Jump to content

Sandro Tonali


The Prophet

Recommended Posts

For him to be available from August feels like a reasonable result when the maximum was up to three years. I still think it's overboard though, given the victimless nature of the offence. 

 

But to ban him from training is an utterly draconian, overzealous and regressive way to deal with the situation, and I'd say that even if he didn't have an addiction. 

 

If there's any proof that he's actually used his privileged position to game the system - at the expense of the sport's integrity - then fine. But I see absolutely no indication that that has actually happened and therefore the punishment far, far outweighs the crime. Not to mention the other point that everyone rightly makes about the sport's hypocritical position re gambling culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

The banning thing doesn't make much sense when you think about it.

 

They should be able to play. But get hefty fines. Like 80% of their salaries for a couple of years. And banned from getting contract extensions or pay increases for those periods.

It makes perfect sense.  They sacrifice a part of their career, and it acts as a warning to others.  It means that clubs take an element of responsibility for ensuring that their players are following the rules (and the law).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It makes perfect sense.  They sacrifice a part of their career, and it acts as a warning to others.  It means that clubs take an element of responsibility for ensuring that their players are following the rules (and the law).  

How can clubs take responsibility for people gambling?

 

Toney had a £50,000 fine. He'll likely earn millions for sitting on his arse with his ban.

 

Make that a £1.25m fine.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

For him to be available from August feels like a reasonable result when the maximum was up to three years. I still think it's overboard though, given the victimless nature of the offence. 

 

But to ban him from training is an utterly draconian, overzealous and regressive way to deal with the situation, and I'd say that even if he didn't have an addiction. 

 

If there's any proof that he's actually used his privileged position to game the system - at the expense of the sport's integrity - then fine. But I see absolutely no indication that that has actually happened and therefore the punishment far, far outweighs the crime. Not to mention the other point that everyone rightly makes about the sport's hypocritical position re gambling culture.

 

If he can't train I can imagine the next 8 months or so being hell for him. Ideally you'd have wanted him here the whole time training, learning the lingo, etc. but it's only natural he's going to need to split his time between here and Italy where he'll have his family around him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

How can clubs take responsibility for people gambling?

 

Toney had a £50,000 fine. He'll likely earn millions for sitting on his arse with his ban.

 

Make that a £1.25m fine.  

Do both, if you like.  But I’m in full agreement with extensive bans for breaching gambling regs.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Ikon said:

I’m ok with 10 months if allowed to train. Otherwise it’s fucking stupid in every way. 

Agreed. Surely for an athlete rehabilitation has to include training. The TV currently recommend a 10 min walk to help mental health! Taking away this option for him does not help with rehabilitation or his mental state!! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a ban is the only real detterent. The issue is there doesn't seem to be any real thought behind it outside of "throw the book at them". A 5 game ban could be sufficient for example? There's no science behind a 10 month ban, just as there wasn't behind Toney's ban, it's just an arbitrary 'long ban' decided by people who frequently show they're completely out of touch.

 

Footballers should be able to bet on football*, there's no reason for them not to, prohibition doesn't work. The extent of modern markets means it's impossible to stop outside of stupidity (such as Sandro's case) so these bans will not effect anyone wanting to fix a market.

 

If you remove prohibition, any player still skirting the rules can reasonably have the book thrown at them without much sympathy.

 

*The FAs/FIFA could easily set up things which allow players to bet on certain markets.

 

 

Edited by Hanshithispantz

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Gazzaschicken said:

The lesson here is that if you are a pro footballer and have the choice between betting on football, skipping a drugs test (Rio) or kicking a fan in the face (cantina). You should always choose kicking a fan in the face or skipping that drugs test


have to imagine that wouldn’t be the case nowadays though mate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even long drug bans are nonsensical unless it's performanceenhancing, banging cocaine on a weekend is hardly going to improve a players performances :lol:

 

Wasn't it weed with Rio anyway? Nobody is sucking buckets to make themselves run faster.

 

Fines and forced rehab would make much more sense imo.

 

 

Edited by Hanshithispantz

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

Agreed. Surely for an athlete rehabilitation has to include training. The TV currently recommend a 10 min walk to help mental health! Taking away this option for him does not help with rehabilitation or his mental state!! 

I’m sure Eddie will have a personal trainer lined up and loads of videos for him to study(not bluey’s).

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ikon said:

Definitely. The fitness part isn’t the problem really. It’s more the mental side of if. Social side, feeling a part of something, team mates and the support and everyday things that makes it easier to come through strongly. Totally different struggle otherwise, especially in a new country and culture. 

 

I would imagine the club will find a way to keep him integrated in the squad, Ashley would have washed his hands and forgot about him but now it's a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mattoon said:

 

I would imagine the club will find a way to keep him integrated in the squad, Ashley would have washed his hands and forgot about him but now it's a different story.


For sure, can’t see it any other way. I just think that not being involved in rather normal everyday stuff like training will have a massive negative effect. Would be extremely surprised if it didn’t. He is used to play football every day and has done so since he was a kid. Never mind in a new environment. Not being forced to stay away from that would be a massive massive step away from entering a much deeper depression. I’m sure it will be tough enough anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mattoon said:

 

I would imagine the club will find a way to keep him integrated in the squad, Ashley would have washed his hands and forgot about him but now it's a different story.

 

Think it was Krafth, might be wrong, who did some scouting and stuff to keep him involved and in and around the group whilst on the long road to recovery. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

Matty Longstaff doesn't play for us but the club are helping him get fit to find a club, can we not do the same with Tonali?

 Do you mean keeping Tonali fit? If so, keeping him fit ain’t the problem imo. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is Fagioli only 7 months and Tonali 10 months? Wasn't Fagioli the main perpertrator in the first place? 

 

Also the hypocritical nature of all of this - it's okay to take tens of millions in sponsorships from betting companies but if one of the players indulge in their sponsors products then hell hath no fury

 

Imagine if they had this type of furore every time a player had a can of Budweiser

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kingxlnc said:

Why is Fagioli only 7 months and Tonali 10 months? Wasn't Fagioli the main perpertrator in the first place? 

 

Also the hypocritical nature of all of this - it's okay to take tens of millions in sponsorships from betting companies but if one of the players indulge in their sponsors products then hell hath no fury

 

Imagine if they had this type of furore every time a player had a can of Budweiser

No one really knows tbh, it’s all just media talk at the minute. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is that this won’t be the end of it, as I am presuming that if he is a gambling addict that he didn’t stop betting on football once he signed for us, meaning the FA could still get involved with a separate ban for his time here.

 

You would think that this would run concurrently but they took an age with Toney’s case that it might not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...