Joey Barton (now retired)

[Nobody]

The rules are wrong. There should be nothing wrong with backing yourself to win.

What about backing yourself as FGS? Or if your manager wants to play for a draw in the dying minutes but you've got a bet that you want to win?

[Pilko]

Imagine earning 30-40k a week and sticking 3 quid on yourself to score to win like thirty quid.

 

The guy clearly has an addiction.

[Andymc1]

Imagine earning 30-40k a week and sticking 3 quid on yourself to score to win like thirty quid.

 

The guy clearly has an addiction.

 

Yep, and this is the reason why the FA have handled the situation horrendously. Hardly surprising like.

[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.

 

Same thing imo.

 

Mental.

 

How's it mental? To miss a drugs test 3 times, you've either on drugs and trying to evade, or you're so incredibly stupid, that you deserve to punished like you've been taking drugs.

 

Absolutely no excuse for missing 3 drugs tests.

 

3 times The punishment isn't what I was referring to, it's the bit where you equate missing a drugs test as being the same thing as a drugs ban, when it obviously isn't. Had he been given a drugs ban, it would have been a lot longer than 8 months.

[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.

 

Same thing imo.

 

Mental.

 

That's the idea behind it isn't it? You treat the missed drugs test as harsh as a failed one, otherwise you'd just skip the drugs test.

 

Nah I know. I think 8 months is fine. The original point was that 18 months for Barton compared to 8 months for a 'drug ban' is crazy, when it's not. The ban was for missing a drugs test, not failing one. Had he failed one he'd have been banned for a lot longer.

[Nobody]

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.

 

Same thing imo.

 

Mental.

 

That's the idea behind it isn't it? You treat the missed drugs test as harsh as a failed one, otherwise you'd just skip the drugs test.

 

Nah I know. I think 8 months is fine. The original point was that 18 months for Barton compared to 8 months for a 'drug ban' is crazy, when it's not. The ban was for missing a drugs test, not failing one. Had he failed one he'd have been banned for a lot longer.

Missing a drugs test should be treated the same as failing one IMO.

[Andymc1]

8 weeks for MDMA use - https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/2775356/saido-berahino-mdma-ecstasy-drugs-test-fa-ban/

 

18 months for having a bet.

[Guest palnese]

'A bet'

[Magpie]

Deserves a ban but 18 months is ridiculously harsh.

[Guest neesy111]

'A bet'

times by 1260

[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.

 

Same thing imo.

 

Mental.

 

That's the idea behind it isn't it? You treat the missed drugs test as harsh as a failed one, otherwise you'd just skip the drugs test.

 

Nah I know. I think 8 months is fine. The original point was that 18 months for Barton compared to 8 months for a 'drug ban' is crazy, when it's not. The ban was for missing a drugs test, not failing one. Had he failed one he'd have been banned for a lot longer.

Missing a drugs test should be treated the same as failing one IMO.

 

Luckily the legal system doesn't.

[Guest firetotheworks]

8 weeks for MDMA use - https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/2775356/saido-berahino-mdma-ecstasy-drugs-test-fa-ban/

 

18 months for having a bet.

 

Or to spin it the other way -

 

8 weeks for taking illegal, non-performance enhancing drug.

 

18 months for betting illegally 1,260 times, including for and against the team that he plays for.

[Andymc1]

'A bet'

times by 1260

 

Over 10 years = 2.42 per week. So let me phrase that again, the odd bet.

 

Add in the fact the bloke has an addiction as well. For some reason, people don't seem to take gambling addiction seriously. It looks like the FA are in the same boat as those imbeciles. The sheer lack of help provided for pro footballers with a gambling problem is outrageous given we're in 2017.

[Guest firetotheworks]

'A bet'

times by 1260

 

Over 10 years = 2.42 per week. So let me phrase that again, the odd bet.

 

Add in the fact the bloke has an addiction as well. For some reason, people don't seem to take gambling addiction seriously. It looks like the FA are in the same boat as those imbeciles. The sheer lack of help provided for pro footballers with a gambling problem is outrageous given we're in 2017.

 

He didn't bet 2.42 times a week, he broke the rules of his profession 2.42 times a week. With that in mind, that's a canny bit.

[Andymc1]

'A bet'

times by 1260

 

Over 10 years = 2.42 per week. So let me phrase that again, the odd bet.

 

Add in the fact the bloke has an addiction as well. For some reason, people don't seem to take gambling addiction seriously. It looks like the FA are in the same boat as those imbeciles. The sheer lack of help provided for pro footballers with a gambling problem is outrageous given we're in 2017.

