rimaldo
All about the essence
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 41,125
- Supports
- arse
wanna bet?Will go back to Milan post-ban.
wanna bet?Will go back to Milan post-ban.
Bet on his own team to win though.This is rather a mild punishment considering that he bet on his own team's games (That was him, wasn't it?).
Should have been banned for life.This is rather a mild punishment considering that he bet on his own team's games (That was him, wasn't it?).
Don't know about that. But ten months seems ridiculous. Especially when we consider that he apparently actively tried to get others involved in gambling.Should have been banned for life.
10 months but he can still train and play in friendlies. Is extremely lenient.Don't know about that. But ten months seems ridiculous. Especially when we consider that he apparently actively tried to get others involved in gambling.
It seems odd that these bans seem up to the discretion of the relevant national FA, but are enforced outside of them.This is rather a mild punishment considering that he bet on his own team's games (That was him, wasn't it?).
For what? He didn't commit a crime. So he bet on some football matches, big deal. Unless he was found to be spot betting(like in Paqueta's case, allegedly) or manipulating games negatively against his own team then what is the problem really? It also shows no respect to gambling addiction, if that is indeed applicable to Tonali. He should be helped, not banned.Should have been banned for life.
You can get banned and get help. Both are fair cases. Priority should be getting help and recovering. A ban and a substantial one should have gone a long with it.For what? He didn't commit a crime. So he bet on some football matches, big deal. Unless he was found to be spot betting(like in Paqueta's case, allegedly) or manipulating games negatively against his own team then what is the problem really? It also shows no respect to gambling addiction, if that is indeed applicable to Tonali. He should be helped, not banned.
Depends what's in his contract. Possibly not.Does he keep getting paid by Newcastle during his ban?
Because he knew the rules and he broke the rules, that should have proper consequences. Addiction or not, he should get a fairly lengthy ban. If he wants or needs help, then he should go and address that as part of his ban and it could be shortened if he sorted himself out to allow his reintegration back into the game.For what? He didn't commit a crime. So he bet on some football matches, big deal. Unless he was found to be spot betting(like in Paqueta's case, allegedly) or manipulating games negatively against his own team then what is the problem really? It also shows no respect to gambling addiction, if that is indeed applicable to Tonali. He should be helped, not banned.
PEDs are used to gain an unfair advantage so it's difficult to compare it gambling. A player struggling with alcohol wouldn't be banned for example, they would be offered help.Because he knew the rules and he broke the rules, that should have proper consequences. Addiction or not, he should get a fairly lengthy ban. If he wants or needs help, then he should go and address that as part of his ban and it could be shortened if he sorted himself out to allow his reintegration back into the game.
What if a player had a drug addiction to PEDs? Should they not get a proper ban because it's an addiction and they need to be helped and shown respect?
Drinking isn't against the rules, betting on matches and betting on your teams games is. As he reportedly admitted. We don't know the nature of those bets, what he bet on or whether or not he was gaining. But that's why I think he should get a longer ban.PEDs are used to gain an unfair advantage so it's difficult to compare it gambling. A player struggling with alcohol wouldn't be banned for example, they would be offered help.
I think when football fans hear of a player betting on matches their minds immediately go to some Jamie Parker at Harchester Utd type scenario where he's chucking the ball in his own net to pay off some gangsters, when in reality it's just a bored footballer sticking on a few bets that have no bearing on anything. I get why the rule is in place, because it's easier to just blanket ban all football betting rather than having to deal with picking apart which of those are of the innocent variety and those that aren't but calling for a lifetime ban on something so innocuous just seems mad to me.
He could bet on anything in the world except football. If he was addicted then it’s a very specific addiction to just be football. Also seems he was addicted not just specifically to football, but also football via a specific illegal app.For what? He didn't commit a crime. So he bet on some football matches, big deal. Unless he was found to be spot betting(like in Paqueta's case, allegedly) or manipulating games negatively against his own team then what is the problem really? It also shows no respect to gambling addiction, if that is indeed applicable to Tonali. He should be helped, not banned.
He said it hasn't been imposed yet. So, he's technically free to play.Howe saying Tonali should be available this weekend?
Newcastle expecting to pay their way out of this ban or something?
Are there any ethical issue if he just keeps betting on his own team to win? What if he uses the money he won for charity purpose?Bet on his own team to win though.
FIFA have confirmed the ban is applicable worldwide and is in effect.Howe saying Tonali should be available this weekend?
Newcastle expecting to pay their way out of this ban or something?
I don't disagree that gambling is far too pervasive in football in terms of advertising, but as far as I'm aware, there are no rules stopping players from gambling on literally anything else. I'm fully behind banning bookies from being able to advertise during or around football matches, including blanket bans on shirt sponsorship and pitch-side hoardings.I think it's incredibly unfair for football to be so hard on players gambling, considering how football has embraced and embedded gambling advertising.
There's just a moral inconsistency there.
And I'd be all for legalized gambling being banned from sports.
There is a massive conflict of interest and too much potential for insider information. I do agree that football should keep betting companies well away from stadia, kits etc though.I think it's incredibly unfair for football to be so hard on players gambling, considering how football has embraced and embedded gambling advertising.
There's just a moral inconsistency there.
And I'd be all for legalized gambling being banned from sports.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Why is it "Again?" the date period is the same for the previous charge isn't it?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Done it again! Milan have done very well to get rid of him.
Were those a carry over from when he played in Italy?Why is it "Again?" the date period is the same for the previous charge isn't it?
This charge related to bets placed on 12 August when he moved to Newcastle. The ban he's currently serving is from when he was in Italy.Why is it "Again?" the date period is the same for the previous charge isn't it?
The ban was for betting offences while he was still playing in Italy, and those dates are after he'd left and joined Newcastle.Why is it "Again?" the date period is the same for the previous charge isn't it?
Yeah what probably happened was that he continued doing what he did in Italy after joining Newcastle and before the initial charges surfaced.It's not really 'again', it's just 'more'.
Lad has a bit of a problem. The whole games is surrounded by betting companies. You only have to listen to Talksport and it is constant going over to someone from one betting firm or another.The ban was for betting offences while he was still playing in Italy, and those dates are after he'd left and joined Newcastle.
Though he'll probably get it in the neck again since he presumably never declared these bets while being investigated for the Italian bets.Yeah what probably happened was that he continued doing what he did in Italy after joining Newcastle and before the initial charges surfaced.
Were those a carry over from when he played in Italy?
This charge related to bets placed on 12 August when he moved to Newcastle. The ban he's currently serving is from when he was in Italy.
That's ridiculous, surely Newcastle are able to suspend him without pay as surely this brings the club in disripute or something in the contract they can use as this is ridiculous for them if true.The ban was for betting offences while he was still playing in Italy, and those dates are after he'd left and joined Newcastle.