Quote:
Originally Posted by cheevers
If that is the only evidence they had then it would have been crazy to get 1 game let alone 10 weeks.
|
As crazy as it sounds he broke the rule of law.
Problem is the evidence they have is damming. Especially the lump it on part.
The only thing that'll work for him in his appeal is that he's not the one instigating the conversation or volunteering the info. Seems like both conversations are people fishing for info.
But the lump it on screws up any defence he might have in E8.3 below.
Quote:
E8.1 A Participant shall not bet, either directly or indirectly, or instruct, permit, cause or enable any person to bet on -
E8.1.1 the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of, or occurrence in or in connection with, a football match or competition; or
E8.1.2 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.
E8.2 Where a Participant provides to any other person any information relating to football which the Participant has obtained by virtue of his or her position within the game and which is not publicly available at that time, the Participant shall be in breach of this Rule where any of that information is used by that other person for, or in relation to, betting.
E8.3 It shall be a defence to a charge brought pursuant to sub-paragraph E8.2 if a Participant can establish, on the balance of probability, that the Participant provided any such information in circumstances where he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, that the information provided would be used by the other person for or in relation to betting.
|
https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/...k-2020-21.ashx