In the same way a mate did not tell me, despite me threatening to punch him in the face, about a company he had shares in were buying another out. He was the CEO and its insider trading.
"In the same way" is a bit of a stretch as there are clear differences between the two scenarios, but I take your point.
I'm more intrigued about where the FA draws the line with its own rules in this regard:
"A participant shall not bet, either directly or indirectly, or instruct, permit, cause or enable any person to bet on — (i) the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of, or occurrence in or in connection with, a football match or competition; or (ii) any other matter concerning or related to football anywhere in the world, including, for example and without limitation, the transfer of players, employment of managers, team selection or disciplinary matters."
Taken literally, those rules prohibit a player from revealing to his own wife or mother that he'll be changing jobs until it actually happens, as that could be construed as "enabling any person to bet on the transfer of players."
Now, presumably, even the FA wouldn't be that petty, so I'm guessing it comes down to who Sturridge told, how many people he told, and what he suggested they do with the information.
They've been investigating this for months now so they obviously feel they have a very strong case. I just think it's a bit rich for the bookies to be squealing when they're quite happy to use their own inside information when it suits them.
Their intel failed them this time; they should learn to take it on the chin or simply stop this nonsense of laying odds on matters that are so clearly open to manipulation from both sides of the market.
