blueflag 386 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Indeed they can do that... However. that opens a can of worms I'm about 99%sure a decent lawyer would agree. They could tell the sfa about there concerns but they can't pass on sensitive personal information .. no matter what way they twist it word it spin it. If there's a crime the police have to go through certain criteria to get the data. So I repeat mate what gives any sporting authority this power. Somebody should challenge the sfa on this and piss on there parade. It depends all o what exactly they pass on in regards to sensitive information. Sensitive information is things you can be discriminated against which included d.o.b etc. How could sfa even confirm it was this player without them confirming the players d.o.b or some other sensitive info? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,801 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Aye and not a very safe bet either. I can't understand why any football manager could even consider trusting a goalkeeper who regularly places bets. Allan Mcgregor spent most afternoons in the William Hill on Kelvingrove Street. I've no idea if he bet on football or not but gambling is endemic among footballers. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ranger_syntax 4,422 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 There was a lot of discussion on the data protection act issue following the news that Ian Black was under investigation, but if I remember right the bookies have their backs covered with legal small print and an agreement with the SFA and other sporting bodies that football players and sportsmen gambling on their own sport are subject to far less legal protection, if any at all. If a football player was entitled to any legal protection, on the basis of data protection, then we would have seen it in action. Footballers can afford to challenge these things. We should have got rid of Black. We didn't and now here we are again. Can we expect such allegations to surface again in the future? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Indeed they can do that... However. that opens a can of worms I'm about 99%sure a decent lawyer would agree. They could tell the sfa about there concerns but they can't pass on sensitive personal information .. no matter what way they twist it word it spin it. If there's a crime the police have to go through certain criteria to get the data. So I repeat mate what gives any sporting authority this power. Somebody should challenge the sfa on this and piss on there parade. It depends all o what exactly they pass on in regards to sensitive information. Sensitive information is things you can be discriminated against which included d.o.b etc. How could sfa even confirm it was this player without them confirming the players d.o.b or some other sensitive info? I really don't know the intricacies of it all mate, but I did track down the original Ian Black threads on here, so there might be some more detailed info in them. 1. Ian Black notice of complaint 2. Black gets a 10 match ban with 7 of them suspended 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Allan Mcgregor spent most afternoons in the William Hill on Kelvingrove Street. I've no idea if he bet on football or not but gambling is endemic among footballers. It's not just the footballers, it's the coaching and managerial staff too John. They're basically overpaid, so some of these folk inevitably end up thinking they've got money to burn. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 If a football player was entitled to any legal protection, on the basis of data protection, then we would have seen it in action. Footballers can afford to challenge these things. We should have got rid of Black. We didn't and now here we are again. Can we expect such allegations to surface again in the future? If we sign players who gamble a lot, then yes, it's almost a certainty that this will happen again. After Steve Simonsen's embarrassing performance against Dundee Utd, there were red flags flying all over the shop about the guy's suitability to play for us considering his love of gambling, but remarkably we signed him again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Agree we should have let him go last summer god knows why we re-signed him did nothing imo to earn a new deal 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueflag 386 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Well found an interesting pieces on the gambling commission website regarding integrity in sport betting. Available here http:// https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=MnTBVIGPD8TtUs6fg9AG&url=http://www.gamblingcommission.gov.uk/pdf/Integrity%2520in%2520sports%2520betting%2520-%2520issues%2520paper%2520-%2520consultation%2520-%2520May%25202007.pdf&ved=0CC0QFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFZIt-ORi4YDDwm2aGuKTGu738yIg&sig2=cehzexRZVOZytvwZkGUeZQ The Integrity in Sports Betting – Information Sharing consultation document looked at the issue of the use of Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) between the sport governing bodies and the betting sector. The consultation document noted that although some betting businesses and a trade association have entered into MoUs, these agreements are constrained by data protection principles and so are limited in the scope of information that can be shared.5.6 The Commission consulted in the Integrity in Sports Betting – Information Sharing document on its proposal to amend licence condition 15 Requests for information, to include sport governing bodies as persons to whom licensees might be required to provide information that they suspect may relate to a breach of a rule applied by a sporting or other body. The aim of this proposed amendment is to help overcome the limitation on the information that can be shared between the betting sector and the relevant sport governing bodies. Betting licensees requiring customers to agree to share their personal data with the sport governing bodies 5.7 The Integrity in Sports Betting – Information Sharing consultation document explained the Commission's view that it does not consider it appropriate for the Commission to require through a licence condition that betting licensees make it a condition of business that a customer must agree to personal information being made available to the sport governing bodies. However, the Commission considered there may be advantages for licensees in including such terms as a condition of business. Customer consent could fulfil a condition in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3 of the Data Protection Act 1998, subject to the precise terms of the consent. Customer consent would offer comfort to licensees complying with the proposed amended licence condition 15 Request for information, in the event that disclosure happened when other exemptions did not apply. I must stress I don't condone his actions, rather questioning how the sfa go about there business 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1872 4 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 RANGERS goalkeeper Steve Simonsen has been charged by the Scottish FA for betting on 55 football matches.None of the games are believed to have involved his team Rangers.Simonsen is the second Rangers player to be charged with betting on games with Ian Black found guilty of betting against his own club in 2013. The charge states that the 35-year-old keeper breached Disciplinary Rules 33 and 31 when he allegedly placed bets on a total of 55 matches both this season and last. Tony Nicoletti/Daily Record Ian Black (right) leaves Hampden with agent, Barry Hughes, after being banned for breaching betting rules The charge relating to Disciplinary Rule 33 (from season 2013/14) states: "No club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bet in any way on a football match (except authorised and registered football pools)." The sanction on Disciplinary Rule 31 (Season 2014/15) reads: "In that between 6th September 2014 and 13th January 2015, both dates inclusive, you bet upon 37 matches." Simonsen now has until Thursday January 29 to respond to the complaint. The SFA have said that there is no evidence to suggest any breach of Disciplinary Rule 32 which states: "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 gambling." The SFA confirmed to Record Sport this afternoon that there has been no offer of a suspension from the Compliance Officer and that the panel will meet on February 12 for the principal hearing. Rangers face Celtic in the Scottish League Cup presented by QTS on February 1. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-goalkeeper-steve-simonsen-charged-5025286 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 awful goalkeeper but these rules are ridiculous. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.