Post by Webster on Apr 16, 2019 16:46:38 GMT
The Guardian: Paul Scholes charged by FA for allegedly placing 140 bets on football matches
Paul Scholes has been charged with misconduct by the Football Association for allegedly breaking its rules on betting.
The former Manchester United and England midfielder is alleged to have placed 140 bets on football matches over a four-year period ending in January this year, during which time he was a co-owner of Salford City, presently in the National League.
There is no suggestion that he was betting on the outcome of Salford matches, and no bets were placed by Scholes during the short time he was manager of Oldham Athletic. The FA tightened up its rules on gambling in 2014, effectively bringing in a blanket ban on any betting on any level of football for anyone involved in the game throughout the league pyramid.
Scholes has until 26 April to respond to the charge, and is thought likely to be fined if found guilty rather than suspended.
It is a less clear-cut issue than with players when owners, directors and shareholders place bets on football matches; the extent of their involvement is not always as apparent.
An FA spokesman explained the distinction now used is whether someone is a participant in football, a catch-all description intended to include players, managers, owners, agents and anyone working within the game. “The rule of thumb is that if you work in football you cannot bet on football,” the spokesman said. “It doesn’t matter if it is a bet on a different club or a different country. If you are a participant in football, all bets are off.”
West Ham’s Robert Snodgrass has been given a one-match ban after an independent regulatory commission found him guilty of misconduct towards UK Anti-Doping officials, the FA has announced.
The FA said: “It was alleged that his language and/or behaviour towards UK Anti-Doping officials, who were visiting West Ham United’s training ground on 6 February 2019, was abusive and/or insulting and/or improper. The player has been given a one-match suspension, which is not currently active whilst he considers his right of appeal, and fined £30,000.”
It is understood Snodgrass was not scheduled to be tested nor did he refuse to take a test.
The former Manchester United and England midfielder is alleged to have placed 140 bets on football matches over a four-year period ending in January this year, during which time he was a co-owner of Salford City, presently in the National League.
There is no suggestion that he was betting on the outcome of Salford matches, and no bets were placed by Scholes during the short time he was manager of Oldham Athletic. The FA tightened up its rules on gambling in 2014, effectively bringing in a blanket ban on any betting on any level of football for anyone involved in the game throughout the league pyramid.
Scholes has until 26 April to respond to the charge, and is thought likely to be fined if found guilty rather than suspended.
It is a less clear-cut issue than with players when owners, directors and shareholders place bets on football matches; the extent of their involvement is not always as apparent.
An FA spokesman explained the distinction now used is whether someone is a participant in football, a catch-all description intended to include players, managers, owners, agents and anyone working within the game. “The rule of thumb is that if you work in football you cannot bet on football,” the spokesman said. “It doesn’t matter if it is a bet on a different club or a different country. If you are a participant in football, all bets are off.”
West Ham’s Robert Snodgrass has been given a one-match ban after an independent regulatory commission found him guilty of misconduct towards UK Anti-Doping officials, the FA has announced.
The FA said: “It was alleged that his language and/or behaviour towards UK Anti-Doping officials, who were visiting West Ham United’s training ground on 6 February 2019, was abusive and/or insulting and/or improper. The player has been given a one-match suspension, which is not currently active whilst he considers his right of appeal, and fined £30,000.”
It is understood Snodgrass was not scheduled to be tested nor did he refuse to take a test.