McGlynn & O'Neill betting bans

**brendy_éire** · 20/04/2010, 7:44 AM

BOHEMIANS midfielder Gareth McGlynn will launch an appeal after being hit with a two-month ban for gambling on League of Ireland matches during his time with Derry City......The winger has received the same punishment as Derry backroom staff member Colum O'Neill, who staked on six Candystripes matches.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/socc...-2143828.html?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe somewhat harsh, though it does send a clear message to players that it won't be tolerated.

Fenlon hinted that they may appeal the decision.

**Mr A** · 20/04/2010, 8:33 AM

Seems a tad harsh when he didn't bet on actual Derry games and lost every time. But then the LOI is a small community and there's always a real chance people have inside info even if it's not their team playing. Stupid boy for doing it, he only has himself to blame.

**danthesaint** · 20/04/2010, 9:13 AM

Originally Posted by Mr A

Seems a tad harsh when he didn't bet on actual Derry games and lost every time. But then the LOI is a small community and there's always a real chance people have inside info even if it's not their team playing. Stupid boy for doing it, he only has himself to blame.

yeah especially when ya think Gary Dempsey only got 5 games and he back against Pats

**Ezeikial** · 20/04/2010, 9:18 AM

Originally Posted by danthesaint

yeah especially when ya think Gary Dempsey only got 5 games and he back against Pats

Maybe the FAI feel that the Gary Dempsey case should have been a warning to other players (and it should have been!!), and they are trying to take a tough stance on offenders.

**marinobohs** · 20/04/2010, 9:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ezeikial

Maybe the FAI feel that the Gary Dempsey case should have been a warning to other players (and it should have been!!), and they are trying to take a tough stance on offenders.

I have posted my own views against players bertting on ANY LOI gamesany times but lets be clear the only message sent out by this draconian ban is the inability of the incompetent/corrupt (delete as appropriate) so called administrators of football here to apply any sort of consistency in the application of "make it up as you go along" rules - based more on the club involved than any form of administrative justice.
The sooner the better Platium One, Osama Bin Laden or even ,God help us, Fianna Fail take over running the LOI and get rid of the Abbotstown freak show the better for Irish football.

**shantykelly** · 20/04/2010, 11:17 AM

whilst i have no time for the fai and a lot of respect for mcglynn as a player, after the dempsey case when it was stated quite clearly in the media that players CAN'T bet on LOI games, you would have to be either a) an idiot who doesnt pay attention to their own league and thus deserves to get caught, or b) someone who doesnt give a damn about the rules of their own league, and thus deserves to get caught.

it is a bit over the top, but i think he deserves more than just a slap on the wrist. and yes, i would even say that if he was still a derry player. he broke the rules AFTER a high profile case on the same issue, he has no defence.

**A N Mouse** · 20/04/2010, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

I have posted my own views against players bertting on ANY LOI gamesany times but lets be clear the only message sent out by this draconian ban is the inability of the incompetent/corrupt (delete as appropriate) so called administrators of football here to apply any sort of consistency in the application of "make it up as you go along" rules - based more on the club involved than any form of administrative justice.
The sooner the better Platium One, Osama Bin Laden or even ,God help us, Fianna Fail take over running the LOI and get rid of the Abbotstown freak show the better for Irish football.

Away wi you.

Don't pretend for an instant that if he were still a Derry player you would have a problem with a two month ban.

You want to talk about consistency, then in fairness he should be given the same punishment as morrow got.

**marinobohs** · 20/04/2010, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by shantykelly

whilst i have no time for the fai and a lot of respect for mcglynn as a player, after the dempsey case when it was stated quite clearly in the media that players CAN'T bet on LOI games, you would have to be either a) an idiot who doesnt pay attention to their own league and thus deserves to get caught, or b) someone who doesnt give a damn about the rules of their own league, and thus deserves to get caught.

it is a bit over the top, but i think he deserves more than just a slap on the wrist. and yes, i would even say that if he was still a derry player. he broke the rules AFTER a high profile case on the same issue, he has no defence.

Nobody is arguing that he did/did not break the rules, my point related the inability of the FAI to administer their own rules. Dempsey got 2 game ban (after appeal) yet McGlynn gets two months - both offences are wrong but it is accepted that McGlynn did not bet on any matches involving his (then) club. This decision in effect makes it less serious to bet on your own clubs matches than another clubs matches and that is ridiculous.
furthermore, since the Dempsey case, there has been no amendment to the rule therefore making this decision even more ludicrous.
Consistent application of its own rules is patently beyond the jokers in Abbotstown.

