The problem here is that the betting market showed clearly that the game was fixed. Odds were ridiculous.Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
The game may have been rigged, but it doesn't follow that the two guys banned are the ones who rigged it
That is a problem alright, but to deprive two workers of their livelihoods for a year, effectively on the basis of mere suspicion rather than any solid evidence of personal wrongdoing, is very serious. If CAS were to uphold the FAI's stance (and it's hard to see how they would), I could see the players going beyond that stage of appeal and taking their cases to an actual court of law.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 09/09/2017 at 4:31 PM.
It's absolute nonsense to say that this serves as a deterrent. There's no proof they did anything and even if they did, the people that profited from it most were out the gap at the final whistle.
Does anybody know if there is some common, UEFA-approved burden of proof in cases such as these? Or even a common approach to dealing with these cases? It is hard to imagine that the FAI process is something that UEFA would be happy with, but maybe I am wrong.
Are Athlone going to be deducted points as a punishment or will only the two players be punished? Is there a procedure for punishing the club as well? Is it even appropriate that an entire club be punished when one or two of its players may have conspired with an external party or parties to manipulate the club's results?
What would have happened, for example, if the match against Longford had been fixed as a draw or even won by a specific number of goals due to the concession of a certain number of goals having been manipulated? Would Athlone be permitted to hold on to any point(s) gained despite two of their players having been found guilty of fixing the match concerned? Surely not.
Obviously, Athlone lost the game against Longford in question 3-1, but, as it stands, the goal that Athlone scored in that game still counts towards their goal difference in the league table, so they did take something from the game that could potentially impact where they (and, by extension, other clubs) finish in the table. And if Longford's three points from that game have been won as a result of the match being fixed, surely that brings the integrity of the entire result into question. Ideally, wouldn't it be expunged from the record and replayed? However, it could then of course be argued that you're punishing Longford too despite them having done nothing wrong. It's a really messy situation.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 10/09/2017 at 1:56 AM.
Just looking into this now.
Article 12 of the 2017 UEFA Disciplinary Regulations covers potential match-fixing:
The standard of proof required to prove an allegation of match-fixing appears to be outlined in article 24:
It seems then that the FAI are fully entitled to use whatever means they wish to judge the evidence and that the standard of "comfortable satisfaction" is actually a UEFA-approved test or threshold. I know Richie Sadlier and others have been critical of such a seemingly soft standard (indeed, I would be myself), but, in light of what is outlined in the regulations above, the FAI appear to have pursued this case by the book and I'd probably amend the thoughts I expressed above in relation to how CAS might deal with any appeal pursued by the players concerned as a result. If the FAI are found by CAS to have adhered to the regulations of the governing confederation in their investigation and punishment of the players found guilty, I suspect CAS would uphold the association's verdict.
The players may still wish to take the case to a court of law if they have no luck with CAS, however; I could be wrong, but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't be entitled to bring a civil case for deprivation of livelihood (or something along those lines) if they really thought it was worth their while. The FAI and UEFA are still subject to the law of the land, after all.
The famous Bosman ruling, for example, which arose after Jean-Marc Bosman sued RFC Liège, the Belgian football association and UEFA for restraint of trade, came as a result of the European Court of Justice ruling in the player's favour in 1995. CAS was established in 1984, yet it wasn't they who dealt with the Bosman case.
A 2009 CAS case - FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v. UEFA (CAS 2009/A/1920) - involving a Macedonian club, Pobeda, who participated in Champions League qualifying against Armenian club FC Pyunik in 2004 discussed here is also relevant as it appears to confirm that direct evidence, such as bank transaction records, would not be required to establish that match-fixing had occurred: https://books.google.ie/books?id=vBO...page&q&f=false
UEFA originally sanctioned the club, it's president and the club's captain for match-fixing after investigating the fixture in question. All three sanctioned parties then appealed against UEFA to CAS. Witness statements had been provided as evidence in that case, however, which isn't the case in the Athlone case, to the best of my knowledge. A life-ban from footballing activities was deemed by CAS to amount to an appropriate punishment for Pobeda's president, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, along with an eight-year ban from European competition for the club. However, witness statements were not deemed to amount to sufficient or "comfortably satisfying" evidence in order to establish the guilt of Nikolce Zdraveski, the club's captain.
Seeing as there weren't even any witness statements submitted as evidence against Athlone's Igors Labuts and Dragoș Sfrijan, perhaps an appeal by them would have a chance of success, after all, at least on the basis of this precedent.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 09/09/2017 at 11:54 PM.
