Black gets a 10 match ban with 7 of them suspended

[The Real PapaBear 0]

This is a great result for Black but a terrible decision for football in Scotland.

How can anybody who bet against their own team to win get almost the same punishment as someone sent off for violent conduct? Shocking decision.

 

Do we know whether he bet against the team in any of the games he was actually playing in?

[Tannochsidebear 2,405]

So he has admitted betting against his own team on 3 occasions.

 

If any of them were while he was with our club, he should be sacked immediately for gross misconduct. This is far, far worse than Sandaza did.

 

The 3 game suspension will see him now sit out as the new boys come in, and will make it difficult for him to get back into the team, on the basis that we don't have the balls to sack him as above.

 

It is a shame for him personally just as he has found some consistent form over the last few games for probably the first time in his Rangers career, and while we all know he is being made a scapegoat here and that hundreds of other players all over the country are equally guilty of betting on football, his stupidity in using an account in his own name, and then betting on games involving his employer, means that I have much less sympathy for him than I would otherwise.

 

Let us see McCoist now give that list of players to the SFA and ask them to go to the bookies and ask for the records of all of them, just to be consistent.

[Zappa 0]

Do we know whether he bet against the team in any of the games he was actually playing in?

 

It doesn't look like he bet against his own team in a game he played in. Read the relevant section again:

 

Please note that there is no evidence to suggest any breach of Disciplinary Rule 23 (Rule 34 in updated Judicial Panel Protocol for season 2013/14).

 

Disciplinary Rule 23, for reference: No club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall knowingly behave in a manner, during or in connection with a match in which the party has participated or has any influence, either direct or indirect, which could give rise to an event in which they or any third party benefits financially through betting.

 

If he had bet against his own team in any of the games he was actually playing in, then Rule 23 would have been breached and the outcome of the case would have been far more severe.

[Super Cooper 0]

Disgraceful decision. I fully expect 90% of professional footballers in the UK to also be treated the same as Ian.

[Yorkshire Bear 0]

On the S.T.V.page,it states that he bet on the Rangers v Albion Rovers game.

[bossy 0]

The decision is far less severe than I expected.

 

However, there is a certain logic to the decision because it became quite clear that the SFA had opened a rather large can of worms here with the realisation that betting is rife amongst players. So my guess is that the SFA, by being fairly lenient, are hoping that this issue will quietly go away.

[Tom Davison 0]

Hope that Black apologises for his actions. His punishment could have been much worse. Ally is usually good with words but it might be wise to say very little about this business.

[Super_Ally 0]

On the plus side MCLeod should be a stick on for CM.

[H1ndy 0]

Yeh they do it too protect the company from punters trying to scam them and to monitor the customer service

[Steve1872 4]

Scott Burns ‏@ScottBurns756m

I have been told that #rangers will take internal action against Ian Black but will not be terminating his contract.