Topic: Ivan Toney Banned for 8 months

[TepidT2O]

Now, don’t get me wrong, he shouldn’t have done this…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65626690

But it seems utterly absurd that you could break both of someone’s legs and be back months earlier.

You could racially abuse someone …. Far less.

Why is the punishment so much higher for this? Makes no sense at all.

[CraigDS]

Does seem excessively long, or maybe it's more the inconsistency as you point out that's wrong.

Maybe there is more to it than we know just yet.

[TepidT2O]

Does seem excessively long, or maybe it's more the inconsistency as you point out that's wrong.

Maybe there is more to it than we know just yet.

It’s inline with joey Barton, but again, that fucker has done far worse before

[Mister Flip Flop]

Rules are rules, break them and face the consequences. Unless you are Manchester City that is....

[DangerScouse]

Now, don’t get me wrong, he shouldn’t have done this…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65626690

But it seems utterly absurd that you could break both of someone’s legs and be back months earlier.

You could racially abuse someone …. Far less.

Why is the punishment so much higher for this? Makes no sense at all.

Not to mention the grotesquely over saturation of betting promotion associated with football.

[TepidT2O]

Not to mention the grotesquely over saturation of betting promotion associated with football.

Exactly

[rafathegaffa83]

Why is the punishment so much higher for this? Makes no sense at all.

Integrity of the game. Players being allowed to gamble would surely impact it. They've clearly used the Barton one as a blueprint and downgraded it accordingly. The Sturridge   suspension was far harsher by comparison and had no impact on match results

[Kopenhagen]

Anything to do with "sporting integrity" the authorities take seriously because it affects the brand. Which makes their response to Abu Dhabi utterly farcical of course.

[Hoenheim]

Suarez got 4 months for a bite, he would have been better off biting two players for those 8 months

[Vote For Pedro]

Integrity of the game. Players being allowed to gamble would surely impact it. They've clearly used the Barton one as a blueprint and downgraded it accordingly. The Sturridge   suspension was far harsher by comparison and had no impact on match results

Integrity of the game? Sounds like the punchline to a nasty joke. With that in mind I'll pop on the Champions League semi.

[RyanBabel19]

Because they have no fucking idea what the integrity of the game actually is.

Toney could be subjected to vile racism and the one(s) dishing it out would get farrrrrr less

[Haggis36]

I mean speaking of integrity, why has it taken 6 months to conclude on this, only to announce a ban with 2 games of the season remaining where nearly half of the ban will cover the off-season? Meanwhile he's been allowed to play all season, despite it seemingly being common knowledge he was set to receive a lengthy ban for this? I could say the same for one or two other players who have outstanding legal issues (cough) but in this case he was directly charged by the FA and admitted to many of the charges.

Then of course there is the hypocrisy which was well summed up in this tweet I saw from Colin Millar: Ivan Toney broke the rules but football clutching its pearls over gambling is absurd. Brentford's shirt sponsor? Hollywood Bets. His rise to prominence was in SkyBet competitions. He played in Newcastle's Fun88 sponsored shirt. Gambling help and rehabilitation should be offered.

[Max_powers]

Suarez got 4 months for a bite, he would have been better off biting two players for those 8 months

Its really hard to make money by biting people.

[DonkeyWan]

Because:

Broken leg = sad face
racial slur = angry face
Betting irregularities = angry betting firms and potential loss of earnings for the league overall, it's important the integrity of the revenue streams is maintained and anything that might potentially impact a sponsorship deal be dealt with with alacrity to the fullest extent of the law.

Hope this helps.

[MBL?]

Its really hard to make money by biting people.

Could have stuck a tenner on it before the match.

[redgriffin73]

Missing the last two games when he's been playing all this time seems a bit mad. 
I assume he'd already bet on their upcoming games against Spurs and City?!

[thaddeus]

If players use their insider knowledge to bet or inform others are how to bet then the gambling firms lose out.  That's why the penalty is so high.

Examples like Tripper getting his mates to bet on his transfer doesn't impact on the integrity of the game but it sees the single biggest sponsorship group in football losing money.

It's fortunate the league title is pretty much done and dusted as it would be farcical for Toney to sit out such an important game when the ban could have started six months ago or in two weeks' time.  If Spurs beat Brentford and nick one of the European places I'd expect the team missing out will be pretty annoyed.  Toney would have run rings around Dier.

[classycarra]

If players use their insider knowledge to bet or inform others are how to bet then the gambling firms lose out.  That's why the penalty is so high.

Examples like Tripper getting his mates to bet on his transfer doesn't impact on the integrity of the game but it sees the single biggest sponsorship group in football losing money.

