Joey Barton (now retired)

[Ash]

Very harsh

 

Why?

 

I don't think having a few quid on an accumulator warrants an 18month ban mind. Rio got 8 month for missing a drug test, Berahino got a minimal suspension for failing a test - both amount to serious cheating in my opinion. Meanwhile, Joey has a 5 team accumulator through the week for entertainment and gets 18 month. Just seems an extraordinary length of time for the actual non-effect his betting has caused.

 

He's broken very specific rules 1260 times. He also placed bets on his own team to lose which opens up a whole new argument in terms of match fixing.

[sbnufc]

Very harsh

 

Why?

 

I don't think having a few quid on an accumulator warrants an 18month ban mind. Rio got 8 month for missing a drug test, Berahino got a minimal suspension for failing a test - both amount to serious cheating in my opinion. Meanwhile, Joey has a 5 team accumulator through the week for entertainment and gets 18 month. Just seems an extraordinary length of time for the actual non-effect his betting has caused.

 

1260 bets between 2006 & 2016

[Guest neesy111]

He's bet against his own team, 18 months is spot on.

[Andymc1]

Very harsh

 

Why?

 

I don't think having a few quid on an accumulator warrants an 18month ban mind. Rio got 8 month for missing a drug test, Berahino got a minimal suspension for failing a test - both amount to serious cheating in my opinion. Meanwhile, Joey has a 5 team accumulator through the week for entertainment and gets 18 month. Just seems an extraordinary length of time for the actual non-effect his betting has caused.

 

1260 bets between 2006 & 2016

 

2.42 bets a week isn't really a lot.

 

If he backed against his own team, and there was a suggestion of match fixing then that would open a can of worms, agreed. But from what I;ve read there is no suggestion of match fixing.

[Wullie]

http://www.joeybarton.com/betting-statement/

 

The FA have announced I am banned from all football for 18 months and fined £30,000 and costs for offences against The FA’s Betting Rules. I am very disappointed at the harshness of the sanction. The decision effectively forces me into an early retirement from playing football. To be clear from the outset here this is not match fixing and at no point in any of this is my integrity in question.

 

I accept that I broke the rules governing professional footballers, but I do feel the penalty is heavier than it might be for other less controversial players. I have fought addiction to gambling and provided the FA with a medical report about my problem. I’m disappointed it wasn’t taken into proper consideration. I think if the FA is truly serious about tackling the culture of gambling in football, it needs to look at its own dependence on the gambling companies, their role in football and in sports broadcasting, rather than just blaming the players who place a bet.

 

I am not alone in football in having a problem with gambling. I grew up in an environment where betting was and still is part of the culture. From as early as I can remember my family let me have my own pools coupon, and older members of the family would place bets for me on big races like the Grand National. To this day, I rarely compete at anything without there being something at stake. Whether that’s a round of golf with friends for a few pounds, or a game of darts in the training ground for who makes the tea, I love competing. I love winning. I am also addicted to that. It is also the case that professional football has long had a betting culture, and I have been in the sport all my adult life.

 

Given the money in the game, and the explosion in betting on sport, I understand why the rules have been strengthened, and I also accept that I have been in breach of them. I accept too that the FA has to be seen to lead on this issue. But surely they need to accept there is a huge clash between their rules and the culture that surrounds the modern game, where anyone who watches follows football on TV or in the stadia is bombarded by marketing, advertising and sponsorship by betting companies, and where much of the coverage now, on Sky for example, is intertwined with the broadcasters’ own gambling interests.

 

That all means this is not an easy environment in which to try to stop gambling, or even to encourage people within the sport that betting is wrong. It is like asking a recovering alcoholic to spend all his time in a pub or a brewery. If the FA is serious about tackling gambling I would urge it to reconsider its own dependence on the gambling industry. I say that knowing that every time I pull on my team’s shirt, I am advertising a betting company.

 

I say none of this to justify myself. But I do want to explain that sometimes these issues are more complicated than they seem.

 

As for the scale of my football betting, since 2004, on a Betfair account held in my own name, registered at my home address and verified by my own passport, with full transparency, I have placed over 15,000 bets across a whole range of sports. Just over 1,200 were placed on football and subject to the charges against me. The average bet was just over £150, many were for only a few pounds.

