PLEA IN MITIGATION HEARING THE FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION and Mr DEXTER BLACKSTOCK Nottingham Forest FC T H E D E C I S I O N A N D R E A S O N S O F T H E F A R E G U L A T O R Y C O M M I S S I O N
Content Page Paragraphs Introduction... 3... 1 12 The Charges... 4... 13 18 The Plea... 5... 19 21 The Relevant FA Rules... 5... 22 25 The Regulatory Commission... 7... 26 The Hearing... 7... 27 57 Our Reasons... 11... 58 92 The Sanction... 15... 93 95 2
Introduction 1. On 27 January 2014, The Football Association ( The FA ) received an EMail from Betfair, the internet betting exchange company, as per the established Memorandum of Understanding between The FA and Betfair, indicating that they believed the player Mr Dexter Blackstock had breached The FA Rules in respect of betting on football. Mr Blackstock is a professional football player registered with Nottingham Forest FC ( Nottingham Forest ). 2. On 30 January 2014, The FA wrote to Mr Blackstock, via Nottingham Forest, requesting disclosure of any accounts held with betting operators other than Betfair. 3. On 05 February 2014, Mr Blackstock confirmed that he only held an account with Betfair and had no accounts with any other betting operators. 4. The FA s Acting Financial Regulation Manager (Investigations) conducted a primary review of the information sent by Betfair to confirm whether any breaches of FA Betting Rules had been committed and consequently commenced an investigation into potential breaches of The FA Rules, in particular but not limited to, FA Rule E8. 5. This initial investigation indicated that, amongst all the bets from Season 2007/08 through to January 2014 of Season 2013/14, there were a number of bets that would appear to be in breach of FA Rule E8. 6. There were also bets involving teams to which Mr Blackstock was registered at the time, albeit he did not play in those 3 games. 7. As part of the investigation, The FA conducted an interview with Mr Blackstock on 18 March 2014 at the City Ground, Nottingham Forest. Also in attendance was Mr Blackstock s representative Mr Simon Barker, Assistant Chief Executive of the PFA. 8. Subsequent to the interview with Mr Blackstock, a number of bets were found not to be in breach. This was due to the fact that it was not until Season 2009/10 that players were not allowed to bet on competitions they had or were due to 3
participate in that Season. 9. Therefore, for Seasons 2007/08 and 2008/09, bets were in breach only if the player s Club was still actually participating in the competition when the bets were placed. 10. The FA subsequently charged Mr Blackstock on 17 April 2014 with breaches of its Rules for 655 bets placed with Betfair during this period. 11. Further to the statement made on TheFA.com website of the betting charges against Mr Blackstock, The FA was contacted by the Gambling Commission with the information received from another betting company, Bet365, that Mr Blackstock may have placed bets in breach of FA Rules with their company. 12. The FA conducted further investigations and 2 bets placed with Bet365 in Season 2013/14 were found to be in breach of FA Rule E8. The FA then charged Mr Blackstock with additional breaches of its Rules on 28 April 2014. The Charges 13. On 17 April 2014, The FA charged Mr Blackstock with misconduct under FA Rule E8 in respect of 655 bets placed on football matches between 04 December 2007 and 26 January 2014 with Betfair ( First Charge ). 14. The FA alleged that each individual bet was a separate breach of FA Rule E8. 15. The FA served the following evidence that it intended to rely on: 15.1. Witness statement of the FA s Acting Financial Regulation Manager (Investigations), dated 16 April 2014; 15.2. Chronological schedule of bets alleged to be in breach; 15.3. Record of Mr Blackstock s Club registration history; and 15.4. Transcript of Mr Blackstock s interview with The FA, dated 18 March 2014. 16. On 28 April 2014, The FA further charged Mr Blackstock with misconduct under FA Rule E8 in respect of 2 extra bets placed on football matches between 4
