expecting the punishment for one count of it to be greater than multiple counts of the other - to use your own words - defies logic.