 

For the modern footballer, downtime and rest are important and I spend much of my time away from training in front of a TV screen, channel hopping across a range of sports, and betting on the outcome of games. I like watching sports and predicting the outcome. Set alongside what we are privileged to earn as footballers, my betting stakes are relatively small. Betting for me, is less about how much money I win or lose, and more about whether I can correctly predict the outcome of the game I’m watching. I hate losing more than I like winning, and this mindset has helped prevent me from placing big bets, for fear of losing big.

 

Raised at the hearing was that between 2004 and 2011 I placed a handful of bets on my own team to lose matches. I accept of course that this is against the rules, for the obvious reason that a player with an additional financial stake in the game might seek to change the course of it for his own personal gain. However I’d like to offer some context.

 

First, in every game I have played, I have given everything. I’m confident that anyone who has ever seen me play, or played with or against me, will confirm that to be the case. I am more aware than anyone that I have character issues that I struggle with, and my addictive personality is one of them, but I am a devoted and dedicated professional who has always given my all on the pitch.

 

Second, on the few occasions where I placed a bet on my own team to lose, I was not involved in the match day squad for any of those games. I did not play. I was not even on the bench. I had no more ability to influence the outcome than had I been betting on darts, snooker, or a cricket match in the West Indies. I should add that on some of those occasions, my placing of the bet on my own team to lose was an expression of my anger and frustration at not being picked or being unable to play. I understand people will think that is childish and selfish and I cannot disagree with that.

 

Third, I should point out that the last of these bets against my own team was six years ago (and in a reserve game), when I was going through a particularly troubled period, and when the FA were not nearly as hard on gambling as they are now.

 

One thing I can state with absolute certainty – I have never placed a bet against my own team when in a position to influence the game, and I am pleased that in all of the interviews with the FA, and at the hearing, my integrity on that point has never been in question. I could not live with myself, nor face my team-mates or the fans of the clubs I played for, if they seriously thought I would bet on my team to lose a game whose outcome I could influence.

 

The Commission that heard my case made clear in their reasons on a number of occasions that “there was no suggestion I was involved in match fixing” and I am publishing a list of my bets because I want the full facts of my case to be known.

 

A ban of 18 months is longer than several bans handed to players who played in matches where they bet for their team to lose and – unlike me – were found to have had an ability to influence the games. The only players to be banned for 12 months or longer bet against their own teams and played in the matches in which they placed those bets. Players who did not play in the matches they placed the bets in have never been banned for longer than 6 months. I feel the ban is excessive in this context.

 

Throughout my career I am someone who has made mistakes and owned up to those mistakes and tried to learn from them. I intend to do that here. I accept that this is one more mess I got into because of my own behaviour. This episode has brought home to me that just as I had to face up to the need to get help to deal with alcohol abuse, and with anger, so now I need to get help for my issues with gambling, and I will do so.

 

I want to thank the Burnley FC board, management, players and staff for their faith and understanding, and their belief that I would play for them, and play well, even with this hanging over me, and I want to thank the Burnley fans for the support they have given me throughout. They have been brilliant.

 

Having consulted with my friends and lawyers, I have decided I will be appealing against the length of the ban. I hope that I shall be afforded a fair hearing by an independent Appeal Panel. If I am, we are confident that the sanction will be reduced to a fair one that both reflects the offences as well as the mitigating factors and the fact that there was nothing untoward or suspicious about the bets I made.

 

I’m keen to be open about it, here are the thirty most pertinent bets as determined by the FA:

 

height=300http://joeybarton.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/My-bets-backing-the-opposition.jpg[/img]

 

height=350http://joeybarton.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/My-bets-backing-my-team.jpg[/img]

[samptime29]

Well harsh.

[Andymc1]

Good statement that mind. Still maintain it's a very harsh punishment.

[Kimbo]

I can understand if a player assumed it wasn't against the rules to bet on games unconnected to him, but You have to be really really dumb to bet on your own teams games. Fuck him.

[Guest firetotheworks]

I can't say it's harsh like. He bet against his own team for a start.

[paddydog]

£5 winnings against a total stake of nearly £2K? He doesn't seem to be that good at gambling on football TBH.

[Ash]

Very harsh

 

Why?

 

I don't think having a few quid on an accumulator warrants an 18month ban mind. Rio got 8 month for missing a drug test, Berahino got a minimal suspension for failing a test - both amount to serious cheating in my opinion. Meanwhile, Joey has a 5 team accumulator through the week for entertainment and gets 18 month. Just seems an extraordinary length of time for the actual non-effect his betting has caused.