15 February 2014 and 02 March 2014 with Bet365 ( Second Charge ). 17. The FA alleged that each bet was a separate breach of FA Rule E8. 18. The FA served the following evidence that it intended to rely on: 18.1. Witness statement of the FA s Acting Financial Regulations Manager (Investigations), dated 28 April 2014; and 18.2. Chronological schedule of bets alleged to be in breach. The Plea 19. On 28 April 2014, Mr Jim Sturman QC responded, on behalf of Mr Blackstock, and submitted skeleton submissions in mitigation. 20. Mr Blackstock admitted to the breaches of the FA betting rules as set out in the First Charge and requested an opportunity to attend a Commission to make a personal plea in mitigation. 21. Due to the limited time available between the Second Charge issued on 28 April 2014 and the personal hearing itself on 02 May 2014, Mr Blackstock formally admitted at the personal hearing to the further two breaches of the FA betting rules as set out in the Second Charge. The Relevant FA Rules 22. The relevant FA Rule E8 for Seasons 2007/08 and 2008/09 states: (a) A Participant shall not, either directly or indirectly, bet or instruct, permit, or enable any person for the Participant s benefit to bet, on the result, progress or conduct of a Match or Competition in which the Participant is participating or in which the Participant has any influence, either direct or indirect. 23. The relevant FA Rule E8 for Seasons 2009/10 and 2010/11 states: (a) A Participant shall not, either directly or indirectly, bet, or instruct, permit or enable any person to bet, on the result, progress or conduct of a Match or Competition in which the Participant is participating, or has participated in 5
that season, or in which the Participant has any influence, either direct or indirect. 24. The relevant FA Rule E8 for Seasons 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14 states: (b) Save for those participants subject to prohibition in sub-paragraph (a), a Participant shall not bet, either directly or indirectly, or instruct, permit, cause or enable any person to bet on (i) the result, progress or conduct of a match or competition: (A) (B) in which the Participant is participating, or has participated in that season; or in which the Participant has any influence, either direct or indirect; or (ii) any other matter concerning or related to any Club participating in any league Competition, as defined in Rule A2, that the Participant is participating in or has participated in during that season, including, for example and without limitation, the transfer of players, employment of managers, team selection or disciplinary matters. For these purposes, without limitation to the application of this Rule to other circumstances, all Employees of a Club are deemed to participate in every match played by that Club while they are so employed; all Players registered with a Club are deemed to participate in every match played by that Club while they are so registered. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraphs 8(a) and (b) a Participant shall not bet, either directly or indirectly, or instruct, permit, cause or enable any person to bet, on the result, progress or conduct of any match played at under 18 level or below. 25. Further to the above, FA Rule E8(c) from Season 2012/13 onwards also included the following additional paragraph: The terms match or competition as used in sub-paragraphs 8(b) and (c) include all Matches and Competitions as defined in Rule A2, and also any other 6
football match or competition which is not within the definition in Rule A2, including any football match or competition sanctioned by UEFA, FIFA, or by any another association, federation or governing body. The Regulatory Commission 26. The following members were appointed to the Regulatory Commission ( the Commission, We/us ) to hear these cases: 26.1. Mr Thura KT Win, JP (Chairman); Mr Roger Pawley; and Mr Alan Hardy. 26.2. Mr Robert Marsh, The FA Assistant Disciplinary Manager, was the Secretary to the Commission. The Hearing 27. We convened at 11am on 02 May 2014 at Wembley Stadium for this Plea in Mitigation Hearing ( the Hearing ). 28. Miss Amina Graham was the Counsel for The FA. 29. Mr Blackstock was represented by Mr Jim Sturman QC. 30. Mr Simon Barker of PFA was in attendance as an Observer. 31. We read the bundle of documents submitted by parties prior to the Hearing. 32. We also received at the Hearing, as did the opposing parties: 32.1. For The FA, a schedule of decisions of the previous betting cases; 32.2. For Mr Blackstock, written submissions and statements from: 32.2.1. Mr Colin Bland of Sporting Chance Clinic; 32.2.2. Mr Malcolm Elias, Head of Recruitment and Talent ID of Fulham Football Club; and 32.2.3. Ms Charise Moona. 7
