Joey Barton

[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.

[BlueStar]

Opportunity to recycle this again I guess

 

[number9shirt]

Opportunity to recycle this again I guess

 

Joey Barton banned for 18 months because he will come in your face

[Bimpy474]

No sympathy whatsoever, he knew the rules and frankly, fuck him. He's his own worst enemy, as always.

[Kaizero]

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.

 

 

Missing a drug test equals an admission of guilt within the context of professional sports, IMO.

[triggs]

 

 

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.

 

 

Missing a drug test equals an admission of guilt within the context of professional sports, IMO.

Think you're allowed miss three in athletics. Think Mo Farah had missed two before the Olympics

[Figures 1-0 Football]

I have sympathy for Barton in the fact that I agree that having a gambling addiction is incredibly tough when combined with a love for football. The footballing authorities and clubs are more than happy to sell their soul to gambling companies in order to make money. Gambling companies exploit vulnerable addicts with constant adverts and opportunities to place bets. I mean fgs, usually before every TV kick off and at HT we have an advert giving us the latest odds on goalscorers and correct scores. Grounds are surrounded by bookmakers, odds and adverts.

 

However, he shouldn't have ever bet on a game that he is involved in. The fact that he did is the reason his ban is so lengthy. The amounts that he placed are irrelevant, they also need to set a clear precedent moving forward that players caught doing it will be harshly dealt with.

 

It's sad that the FA didn't give Barton the option of reducing his ban if he went through some sort of rehabilitation process. That would not only encourage him to get the help he quite clearly needs but also set a good example that the FA aren't just the bent, backstabbing bunch of 60 year old white men that we know they are.

[Collage]

Hope he's suspended from tweeting as well

[Foluwashola]

Can't help but feel slightly sorry for him reading his statement like. He's a thick bastard but 18 months is devoid of any common sense.

[Andymc1]

I have sympathy for Barton in the fact that I agree that having a gambling addiction is incredibly tough when combined with a love for football. The footballing authorities and clubs are more than happy to sell their soul to gambling companies in order to make money. Gambling companies exploit vulnerable addicts with constant adverts and opportunities to place bets. I mean fgs, usually before every TV kick off and at HT we have an advert giving us the latest odds on goalscorers and correct scores. Grounds are surrounded by bookmakers, odds and adverts.

 

However, he shouldn't have ever bet on a game that he is involved in. The fact that he did is the reason his ban is so lengthy. The amounts that he placed are irrelevant, they also need to set a clear precedent moving forward that players caught doing it will be harshly dealt with.

 

It's sad that the FA didn't give Barton the option of reducing his ban if he went through some sort of rehabilitation process. That would not only encourage him to get the help he quite clearly needs but also set a good example that the FA aren't just the bent, backstabbing bunch of 60 year old white men that we know they are.

 

I'm must be addicted given I read the "fgs" as first goalscorer when reading this post

[Paully]

[Deuce]

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]

 

tl,dr, Joey.

 

Couldn't care less about him.

[xLiaaamx]

Loved the club so much as his likers would have it. Aye, so much he frequently wanted us to lose.

[Stottie]

Gambling addiction does exist, but it means you bet against your own team? Pull the other one.

[Anon]

Tickles me seeing a millionaire chucking £2 on a correct score bet

[Decky]

I can't say I agree with them effectively ending the man's career when he has an obvious addiction problem. Maybe a 6 month ban with him getting some sort of counselling would have been a more constructive approach rather than just throwing the book at him and potentially making his problem worse. That would give him a chance to overcome his problems and see out his playing career with some game time.

[Hanshithispantz]

The FA probably read his Twitter account before making their decision, in which case 18 months is lenient.

[Klaus]

People feeling sorry for this cunt

 

He is a lifting human being, but has the occasional bantz on twitter and gets sympathy.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Even if he has an addiction, which as a liberal I would treat rather than punish, the FA can't be too careful. What if his addiction gets him into debt, which then makes him vulnerable to people who want to fix matches? Or any of the other many conflicts of interest possible. They have to be strong on this for the integrity of the game.