Not a fan of his but he's entirely correct to point out how unhealthy the relationship is between football and the gambling industry. In my opinion it's completely unethical that people should be bombarded with gambling advertisements when watching televised sporting events. It's entirely up to an individual whether or not they choose to gamble or not, but we have to accept that it is something that people can become addicted to and it can have devastating consequences for both the addict and their family and therefore I'd rather we saw the advertising of it banned. A lot of the adverts we see encourage impulsive gambling and I think that's pretty dangerous.
Even as an addict, there's plenty of things he could have been gambling on outside of football, so im not sure that side of his argument entirely tallies. That said, im not a gambling addict myself so it's impossible for me to understand someone in that position. Gambling on his own team to lose though is definitely something that can't be excused. Even if he wasn't playing in those matches he could be deemed to have had inside information and influence on the squad, there's no way something like that cant go unpunished.
Classic deflection by him
Next England manager. He's got all the qualifications for it....ABout time he retired isn't it? He'll be 36 when his ban ends.
He was betting on his own team although he claims not to have been part of the squad for the games he bet on. Bet on us to win against Fulham in April 2006 (which we lost of course) and quite a few bets on the Toon when he went there.A ban that long suggests he was betting on his own team, or something like that, in which case I'm amazed he's not got a life ban. That's him done though
I think you are right about that but he is doing what he always does when he gets in trouble and blame someone elseHe's bang on though, not a game goes by without you being bombarded about what odds have been raised as specials etc... to entice someone. The whole concept of the game grabbing as much cash as it can from the bookmaker yet then clamping down on the bets is a bit hypocritical imo.
They should look at getting their own house in order first.
I also hate that line, 'when the fun stops, stop!' It's never fun when you lose and i lose a lot!!
Enforced honesty meeesh... he hasn't got an honest bone in his body..
As stated above, we can more than assume he had information pertaining to 'big' player injuries, which would undoubtedly stack the odds in his favour!
He was betting on his own team although he claims not to have been part of the squad for the games he bet on. Bet on us to win against Fulham in April 2006 (which we lost of course) and quite a few bets on the Toon when he went there.
I must admit mate,I'm purely an outsider when it comes to personal information about players etc etc,that is why I like to read what yourself and close others say at certain situations,but looking at that list of bets £2's and fivers,i mean hardly doing fortunes in,and also appears he was losing more than he won,a lot like me !!
But we all know his general background,he is what he is,but to be punished so severely for this when countless others have and probably are still doing it now,I think it's quite harsh.
I was only listening to Charlie Dimmock chatting with Boiled Bollock on Talkshite a few week back and he was talking about the betting aspect whilst he was playing,along with a few others in that particular team he was playing in,they were lumping big,but like I say,although they are in a far more privilidged position than most of us,he's been made a bit of a scapegoat here