• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

O/T Barton... again!?

r-u-s-x said:
do you consider addiction a mental illness (I do) - is it not the same as telling someone depressed to get over it.
Click to expand...

The could be a case for that actually yes because addictions come in many forms, tests have shown people that over eat sugar have different neurology pathways in their brains, so he could be a gambler. He should be getting help for that and not using it as a cop out.

Also Barton is scum and a piece of dog mess on the bottoms of ones shoe, he tried the whole intellectual approach to make him seem still relevant but lacked the self discipline to pass it off.

Barton is a waste of space like his brother it is their DNA some families in this country should be stopped from reproducing his families DNA would be better off ending with him.

I have a son and I know when a child is caught in the wrong they usually say and do anything so as not to get caught and make up one lie after another, I doubt Barton is an addict he seems to me to have the same arrogance of a Lance Armstrong, thugs trying to fool people or get people to feel sorry for them. I have a lot of time for mental health issues, I have no time for cnuts, we have all met them in our lifes people who are just scum but to pull the wool over people's eyes will say and do anything to gain sympathy.

Barton is scum.
 
I think it's a shame the way his career went, he did have talent as a young player, but a character weakness has lead him down the wrong track, it's always disappointing to see this happen in sport. His points on the links between football, the media and betting are spot on and highlight the hypocrisy of the relationship.
 
I think barton is a clown shoe but taking the statement at face value in that there was no match fixing involved then the punishment seems exessive.
 
And of course had this been, say, Rooney or Terry found guilty of the exact same offenses, you reckon they too would be banned for so long? Ten games, max, IMO. Barton is an easy target for an otherwise impotent organisation to show they have the balls to act when necessary.
 
r-u-s-x said:
do you consider addiction a mental illness (I do) - is it not the same as telling someone depressed to get over it.
Click to expand...
Would an addicted gambler get the same sympathy if they wanted to work at a bookies?

There are literally millions of jobs out there that don't involve gambling or advertising betting companies.

Barton was free to choose any one of those. Two if he really wanted.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if he bet on an Atouba red-card that time Timothy gave him a forearm smash off the ball and only got booked for it :)

(Joey Barton DID NOT say anything racist...)
 
Rorschach said:
I think barton is a clown shoe but taking the statement at face value in that there was no match fixing involved then the punishment seems exessive.
Click to expand...

He is a clown shoe. I don't think you can take his statement at face value. He's got nothing to lose by insisting on being hard done by. He placed bets on games (hundreds of them) including ones in which he was playing. Stupidity of the highest order and he deserves every week of his ban.
 
scaramanga said:
Would an addicted gambler get the same sympathy if they wanted to work at a bookies?

There are literally millions of jobs out there that don't involve gambling or advertising betting companies.

Barton was free to choose any one of those. Two if he really wanted.
Click to expand...
Think that's a false equivalence as he didn't chose to work in a bookies but become a sportsman (1996 was also different place to 2017 re adverts etc.) also if you are an addict you very rarely know or admit you have a problem.

Rules against gambling on other teams are relatively new.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Think that's a false equivalence as he didn't chose to work in a bookies but become a sportsman (1996 was also different place to 2017 re adverts etc.) also if you are an addict you very rarely know or admit you have a problem.

Rules against gambling on other teams are relatively new.
Click to expand...
Yet those are the rules of the job. He can choose to abide by them or he can choose another job.

I don't blame him for gambling (although I think he is overplaying the addiction angle as a legal strategy), I blame him for continuing to work in an industry where doing so is not compatible with that lifestyle.
 
awesome dawson said:
He placed bets on games (hundreds of them) including ones in which he was playing. Stupidity of the highest order.
Click to expand...

I can't see a problem with betting on yourself to win. That is the point, to try as hard as possible.

And "on the few occasions where I placed a bet on my own team to lose, I was not involved in the match day squad for any of those games. I did not play. I was not even on the bench"
 
Bullet said:
I can't see a problem with betting on yourself to win. That is the point, to try as hard as possible.

And "on the few occasions where I placed a bet on my own team to lose, I was not involved in the match day squad for any of those games. I did not play. I was not even on the bench"
Click to expand...

There's a reason why insider trading is illegal and betting on your own team is about as close to insider trading as it gets, sport wise.
 
Bullet said:
I can't see a problem with betting on yourself to win. That is the point, to try as hard as possible.

And "on the few occasions where I placed a bet on my own team to lose, I was not involved in the match day squad for any of those games. I did not play. I was not even on the bench"
Click to expand...

Even betting on yourself is murky

Using Barton as the example - he's mates with Nolan and Carroll at West Ham who they are playing at the weekend.

Nolan tells Barton that Carroll/Nolan/Noble/Collins are all struggling - that is insider trading in footballer terms.


r-u-s-x said:
Are directors and owners allowed to bet?
Click to expand...

No club offical is allowed to bet as I understand it, I assume that means owners.


The ban is correct if you look at his history of betting - and he was warned previously.
 
Thinking about this a bit deeper I think he has a point about gambling in football being bad but I don't think it is hypercritical for FA to ban footballers gambling while accepting sponsorship.

Banning footballers gambling is all to do with preventing corruption, there is no moral judgment on the act of gambling as they are happy for card playing and betting on other sports.

two separate issues.
 
r-u-s-x said:
Thinking about this a bit deeper I think he has a point about gambling in football being bad but I don't think it is hypercritical for FA to ban footballers gambling while accepting sponsorship.

Banning footballers gambling is all to do with preventing corruption, there is no moral judgment on the act of gambling as they are happy for card playing and betting on other sports.

two separate issues.
Click to expand...
You do understand that this is the internet and you're not allowed to change your opinion right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back