Has Joey Barton Been Harshly Treated?

Joey Barton has been banned from all football for 18 months for placing 1,260 bets on matches between March 2006 and May 2016.

I'm no fan of Mr Barton but that does seem extremely harsh, especially when betting is such an integral part of the Premier League these days.

Are you crying with sorrow or laughter over this ban?

It does seem a bit harsh, i can't remember any other footballer being banned for this length of time

He knew what the rules were but he thought he'd break 'em anyway.

1260 times......

Scouse dickhead, no sympathy from me.

his statement is well written, i know he's a dickhead but the punishment still seems very harsh to me.

I presume they are trying to make an example of him? I'm betting (no pun intended) he will appeal and it will be reduced

I just think it's highly hypocritical to ban someone for betting because they think betting is wrong, yet they are happy to accept the millions that betting brings into the game.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I just think it's highly hypocritical to ban someone for betting because they think betting is wrong, yet they are happy to accept the millions that betting brings into the game.

They don't think betting is wrong though, do they?

They just think that anybody who's involved and may have a direct impact on the result shouldn't be allowed to place a bet.

If you flounced into William Hills and demanded that they take your £500 bet on whether or not you were having beans on toast for tea, would you be surprised if they said no?

Getting 18 months at the age of 34 effectively ends his career.
I think I've mentioned this before but I knew a 70 odd year old Qatari who was tried under Sharia Law for smuggling 9 keys of dope and attempting to shoot a police officer to escape. He was given 3 years in recognition of his age and the harshness of Qatari prison. Died in prison after two, but it was interesting that Sharia Law took account of the person being sentenced and not just the crime.
I guess Burnley are just grateful that Barton was a free transfer.

Bread2.0 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:I just think it's highly hypocritical to ban someone for betting because they think betting is wrong, yet they are happy to accept the millions that betting brings into the game.

They don't think betting is wrong though, do they?

They just think that anybody who's involved and may have a direct impact on the result shouldn't be allowed to place a bet.

If you flounced into William Hills and demanded that they take your £500 bet on whether or not you were having beans on toast for tea, would you be surprised if they said no?

The odds on Nat having beans on toast for tea would be huge. 

She could make a killing if she played her cards right. 

Although I'm sure she'd never cheat.

I think he was let off lightly for some of his previous escapades which have labelled him as a loathsome individual. He's been very fortunate to be employed by any football club and get paid high wages. He's caused trouble wherever he's gone. He's chosen to use what intelligence he's got for negative ends. A nasty piece of work both on and off the field.

Now, if you'd asked about Sharapova........

No he deserves it if only because it's him.

It's really really harsh, hugely unfair, way way over the top......and funny as fuck!!!   Couldn't happen to a nicer man. Hope the sentence is increased on appeal.