 

He didn't bet 2.42 times a week, he broke the rules of his profession 2.42 times a week. With that in mind, that's a canny bit.

 

Yes, and it's clear that he broke the rules due to an addiction. Absolutely ludicrous to not take that into account. 

[Guest neesy111]

Sorry but imo betting against your own team for me isn't acceptable even if you have an addiction.  You just don't do it at all.

[Andymc1]

They should be helping footballers with a gambling addiction, not shutting them out. That is what I'm trying to get at here.

 

The main point of a punishment is to stop the same action being carried out again - until they get to the crux of the problem they will never achieve that, no matter how long the suspension.

[Guest firetotheworks]

'A bet'

times by 1260

 

Over 10 years = 2.42 per week. So let me phrase that again, the odd bet.

 

Add in the fact the bloke has an addiction as well. For some reason, people don't seem to take gambling addiction seriously. It looks like the FA are in the same boat as those imbeciles. The sheer lack of help provided for pro footballers with a gambling problem is outrageous given we're in 2017.

 

He didn't bet 2.42 times a week, he broke the rules of his profession 2.42 times a week. With that in mind, that's a canny bit.

 

Yes, and it's clear that he broke the rules due to an addiction. Absolutely ludicrous to not take that into account. 

 

I'm not sure how addiction comes into him specifically betting on his own team or football in general tbh. He hasn't been banned just simply for gambling, it's because he's done it outside of the rules. How does an addiction to gambling excuse that when he could have simply bet elsewhere?

[samptime29]

They should be helping footballers with a gambling addiction, not shutting them out. That is what I'm trying to get at here.

 

The main point of a punishment is to stop the same action being carried out again - until they get to the crux of the problem they will never achieve that, no matter how long the suspension.

 

Totally agree.

[Andymc1]

'A bet'

times by 1260

 

Over 10 years = 2.42 per week. So let me phrase that again, the odd bet.

 

Add in the fact the bloke has an addiction as well. For some reason, people don't seem to take gambling addiction seriously. It looks like the FA are in the same boat as those imbeciles. The sheer lack of help provided for pro footballers with a gambling problem is outrageous given we're in 2017.

 

He didn't bet 2.42 times a week, he broke the rules of his profession 2.42 times a week. With that in mind, that's a canny bit.

 

Yes, and it's clear that he broke the rules due to an addiction. Absolutely ludicrous to not take that into account. 

 

I'm not sure how addiction comes into him specifically betting on his own team or football in general tbh. He hasn't been banned just simply for gambling, it's because he's done it outside of the rules. How does an addiction to gambling excuse that when he could have simply bet elsewhere?

 

It's clear to me that he was gambling on these events as he has an addiction. Looks at the varied events and varied stakes he places - it reeks of gambling addiction. Since when have rules mattered to those who are addicted to something? He did bet elsewhere, there were 15,000 bets on his account with 1260 on football.

 

I agree there should have been some sort of repercussion but an 18 month ban achieves absolutely nothing. 

[wyn davies]

That's him done, bankruptcy will be next.

[Guest firetotheworks]

'A bet'

times by 1260

 

Over 10 years = 2.42 per week. So let me phrase that again, the odd bet.

 

Add in the fact the bloke has an addiction as well. For some reason, people don't seem to take gambling addiction seriously. It looks like the FA are in the same boat as those imbeciles. The sheer lack of help provided for pro footballers with a gambling problem is outrageous given we're in 2017.

 

He didn't bet 2.42 times a week, he broke the rules of his profession 2.42 times a week. With that in mind, that's a canny bit.

 

Yes, and it's clear that he broke the rules due to an addiction. Absolutely ludicrous to not take that into account. 

 

I'm not sure how addiction comes into him specifically betting on his own team or football in general tbh. He hasn't been banned just simply for gambling, it's because he's done it outside of the rules. How does an addiction to gambling excuse that when he could have simply bet elsewhere?

 

It's clear to me that he was gambling on these events as he has an addiction. Looks at the varied events and varied stakes he places - it reeks of gambling addiction. Since when have rules mattered to those who are addicted to something? He did bet elsewhere, there were 15,000 bets on his account with 1260 on football.

 

I agree there should have been some sort of repercussion but an 18 month ban achieves absolutely nothing. 