Not only that, but it brings the 'integrity' of the league's games into question if a player has bet on games they've been involved in. When you mess with the business, and you're a small cog of it, the business is going to come down on you hard

It's fortunate the league title is pretty much done and dusted as it would be farcical for Toney to sit out such an important game when the ban could have started six months ago or in two weeks' time.  If Spurs beat Brentford and nick one of the European places I'd expect the team missing out will be pretty annoyed.  Toney would have run rings around Dier.

you're less cynical than me when I saw the notification, without looking at Brentford's fixtures, knew that there wouldn't be any consequential games left for them - I think PL has been waiting to dish out this punishment for the right time before the summer.

[kesey]

Now, don’t get me wrong, he shouldn’t have done this…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65626690

But it seems utterly absurd that you could break both of someone’s legs and be back months

 abuse someone

Why is the punishment so much higher for this? Makes no sense at all.

Fixed that one and it was deady easy.

[rafathegaffa83]

If players use their insider knowledge to bet or inform others are how to bet then the gambling firms lose out.  That's why the penalty is so high.

Examples like Tripper getting his mates to bet on his transfer doesn't impact on the integrity of the game but it sees the single biggest sponsorship group in football losing money.

This

Not only that, but it brings the 'integrity' of the league's games into question if a player has bet on games they've been involved in. When you mess with the business, and you're a small cog of it, the business is going to come down on you hard

And this

[Tonyh8su]

Rules are rules, break them and face the consequences. Unless you are Manchester City that is....

Is correct. 115 charges until 2018 and stopped cooperating, no hassle lads win the treble there.

[macmanamanaman]

This ruling is entirely consistent with the league´s values.
Betting is bad, mmmmkay?
Now, buying a team with blood money earned by a despotic state while trampling on human rights? We will let that slide, for now.

[AndyMuller]

Crazy long ban that.

[Oh Campione]

The ban is a correct length following similar punishments but doesn't make it right.

How can gambling be such an integral part of the game in terms of shirt sponsorship, advertising, stadium sponsorship, all the lower leagues are sponsored by Sky Bet!

You can't have gambling featuring everywhere in football and then be surprised when something like this happens

[amir87]

Crazy long ban that.

He must be gutted.

He had a bet it was only going to be 6 months.

[gazzalfc]

This feels more like an 8 month ban but brought down to 4 on appeal.

He's an idiot for doing it and the bans should be high to deter others but this is more getting the headline rather than a punishment

[AndyMuller]

He must be gutted.

He had a bet it was only going to be 6 months.

 

[Knight]

Anything that could come within 100 miles of match fixing needs to be come down on very hard. The NFL has extremely harsh sanctions for this sort of thing too. Think it’s fair enough. I also don’t think it’s hypocritical to accept gambling sponsorship AND punish players for betting on football. A player is in a very different position to others. Personally I probably wouldn’t allow gambling sponsorships because I think the gambling industry ends up preying on vulnerable people but if you do allow it it’s totally reasonable to have strict rules around what players can do.

[LovelyCushionedHeader]

Anything that could come within 100 miles of match fixing needs to be come down on very hard. The NFL has extremely harsh sanctions for this sort of thing too. Think it’s fair enough. I also don’t think it’s hypocritical to accept gambling sponsorship AND punish players for betting on football. A player is in a very different position to others. Personally I probably wouldn’t allow gambling sponsorships because I think the gambling industry ends up preying on vulnerable people but if you do allow it it’s totally reasonable to have strict rules around what players can do.

It ultimately depends on what he has been betting on. Anything involving Brentford then absolutely he should have the book thrown at him. Similarly if he's bet on PL fixtures with any sort of inside knowledge then fine.

But if his bets are completely unrelated to himself and his club, I don't see it as being that much of an issue. At that point, he's just being banned so the PL can keep betting companies happy as Toney is probably more likely to take money off them than your average Joe.

It's a bit of a joke that a low level employee of a club in England isn't even allowed to bet on a fixture in Turkmenistan. That's just the bookies reducing their risk in the same way they'll ban anyone who is remotely profitable over a sustained period of time.

[damomad]

If he is suffering from a gambling addiction, I have sympathy for him and I hope he gets help.

In terms of the betting on football, he's 100% in the wrong and should know the rules. There's probably 100's of other sports to gamble on, it's really not that difficult to draw the line on football betting. The punishment is harsh but that's the point. 

[Knight]

It ultimately depends on what he has been betting on. Anything involving Brentford then absolutely he should have the book thrown at him. Similarly if he's bet on PL fixtures with any sort of inside knowledge then fine.

But if his bets are completely unrelated to himself and his club, I don't see it as being that much of an issue. At that point, he's just being banned so the PL can keep betting companies happy as Toney is probably more likely to take money off them than your average Joe.

It's a bit of a joke that a low level employee of a club in England isn't even allowed to bet on a fixture in Turkmenistan. That's just the bookies reducing their risk in the same way they'll ban anyone who is remotely profitable over a sustained period of time.

But ‘no betting on football’ is a very clear way to draw the line. Otherwise you start getting into all sorts of complex ‘this is ok but this isn’t’ grey areas.

[Flaccido Dongingo]

Is correct. 115 charges until 2018 and stopped cooperating, no hassle lads win the treble there.

Wait until they start to investigate 2019-2023, the entire financial package for Vigo would be interesting, obviously he only cost £51m* and is the bargain of the season and Pip is a genius, but it would be interesting to see how many of his friends and family received "gifts" around that time, from shell companies that no longer exist.

[Barneylfc∗]

But ‘no betting on football’ is a very clear way to draw the line. Otherwise you start getting into all sorts of complex ‘this is ok but this isn’t’ grey areas.

There does need to be a line drawn for sure.

However I still don't agree with the punishment given he has to promote betting day in day out and works in a profession that actively encourages betting literally every single day of the year.

If you worked for a drinks company promoting drinks 24/7, it would be pretty difficult not to sample what you're promoting day in day out.

[Cid]

Don't mess with the money I guess?  Someone gets their legs broken or their face bit it's bad but the business goes on, any sort of betting irregularities risk damaging the profits, risk the faith in the product.

Mess with the money and you're gonna get whacked.

[classycarra]

If you worked for a drinks company promoting drinks 24/7, it would be pretty difficult not to sample what you're promoting day in day out.

On that analogy though, they'd be punished if they were drunk at work.

I don't think gambling (or alcohol, amongst other things) should be promoted in football, and I'd like laws in place that prevent it (similar to tobacco advertising laws) but at the same time I don't think there's hypocrisy in punishing players for partaking in it.

[newterp]

he should have just set up off shore betting accounts, and then claimed it was an (insert team) fan that blew the whistle on him - so no need to rush to a judgment.

[Barneylfc∗]

On that analogy though, they'd be punished if they were drunk at work.

I don't think gambling (or alcohol, amongst other things) should be promoted in football, and I'd like laws in place that prevent it (similar to tobacco advertising laws) but at the same time I don't think there's hypocrisy in punishing players for partaking in it.

Of course, but I doubt Toney was chucking a tenner on himself to score the next goal in play 

[classycarra]

Of course, but I doubt Toney was chucking a tenner on himself to score the next goal in play 

Haha, has he ever run off the pitch for a toilet break

It ultimately depends on what he has been betting on. Anything involving Brentford then absolutely he should have the book thrown at him. Similarly if he's bet on PL fixtures with any sort of inside knowledge then fine.

But if his bets are completely unrelated to himself and his club, I don't see it as being that much of an issue. At that point, he's just being banned so the PL can keep betting companies happy as Toney is probably more likely to take money off them than your average Joe.

It's a bit of a joke that a low level employee of a club in England isn't even allowed to bet on a fixture in Turkmenistan. That's just the bookies reducing their risk in the same way they'll ban anyone who is remotely profitable over a sustained period of time.

I just saw in another article that the rules are extremely cut and dry:

"Betting on football is banned worldwide for all players, managers, coaches, club staff, directors and licensed agents involved in the game within the Premier League, EFL, National League, Women's Super League, Women's Championship and the Northern, Southern and Isthmian leagues.

Participants covered by the ban are prohibited from betting, either directly or indirectly, on any football match or competition that takes place anywhere in the world. The ban also includes betting on any other football-related matter such as the transfer of players, managerial appointments or team selection.

You are not allowed to use inside information to place a bet or to instruct someone else to do so on your behalf. Equally, you are not allowed to pass inside information on to someone else which they use for betting."

Nothing confusing or difficult for him in there, all pretty standard (and not just to football industry, to jobs in general). There's various things in my job/most jobs that I know are prohibited (eg to do with information governance, GDPR, insider trading, actively participating in a crime), with clear 'no grey areas' lines like the FA's betting rules, where people know that they put their employment at risk if they - I don't think he's been any more hard done by than regular workers. Some people would lose their livelihood over comparative rule breaking.

[jackh]

Completely agree with Gareth Southgate on this, in that punishment seems futile for the greater good when used in place of rehabilitation.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/football/65699477

Thought much the same when there were calls for us to sever ties with one of our own players in 2017 actually, but that's another matter.

[bloke]

Suarez got 4 months for a bite, he would have been better off biting two players for those 8 months

I believe it would still be 4 months.  It's bite one get one free.