I've also come across some other articles relating to how CAS has dealt with appeals relating to match-fixing in the past. This is one from Asser International discusses a number of cases in terms of the standard of proof and the admissibility/evaluation of evidence: http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/p...diathesopoulou
Here is a piece by Emilio García (a doctor in law and head of disciplinary and integrity at UEFA), which discusses match-fixing generally before going into greater detail on the case of Klubi Sportiv Skënderbeu v. UEFA (CAS 2016/A/4650) and the standard of proof required: http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/p...-emilio-garcia
Another piece (free registration is needed to view) that "builds on Mr Garcia’s piece [above] by exploring the impact of the [CAS] Decision [in respect of Skënderbeu]" and asks "specifically whether or not betting alerts alone can meet the standard of proof required to persuade a disciplinary panel that a party has breached integrity rules (in this case UEFA's rules prohibiting match-fixing)": https://www.lawinsport.com/articles/...nderbeu-v-uefa
The impression I get from reading all of the above is that direct or documentary evidence of match-fixing isn't required by CAS in order to satisfy the burden of proof threshold, whilst the CAS panel's interpretation of the notion of "comfortable satisfaction" could potentially differ from that of the respondent or disciplinary body in question. From my reading of it, this may well leave some room for a successful appeal to CAS by the two Athlone players.
Last edited by DannyInvincible; 09/09/2017 at 11:54 PM.
the thing I dont get is that athlone players gave their mobile phones records and bank a/c details to the investigation and it was found clean but how come these two players were charged? <MOD SNIP- please thing before posting allegations you cannot prove>
Last edited by Mr A; 11/09/2017 at 11:29 AM.
Gary Cronin is he the right man to manage Longford Town?
If you're fixing a LOI match you certainly wouldn't be arranging it over texts or whatsapp and would want to accept proceeds in either cash or a foreign bank account well away from the jurisdiction
The Leinster Senior League needs a strong Bohemians
Exactly. It doesn't say a lot that the phone records and bank accounts are clean. Can the FAI be sure they don't have other accounts in their home countries, and second phones with foreign SIMs? Probably not. And even if they don't have further bank accounts abroad, proceeds could be paid to an uncle/brother/cousin/friend/whoever.
Proceeds can be forwarded onto recipient months/years following the fix to avoid detection, sure you may not get your proceeds at all if you're caught out like Labuts and Sfrijan. No sign of funds in their bank accounts or family/OH/friends etc. is what you would expect in this instance. Only the Gardai can try to practically investigate if any money trail yet exists.
The Leinster Senior League needs a strong Bohemians
Regardless of how it can happen, it has to be proven as far as I'm concerned.
Very true. García makes the following point on the nature of match-fixing, which is of course a form of corruption, meaning those engaging in it will naturally attempt to conceal and avoid potential detection of their activity as best they can on account of the very essence of what it is they're involved in:
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course. The absence of material or documentary evidence of wrongdoing doesn't necessarily prove that the two Athlone players are innocent, but (purely personally-speaking here) I still think that if you're going to indict individual players, the process should be more rigorous than the flimsy, low-proof-threshold and fundamentally speculative process undertaken by the FAI.
CAS justify the "comfortable satisfaction" test, however, seemingly on the basis that having an effective means of tackling match-fixing in order to stamp it out in the interests of football's integrity and the public's confidence in the game is deemed to constitute a greater good and that the forgoing of a requirement for a higher standard of proof is the necessary sacrifice to be made in the pursuit of achieving that greater good. CAS also cite the investigative limitations of sports governing bodies compared to national or state authorities as justification for the lower threshold. In the case of Mr. Oleg Oriekhov v. UEFA (CAS 2010/A/2172), the CAS panel outlined the following (at paragraphs 53 and 54) in respect of the assessment of the evidence available:
Everything about this is depressing. Clearly some very dodgy stuff happened in Athlone. Too many people called it out after watching them play and the betting patterns point to this being the case. But the prosecution does sound flimsy. The defence doesn't sound great either- getting 3 'TV pundits' in but only one 'top coach'? WTF?!? But some of the stuff being said about any player who makes a mistake being under suspicion is just outright disingenuous. There was a huge amount of context here, these guys have been involved in a lot of dodgy matches, and in Labuts case at least under severe suspicions before. It's a hard thing to prove but there were any number of red flags here. But it suits some to ignore a lot of that to have another cut at the FAI. Every element of this is horrible for the club and the league. And it'll drag on for some time yet.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
Best post I've seen anywhere on this situation yet.
So it is, but so be it. Call it hearsay, circumstantial or whatever else, but relying on just that is what will keep this from dragging on and on. It simply isn't good enough to look at a few miskicks,declare the two bent, and hope that the "red flags" as you say will satisfy everyone. If the Garda or Interpol or whoever need to be gotten involved, then all parties should do that.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
The descriptions of the prosecution (and these have all come from the defence so are not unbiased) indicate that the red flags were not brought into it much but that it focussed on just the lead up to specific goals. That might be unfair though, and I doubt the FAI can come out and correct the record even if it's wrong. The whole thing is an unholy mess. Would fully support a Garda investigation being launched. Not sure what the laws are around match fixing though.
#NeverStopNotGivingUp
If this goes to a court of law the judge would throw it out for lack of evidence before it even came to trial. The main man @ Atfc is a barrister and will know exactly how to handle this.
We are the Galway Boys Stand up and make some noise"
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks