Firstly I support Bohs.
At first glance I thought this punishment was outrageous considering the Dempsey punishment.
However I can see the arguement made here and understand the point re the frequency and volume of the offence. Some posters here mentioned 5 bets vs Dempsey's 1 bet.
Now, similiarly I would assume most people would consider Dempsey's offence potentially more serious as he would (potentially) have more of a chance to influence the outcome of a game his club were playing in - considering he's a squad player of the club participating in the game the bet was struck on.
More issues would need to be teased out, like how a player missing the game could in itself have as much influence on the outcome as one actually playing (e.g. Rooney missing a game for Man United could influence their performance thus potentially influencing the result)
This could be irrelavant however because IMO the key factor to consider is that (my understanding of the rule as posted earlier) the rule doesnt mention specifically your own team must be playing in the game to make it an offence. It mentioned the competition which raises a number other questions such as:
1) Does that mean players with a premier club can bet in the first division as thay are not in that competition and vice versa.
2) Obviously cup competitions are a no no, but what happens when their club exits the cup? Are they fair game then to have a punt.
3) What happens in the situation where say a Limerick player decided to have a punt on say Bohs or Rovers in their first European tie this season?
Also if point 1 above can be argued, at least argued its open to interpration does that mean, as someone posted, that as some of the bets struck (but not all) were in the 1st division they could be off the table and not an offence?
Therefore bringing his 5 offences verses Dempsey's 1 offence down to possible 2 or 3 : 1.
I dont have details of the exact bets struck - maybe someone could post it.
The key issue here is that maybe the tack to take would be that the rule is too loose and open to interperation and that it was reasonable to assume you could bet in 1st Division matches. That would not obsolve him from the stupid move to back in Premier games but it may mean the punishment is looked at again.
What would be interesting re the punishment is if the FAI could be pushed to say they took frequency and volume into the equation (as some have argued on this thread) to counter the precedent arguement and it would be IMO a better arguement in an appeal situation. Its reasonable to assume it may have had some bareing.
The player was an idiot. Bohs should not have to pay him a cent though. He didnt declare this when signing for the club (i assume) and when signing a player you have to assume he has not violated any rules of the association that would make him unable to do the duties he is employed to do. He should not be paid for the duration of the ban as he cannot fulfil his contractual obligations through no fault of the club and, more importantly, not as a result of fulfilling any club duty, but through his own idiotic actions.
Bookmarks