33. As Mr Blackstock had admitted to the Charges and this was a Plea in Mitigation Hearing, we sought Mr Blackstock s previous disciplinary record from Mr Marsh who advised us that Mr Blackstock had a clean record. The FA s Case 34. Miss Graham referred us to the total number of bets that were in breach of FA Rules in force during the relevant Seasons and material time, which amounted to 655 bets with Betfair and 2 bets with Bet365. They consisted of: 34.1. 13 bets during Season 2007/08 with Betfair; 34.2. 19 bets during Season 2008/09 with Betfair; 34.3. 172 bets during Season 2009/10 with Betfair; 34.4. 193 bets during Season 2010/11 with Betfair; 34.5. 16 bets during Season 2011/12 with Betfair; 34.6. 141 bets during Season 2012/13 with Betfair; 34.7. 101 bets during Season 2013/14 (to 26 January 2014) with Betfair; 34.8. 2 bets during Season 2013/14 (between 15 February 2014 and 02 March 2014) with Bet365; 34.9. The overall stake on these prohibited bets with Betfair was 105,196.62 and the return on winning bets, excluding any stake, was 49,383.06; 34.10. The net position on all winning, excluding stakes, and losing bets with Betfair during the period was an overall loss of 20,362.34; 34.11. The overall stake on two prohibited bets with Bet365 was 450.00 and Mr Blackstock won both bets giving him a return, excluding his stakes, of 524.37; 34.12. Therefore, the overall positions on all prohibited bets placed with both Betfair and Bet365 during the material period were: 8
34.12.1. Total stake of 105,646.62; 34.12.2. Total return on winning bets, excluding stakes, of 49,907.43; 34.12.3. Total return on all bets placed was a net loss of 19,837.97. 35. Mr Blackstock was not included in the playing squad for any of the games on which he placed these bets with both Betfair and Bet365. 36. Out of the total of 657 prohibited bets combined with Betfair and Bet365, Mr Blackstock did not place bets on the games involving the Clubs he was registered with at the time of the bets EXCEPT for 3 games involving Nottingham Forest on 29 November 2010, 01 January 2011 and 16 February 2011. 37. Miss Graham told us that it was The FA s case that Mr Blackstock placed 15 bets on 3 games involving his own team, Nottingham Forest, which included 7 bets on Nottingham Forest to win. The remaining 642 bets were on other teams in the same competitions that his team was competing or had competed in. 38. It was also The FA s case that Mr Blackstock did not place bets for his own team to lose or made any spot bets, both of which would have attracted higher entry points in the Sanction Guidelines. 39. Miss Graham was also satisfied that there were no integrity issues or concerns with these bets placed by Mr Blackstock. 40. Miss Graham added that Mr Blackstock had admitted to the Charges at the earliest opportunity, took overall responsibility, he did not play in any of the games he placed bets on and had fully cooperated with The FA during the investigations. 41. However, as Mr Blackstock had placed 7 bets on his own team to win, Miss Graham sought a sporting sanction to be part of the overall sanctions. Mr Blackstock s Mitigation 42. On behalf of Mr Blackstock, Mr Sturman addressed us and referred to the 9
skeleton submissions in mitigation already presented. 43. Mr Sturman drew our attention to Mr Blackstock s account at his interview with The FA on his state of mind at the time of the breaches and his misunderstanding of the relevant Rules at the time of the breaches. 44. Mr Sturman highlighted Mr Blackstock s full cooperation with The FA s investigation process, made full and frank admissions, timely guilty pleas, and that he never sought to minimise his actions or conceal any of his offending. 45. Mr Blackstock was particularly troubled that Betfair only contacted The FA on 27 January 2014 about his betting activities when they had contacted him over the years by phone calls to invite him to a number of sporting events. Therefore Betfair was either unaware of Mr Blackstock s apparent breaches of the betting regulations at the time or they did not care. 46. Mr Blackstock considered his betting activities to be a harmless hobby but he was shocked to learn of his level of betting from the interview and is now seeking assistance and support from Sporting Chance. 47. Mr Blackstock s level of betting dramatically increased when he was seriously injured and out of playing football for a long period. During this time, he was forced to sit at home watching the games on the television rather than playing in them. The boredom had contributed to the nature and the level of offending and the numerous adverts for betting during the televised games had played a part also. 48. Mr Blackstock thought that a serious injury in November 2010 might end his career and he was prescribed strong painkillers at the time that caused him to be very depressed. For months, he could not walk and did not even leave his house. It affected his judgement and contributed to the number of bets placed. 49. Mr Blackstock s career had been interrupted by two lengthy injuries first for a 14-month absence and the second for at least 8 months. 50. Most of the bets were either accumulators or special bets and the levels of individual bets were not high stakes. Mr Blackstock never backed his own 10