 

Nah, I don't buy it tbh. I'm not saying he doesn't have a gambling addiction, but he knew what he was doing like. Addiction or not, gambling on your own team and placing bets on yourself is obviously against the rules and proper stupid. I don't buy this shit about it being harsher because of who he is either, that's always his excuse because he's always fucking up in some way.

[Andymc1]

'A bet'

times by 1260

 

Over 10 years = 2.42 per week. So let me phrase that again, the odd bet.

 

Add in the fact the bloke has an addiction as well. For some reason, people don't seem to take gambling addiction seriously. It looks like the FA are in the same boat as those imbeciles. The sheer lack of help provided for pro footballers with a gambling problem is outrageous given we're in 2017.

 

He didn't bet 2.42 times a week, he broke the rules of his profession 2.42 times a week. With that in mind, that's a canny bit.

 

Yes, and it's clear that he broke the rules due to an addiction. Absolutely ludicrous to not take that into account. 

 

I'm not sure how addiction comes into him specifically betting on his own team or football in general tbh. He hasn't been banned just simply for gambling, it's because he's done it outside of the rules. How does an addiction to gambling excuse that when he could have simply bet elsewhere?

 

It's clear to me that he was gambling on these events as he has an addiction. Looks at the varied events and varied stakes he places - it reeks of gambling addiction. Since when have rules mattered to those who are addicted to something? He did bet elsewhere, there were 15,000 bets on his account with 1260 on football.

 

I agree there should have been some sort of repercussion but an 18 month ban achieves absolutely nothing. 

 

Nah, I don't buy it tbh. I'm not saying he doesn't have a gambling addiction, but he knew what he was doing like. Addiction or not, gambling on your own team and placing bets on yourself is obviously against the rules and proper stupid. I don't buy this s*** about it being harsher because of who he is either, that's always his excuse because he's always f***ing up in some way.

 

I don't care who it is, it could be fucking Jack Colback. My point that the punishment achieves nothing still stands.

 

If he was solely betting on his own team/himself, then it would be different but I do think it's a case of him just betting on absolutely anything available.

[Guest firetotheworks]

'A bet'

times by 1260

 

Over 10 years = 2.42 per week. So let me phrase that again, the odd bet.

 

Add in the fact the bloke has an addiction as well. For some reason, people don't seem to take gambling addiction seriously. It looks like the FA are in the same boat as those imbeciles. The sheer lack of help provided for pro footballers with a gambling problem is outrageous given we're in 2017.

 

He didn't bet 2.42 times a week, he broke the rules of his profession 2.42 times a week. With that in mind, that's a canny bit.

 

Yes, and it's clear that he broke the rules due to an addiction. Absolutely ludicrous to not take that into account. 

 

I'm not sure how addiction comes into him specifically betting on his own team or football in general tbh. He hasn't been banned just simply for gambling, it's because he's done it outside of the rules. How does an addiction to gambling excuse that when he could have simply bet elsewhere?

 

It's clear to me that he was gambling on these events as he has an addiction. Looks at the varied events and varied stakes he places - it reeks of gambling addiction. Since when have rules mattered to those who are addicted to something? He did bet elsewhere, there were 15,000 bets on his account with 1260 on football.

 

I agree there should have been some sort of repercussion but an 18 month ban achieves absolutely nothing. 

 

Nah, I don't buy it tbh. I'm not saying he doesn't have a gambling addiction, but he knew what he was doing like. Addiction or not, gambling on your own team and placing bets on yourself is obviously against the rules and proper stupid. I don't buy this s*** about it being harsher because of who he is either, that's always his excuse because he's always f***ing up in some way.

 

I don't care who it is, it could be fucking Jack Colback. My point that the punishment achieves nothing still stands.

 

If he was solely betting on his own team/himself, then it would be different but I do think it's a case of him just betting on absolutely anything available.

 

That's a fair point, and probably expands beyond gambling. I find it hard to have any sympathy in this one this particular case, though.

[Nobody]

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.

 

Same thing imo.

 

Mental.

 

That's the idea behind it isn't it? You treat the missed drugs test as harsh as a failed one, otherwise you'd just skip the drugs test.

 

Nah I know. I think 8 months is fine. The original point was that 18 months for Barton compared to 8 months for a 'drug ban' is crazy, when it's not. The ban was for missing a drugs test, not failing one. Had he failed one he'd have been banned for a lot longer.

Missing a drugs test should be treated the same as failing one IMO.

 

Luckily the legal system doesn't.

Pretty sure it does in athletics and cross country skiing etc. Could be wrong, mind.