 

1260 bets between 2006 & 2016

 

2.42 bets a week isn't really a lot.

 

If he backed against his own team, and there was a suggestion of match fixing then that would open a can of worms, agreed. But from what I;ve read there is no suggestion of match fixing.

 

Backing against his own team is probably what's caused the ban to be so lengthy. Although it may not directly be match fixing, he could indirectly be influencing the outcome (if he's let on he's had a bet, etc).

[jdckelly]

Honestly the rules are clear enough and breaking them over 1000 times makes me think fair enough.

[khay]

£5 winnings against a total stake of nearly £2K? He doesn't seem to be that good at gambling on football TBH.

 

To be fair those were against his own team. I'd need to see the rest to pass verdict on how good he is.

[DoTheAmeobi86]

Very harsh

 

Why?

 

I don't think having a few quid on an accumulator warrants an 18month ban mind. Rio got 8 month for missing a drug test, Berahino got a minimal suspension for failing a test - both amount to serious cheating in my opinion. Meanwhile, Joey has a 5 team accumulator through the week for entertainment and gets 18 month. Just seems an extraordinary length of time for the actual non-effect his betting has caused.

 

He's broken very specific rules 1260 times. He also placed bets on his own team to lose which opens up a whole new argument in terms of match fixing.

 

the length of the ban is ridiculous and its only this long as its Joey Barton if it was any other player the punishment wouldnt be so severe. Regardless of the amount of bets he has put on which he has owned up to its still excessive and lets face it he isnt the only player who will be doing this.

 

Other players have committed more serious breaches of rules and not faced 18mth punishments

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

The excuse every single time with Barton is 'if it was someone else, they wouldn't have been treated as harshly', the point that's regularly ignored is that it's not someone else and it's regularly him.

[Wullie]

Any betting where you're doing it for or against your own team is fair game really, even if you're backing them it's a massive conflict of interest - what if the manager wants you to play for a point with five minutes to go but you need them to win? He had himself on first goalscorer in one game, raising the possibility of him shooting instead of laying off for a tap in - the problem there is that the rules don't seem to make much allowance for how much he has staked relative to his earnings. I doubt his £3 on himself FGS at probably 10/1 is going to affect his life very much, in fact none of this money is, so the 18 months looks harsh in that context. It's clearly not a money-making exercise.

[samptime29]

I just find it mental that Rio get 8 months for the Drugs ban and Barton gets 18 months for this.

 

 

[Stifler]

If he wasn't betting in matches that involved his own team (especially against them) then I would say a ban would be harsh.

He is right though that the clubs, leagues, and FA are all promoting betting and getting into bed with bookmakers, however like everything with Barton he only points it out for a case in his defence and not because he should point it out. I can't help but feel that the new laws with betting is all done to prevent betting companies from losing out, than it is to protect the sport from widespread corruption.

[Nicky]

Was Lee Charnley placing the bets for him or something and not declaring his winnings?

[Guest firetotheworks]

I just find it mental that Rio get 8 months for the Drugs ban and Barton gets 18 months for this.

 

 

 

Rio got 8 months for missing a drugs test, he didn't get a drugs ban.

[ponsaelius]

Hasn't he bet on himself to be first goalscorer in one of those games? Like fuck is that harsh. Stupid cunt.

[steve_69]

Bet against his own team only when he wasn't playing or even on the bench. No match fixing implications at all.

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

Bet against his own team only when he wasn't playing or even on the bench. No match fixing implications at all.

 

 

Even if this is a legitimate point, the rules are extremely clear, like.

[Guest neesy111]

Bet against his own team only when he wasn't playing or even on the bench. No match fixing implications at all.

 

 

The rules are clear regarding this.  He's broken them a stupid amount of times.  It's a completely deserved ban.

[steve_69]

Bet against his own team only when he wasn't playing or even on the bench. No match fixing implications at all.

 

 

The rules are clear regarding this.  He's broken them a stupid amount of times.  It's a completely deserved ban.

 

I get that but half the posts about him betting against his own team omitted this point and it's quite an important one. We're not a tabloid newspaper FFS!

Deserves a ban but 18 months is f***ing ridiculous. He's broken rules but hasn't cheated or brought the game into disrepute.