**marinobohs** · 20/04/2010, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by A N Mouse

Away wi you.

Don't pretend for an instant that if he were still a Derry player you would have a problem with a two month ban.

You want to talk about consistency, then in fairness he should be given the same punishment as morrow got.

back in the real world...... punishment should reflect the crime not the club/player involved. Derry, Bohs, Shels, Pats,Shams or whoever should have all rules applied consistently. Simple enough I would have thought.
i understand Morrow admitted betting on matches he played in - presumably you accept that is more serious ?

**brendy_éire** · 20/04/2010, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Dempsey got 2 game ban (after appeal) yet McGlynn gets two months - both offences are wrong but it is accepted that McGlynn did not bet on any matches involving his (then) club. This decision in effect makes it less serious to bet on your own clubs matches than another clubs matches and that is ridiculous.

Dempsey argued, though, that he thought it was ok as he wasn't playing in the actual matches. Not that I buy that.
McGlynn may still appeal his ban too.

Originally Posted by marinobohs

furthermore, since the Dempsey case, there has been no amendment to the rule therefore making this decision even more ludicrous.
Consistent application of its own rules is patently beyond the jokers in Abbotstown.

Do the rules need amending though? It was made clear after the Dempsey case that betting on LoI matches is forbidden.
Maybe the only amendment could be some form of standardised suspension period?

**marinobohs** · 20/04/2010, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by brendy_éire

Dempsey argued, though, that he thought it was ok as he wasn't playing in the actual matches. Not that I buy that.
McGlynn may still appeal his ban too.

Do the rules need amending though? It was made clear after the Dempsey case that betting on LoI matches is forbidden.
Maybe the only amendment could be some form of standardised suspension period?

So the argument is that before the Dempsey case it was not forbidden ? that it was not clear (or that Dempsey did not understand) ? The point is the exact same rules were applied in both cases with startlingly different results and that is called inconsistency. Unfortunately quite regular for the gombeens in the FAI (as Derry should well know) who appear incapable of anything but "make it up as you go along" administration.

**OneRedArmy** · 20/04/2010, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

So the argument is that before the Dempsey case it was not forbidden ? that it was not clear (or that Dempsey did not understand) ? The point is the exact same rules were applied in both cases with startlingly different results and that is called inconsistency. Unfortunately quite regular for the gombeens in the FAI (as Derry should well know) who appear incapable of anything but "make it up as you go along" administration.

Its fairly common practice in many walks of life to increase penalties and sanctions when rule breakers explicitly ignore a prior warning. As happened in this case.

I'd have banned O'Neill for life personally and McGlynn for at least a season.

Wonder if the FAI will get round to Dundalk at any stage?

**marinobohs** · 20/04/2010, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Its fairly common practice in many walks of life to increase penalties and sanctions when rule breakers explicitly ignore a prior warning. As happened in this case.

I'd have banned O'Neill for life personally and McGlynn for at least a season.

Wonder if the FAI will get round to Dundalk at any stage?

What prior warning ? McGynnis punished because Dempsey was caught ? utter crap, show me where penalty in law increases for a first offence without change to rule/law ?. Presumably nothing to do with the player leaving derry.......

**twoenz** · 20/04/2010, 12:47 PM

Betting for your own team isn't really much different than a win bonus though.

**Nah Nah Nah Nah** · 20/04/2010, 12:57 PM

There's no way whatsoever that his ban should have been greater then Dempseys

**danthesaint** · 20/04/2010, 1:12 PM

Originally Posted by Nah Nah Nah Nah

There's no way whatsoever that his ban should have been greater then Dempseys

i thought about it originally, but after reading some of the comments above maybe it should, if he was a stupid **** to get caught after dempsey, then maybe its not too harsh....

**eelmonster** · 20/04/2010, 1:59 PM

Originally Posted by OneRedArmy

Wonder if the FAI will get round to Dundalk at any stage?

The players allegedly involved in betting on that game (and others) are no longer at Dundalk.

**marinobohs** · 20/04/2010, 2:37 PM

Originally Posted by danthesaint

i thought about it originally, but after reading some of the comments above maybe it should, if he was a stupid **** to get caught after dempsey, then maybe its not too harsh....

Yea, Dempsey - 2 games for betting against his own team. McGynn 8 games for betting on first division games. Not too hrsh at all

**danthesaint** · 20/04/2010, 2:55 PM

Originally Posted by marinobohs

Yea, Dempsey - 2 games for betting against his own team. McGynn 8 games for betting on first division games. Not too hrsh at all

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.....

**shantykelly** · 20/04/2010, 3:03 PM

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.