team to lose and never traded on inside information to obtain an advantage. 51. Mr Blackstock had never placed bets on the games he was playing, as he understands the common sense of such a prohibition. 52. Mr Sturman also told us of Mr Blackstock s income, financial means and his family commitments. He had already lost around 20,000 on the bets. 53. Mr Blackstock had a previously impeccable disciplinary record and had never been charged by The FA with any misdemeanour. He is embarrassed, apologetic and deeply remorseful to find himself in this position. 54. Mr Blackstock would be willing to participate in raising awareness of betting prohibitions and education to other players. 55. Mr Sturman mentioned that there had been quite a time lapsed on some of the breaches and whilst both he and Miss Graham concurred that this case met the criteria of the second category in the Sanction Guidelines on Betting, with the circumstances surrounding these breaches, that this was an unusual case which would not warrant a sporting sanction. 56. If we were minded to impose a sporting sanction then Mr Sturman would like to persuade us to suspend the sporting sanction. 57. Mr Blackstock told us that he is genuinely remorseful and apologises for the breaches of the Rules. He assured us that no similar breaches would occur in the future. Our Reasons 58. We noted that all except 15 of Mr Blackstock s betting offences were on other clubs competing in the same competitions as his Clubs were participating, or had participated in. 59. He did not bet on his own teams to lose or when he was a player in the game. 60. He did, however, place bets for his own team, Nottingham Forest, to win. 61. From the Sanction Guidelines, we noted that for these type of breaches of FA 11
Rule E8 by placing bets on his own team to win, the entry point is: 61.1. A fine to include, as a minimum, any financial gain made from the bet(s); and 61.2. A sporting sanction range of zero to six months. 62. We decided that the entry point for the sporting sanction to be the start of the specified range (zero months) and for us to determine the appropriate period commensurate with the seriousness of these breaches, based on our own assessment of the relevant factors below. 63. We then deliberated on the factors to be considered in relation to any increase or decrease from the above entry point, which both parties addressed us during the Hearing: Overall perception of impact of bet(s) on fixture/game integrity 64. We agreed with both parties that there was no impact as a result of the bets Mr Blackstock placed on the fixtures or on the integrity of the game. Player played or did not play 65. Both parties agreed that Mr Blackstock did not play in the matches he placed his bets on, and this factor would not cause us to deviate from the entry point. Number of Bets 66. We noted that there were 657 prohibited bets just over approximately 6 years. Whilst this was not a small number, this was not a particular large number in comparison that would cause us to deviate from the entry point. Size of Bets 67. The individual bets placed by Mr Blackstock were not high stakes. We were content that the size of bets would not cause us to deviate from the entry point. Facts and circumstances surrounding the pattern of betting 68. We accepted that Mr Blackstock made these bets on his gut instincts and there was no evidence of betting based on any insider information. Mr Blackstock 12
only had/used mainly one online Betfair betting account, and two bets placed on Bet365 account, with clear recognisable account names, a possible indication of not trying to hide anything suspicious or unscrupulous. 69. There was no evidence raised under this factor that would cause us to deviate from the entry point. Actual stake and amount possible to win 70. The total stake over the period from both Betfair and Bet365 accounts was 105,646.62 (para 34.12.1), which was a large sum. 71. We did not have the odds for each of the bets Mr Blackstock placed to ascertain the amount possible to win. 72. However, whilst Mr Blackstock made an overall loss of approximately 20,000, we noted that he had a total return on the winning bets, excluding his original stakes, of 49,907.43 (para 34.12.2) from his online betting accounts. This was a sizeable winning total and he was able to re-use these winnings as future stakes. 73. We, therefore, viewed the size of the total stake and total returns on the winning bets to be an aggravating factor for us to consider. Personal circumstances 74. It was not disputed that Mr Blackstock had a couple of long term injuries and was recuperating during part of the material time. 75. We accepted that Mr Blackstock placed bets through boredom as a harmless hobby and his judgement was impaired when he was very depressed through injuries. 76. Mr Blackstock was genuinely remorseful, apologetic and seeking help from Sporting Chance Clinic to address his betting behaviour. He had offered to get involved in education or a programme to help raise the awareness of betting prohibitions. 77. We also received character references for Mr Blackstock, which we took into 13
our consideration. 78. We were, therefore, content to give some credit in mitigation under this factor when considering the sanctions. Previous record (any previous breach of betting Rules will be considered as a highly aggravating factor) 79. We noted that Mr Blackstock had a previous clean disciplinary record and this was his first misconduct charge. 80. We agreed that this was a mitigating factor to consider. Experience of the Participant 81. Mr Blackstock is 27 years old and is a professional football player. 82. Mr Blackstock acknowledged that he had previously received information about betting Rules but did not take them on board. He thought it was acceptable to place bets on games that he was not playing in. 83. Mr Blackstock had accepted that ignorance is not a defence and there were no reasons under this factor that would cause us to deviate from the entry point. Assistance to the process and acceptance of the charge 84. Mr Blackstock admitted to these betting breaches at the earliest opportunity and fully complied with The FA s investigations. 85. He had also accepted the Charges and attended this Plea in Mitigation Hearing. 86. We agreed that there were mitigations under this factor for us to consider. 87. After taking into consideration that each bet is a separate breach, Mr Blackstock placed more than one bet on his own team to win (7 bets of this type in total), applying our considered degrees of aggravating and mitigating factors above on the sanction entry point (para 62), we decided that a sporting sanction of 3 (three) months suspension in totality would be commensurate with the seriousness of all breaches that Mr Blackstock had been charged with. 14
88. However, due to the nature and circumstances of these breaches, we were persuaded to suspend the sporting sanction we had decided to impose. We also decided on the appropriate period to suspend this sporting sanction and when it would be automatically invoked. 89. In considering an appropriate amount of fine, we had no reasons to deviate from the Sanction Guidelines and decided to include an element of the financial gain made from these bets. 90. In considering the financial gain made from the bets to be included in the fine to be issued, whilst Mr Blackstock made a overall loss for the period of 19,837.97, he had made a winnings total of 49,907.43 from the prohibited bets. 91. In deciding the amount of fine to be imposed, we gave regards to Mr Blackstock s net weekly income as advised by Mr Sturman. 92. We were pleased to receive Mr Blackstock s offer and his willingness to help in education or a programme to help raise the awareness of betting prohibitions. We would like to accept the offer if it could be workable with the relevant FA department, to whom we would pass on Mr Blackstock s offer. The Sanction 93. After having considered the mitigation presented and having regards to the Sanction Guidelines and Mr Blackstock s declared net weekly income, we ordered that: 93.1. Mr Blackstock be suspended from all football activities for a period of 3 (three) months; 93.2. However, the suspension will be suspended in full until 31 March 2016 and will only be automatically invoked upon a proven breach of the FA Betting Rules during that period; and 93.3. Mr Blackstock be fined the sum of 60,000 (sixty-thousand pounds) having taken into consideration the financial gain made on these prohibited bets. 15
94. The Personal Hearing Fee will be retained but we made no orders for the costs of the Hearing. 95. The decision is subject to the right of appeal under the relevant FA Rules and Regulations. Signed Thura KT Win, JP (Chairman) Roger Pawley Alan Hardy Friday, 02 May 2014 16