22058

[KunDB]

£22,058 fine

That's the cost of Martin Demechellis wee flutters (29) on football matches.

His fine from the Football Association.

For his sake, I hope one or more of those bets returned a nice profit to pay the fine (mind about 2 days pay at most I imagine).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36323842

[gavin]

I think the rule is stupid. If he can have no impact on the games then what is the problem.

[goat]

his last game was a bit dodgy, he had a mare and inured hart

[Swiss]

I think the rule is stupid. If he can have no impact on the games then what is the problem.

It's the insider knowledge and opportunity for collusion

[Rowley Birkin QC]

It's the insider knowledge and opportunity for collusion

Exactly

[gavin]

I don't think there's any evidence of this here. It seems a bit like banning a bread knife because it could be used to stab someone. A footballer might have insider knowledge of other teams but likely not. Whereas it is clear he should be banned from betting on his own team, I think banning all betting on football is overkill.

[Rowley Birkin QC]

Blanket bans are easier (and less costly) to enforce. The integrity of sport and the actions of its participants should be as beyond reproach as possible. Granted, that's not always possible - but all the more reason for the blanket ban. It's not like his human rights are being restricted. He's a professional and he should behave accordingly. Plenty of other things he can bet on if he wishes - the nags, the dogs, the Eurovision Song Contest, but not football.

[Lekos]

What Ken said.

[Swiss]

I don't think there's any evidence of this here. It seems a bit like banning a bread knife because it could be used to stab someone. A footballer might have insider knowledge of other teams but likely not. Whereas it is clear he should be banned from betting on his own team, I think banning all betting on football is overkill.

Aye, I don't believe he was cheating the system.