Share this page :
facebooktwittermailfacebooktwittermail

1516 burnley joey barton 02 800The Football Association have today provided full written reasons to explain the severity of the ban served yesterday to Burnley midfielder Joey Barton. See below.

 

In the reasons, they outline the commission, at Wembley Stadium, which started last Thursday before being adjourned and completed this week, feel the punishment is “reasonable, proportionate and fair.”

Barton made 1,260 bets over the period of 10 years up to May 2016, with a total stake of £205,172.79, earning winnings of £88,196.72. His return was £188,474.50, therefore the player made a loss of £16,708.29.

He placed 42 bets on 20 games involving teams he was registered with at the time of making the bets. The overall stake was £5,307.11. He played in two of the 20 games, in neither betting on his team to lose. Fifteen bets backed his team to lose, the overall stake £1,688, making a loss of £1,199.40, A further 15 were on his team to win, gambling £1,944.50, with a loss of £1,984.50. The remaining 12 were for a draw or other result, such as fewer than 2.5 goals being scored.

The commission stated: “The betting breaches are so serious that there must be a sporting sanction for this conduct.”

Balancing all of the matters summarised above, the evidence heard and read and the arguments the Commission considered, the Commission concluded that the shortest possible sanction to reflect the totality of his betting breaches was a suspension from football and footballing activity for a period of 18 months.

“The Commission considered that sanction against the previous betting cases placed before it. Insofar as they assist, that sanction is not out of kilter with any of them. By reference to the Guidelines it might be thought lenient. But, it reflects, properly in the Commission’s judgement, the many features of mitigation the Player is entitled to pray in aid.

“The Commission considered the Player’s submission to suspend part of that suspension. Regulation 8.3(d) of the FA Disciplinary Procedures – Regulation 2016- 17 empowers the Commission to suspend up to three-quarters of the penalty (unless it is a lifetime ban). The Regulations do not provide any assistance with the factors which might be considered when deciding whether, and to what extent that power, is exercised.

“The Commission considered the reason advanced on the Player’s behalf. They do not justify suspending any part of the sporting sanction. The totality of the offending is so serious as to merit an immediate suspension of the length determined.

“As for his age, and the fact he is coming towards the end of his career, the Commission makes these points. He has enjoyed a full career. He has been breaching the betting Rules for a substantial part of that career. Had he been apprehended and charged earlier, the result – almost certainly – would have been an immediate playing suspension (and all the consequences).

“He has avoided that and enjoyed the fruits. He cannot now pray in aid chronology to avoid a meaningful sanction. Further, a younger player charged earlier in their career might well have a legitimate sense of grievance if s/he loses part of their career to suspension, but an older player (by virtue of that fact alone) does not.

“In the Commission’s judgement, the suspension must lie where it falls.

“At the end of the exercise each member of the Commission stood back and reflected on the sanction. By whatever route it was arrived at, are we, as individual members, satisfied that the sanction is reasonable, proportionate and, in a single word, fair? Each member concluded that it was.”

Share this page :
facebooktwittermailfacebooktwittermail


Follow UpTheClarets:
facebooktwitterfacebooktwitter