How To Find Guilty Of Anci-Corrupion And Betting On Rugby Union

Transcription

1 BEFORE A RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION DISCIPLINARY PANEL Between: THE RUGBY FOOTBALL UNION - and - PHILIP BLAKE IN THE MATTER OF BREACHES OF RFU REGULATION 17 ANTI- CORRUPTION and BETTING Panel: Christopher Quinlan QC, Chairman Daniel White Gareth Graham In attendance: Philip Blake, Respondent Ray Tully, Respondent s Counsel Geordan Murphy, Backs Coach, Leicester Tigers James Segan, Counsel RFU Gerard McEvilly, RFU Head of Discipline Alys Lewis, RFU Anti- Corruption Officer Charlotte Mitchell- Dunn, RFU Discipline Case Officer Rebecca Morgan, RFU Judicial Secretary Introduction 1. To our knowledge this is the first case of its kind brought by the Rugby Football Union ( RFU ). 2. Philip Blake ( PB ) is and was at all material times employed as a defence coach by the English Premiership club Leicester Tigers RFC. He was charged by the RFU with two allegations contrary to RFU Regulation 17 Anti- Corruption and Betting ( Regulation 17 ). The charges were in identical terms and alleged: Wagering by a Connected Person on a Connected Event, and receipt of the proceeds of such wager, contrary to Page 1 of 20

2 RFU Regulation (a) and/or Wagering by a Contract Player Support Personnel on an Event, and receipt of the proceeds of such wager, contrary to RFU Regulation (c). 3. Charge 1 concerned PB betting on a rugby union match played between RC Toulonnais ( Toulon ) and Leicester Tigers on 13 December Charge 2 concerned PB betting on an Aviva Premiership rugby union match played between Newcastle Falcons and Leicester Tigers on 8 March PB was informed of the alleged breaches by letter dated 24 April 2014 and thereby required (in accordance with Regulation (b)) to provide a written statement setting out in detail all of the facts and circumstances of which [he was] aware with respect to the alleged breaches. He replied by letter dated 28 April 2014 in which, inter alia, he admitted placing the bets as alleged. 5. He admitted beaching Regulation at the start of the hearing before us. Facts Background 6. The essential facts were not in dispute. On 5 November 2014 PB applied to become a member of the Grosvenor Casino, Leicester. That application was processed and accepted. Thereafter he attended the casino on 9 days in November, December (2014), January and March (2015). On 5 of those days there was no recorded activity. On 2 he played poker and the other 2 he placed the bets which are the subject of the charges. 7. Within the casino are 2 self- service betting terminals ( SSBTs ). They are touchscreen machines. Each has a serial number: and Page 2 of 20

3 respectively. The customer browses the SSBT to see what bets are available, selects and places a bet using cash or a credit/debit card. A printed betting slip is then issued. The maximum amount that can be placed on each bet is If the customer wins the bet, he/she must insert the betting slip into a different pay out machine. The winnings are paid out, up to a maximum of 2,000 per bet. If the winnings exceed 2000, they must be collected from a cashier. 9. PB used both SSBTs to place the bets in question. The Bets 10. On Thursday 11 December 2014 PB placed 4 separate bets on the Toulon v Leicester Tigers European Rugby Champions Cup match to be played the following Saturday. The bets were placed as follows: BET STAKE MACHINE MACHINE WINNINGS TIME :08: :10: :19: :20: Each bet was placed with Leicester Tigers enjoying a handicap The effect of the handicap was that he would win if Leicester won or lost the match by fewer than 19 points. Toulon won 23 v 8 and so each bet resulted in the winnings shown (which include his stake). 12. On Friday 6 March 2015 he placed 4 separate bets on the Aviva Premiership match between Newcastle Falcons v Leicester Tigers to be Page 3 of 20

4 played on Sunday 8 March 2015 as follows: BET STAKE MACHINE MACHINE WINNINGS TIME :10: :14: :16: :25: The bets were simple ones: Leicester Tigers to beat Newcastle Falcons. They duly did, 12 v 16, and so each bet resulted in the winnings shown (which include his stake). Discovery 14. The SSBTs are audited each week. In December 2014 a casino employee noted that unusually high amounts had been placed on the machines; sums were placed on the same match, involving the local Premiership rugby club. The same employee noticed the same (unusual) pattern in March It was unusual to see such significant amounts on a rugby team. He checked the casino CCTV footage of the machines for 6 March and recognised PB from his membership. He then checked the Leicester Tigers website and discovered he was employed by the club. 15. On Saturday 14 March 2015, PB attended the casino again. He was informed that he had breached the SSBT rules by betting on his own team. PB was told that he was no longer permitted to bet on the SSBTs and did not visit the casino again. Page 4 of 20

5 16. The RFU was informed. PB was notified of the investigation and the core facts by letter dated 24 April He replied by letter dated 28 April. Therein he said: Page 5 of 20

6 Respondent s Case 17. The Respondent did not dispute the central facts. He told us of his long and successful career as a player in League and then as a coach. He was a player of considerable ability. He has enjoyed a similarly fruitful coaching career, in both League and Union. There is a little doubt that he is a coach of the very highest calibre. 18. This is his first season in the English Premiership. He committed the regulatory breaches when he was living alone, his wife and family in Australia. He is not a gambler by nature. He bet rarely. Aside from this establishment, he has visited a casino on only 2 or 3 other occasions. His decision to join the casino was spontaneous; a place to watch pay- per- view fights and/or have a drink. He has never before placed a bet on any sporting event with which he has a connection. 19. PB s case was that on 11 December he used the SSBT to view multiple sports. He looked at cricket and then found himself looking at rugby. He described the odds on the Toulon v Leicester match as ridiculous given they had beaten them the previous weekend and knowing how they had trained that week. He claimed that he believed he was placing to win bets; he said he did not appreciate when placing the bets that he would win even if Leicester lost the match by fewer than 19 points. He said it occurred to him only after the match that despite the defeat he had still won the bets. The bets were paid for with cash. He said he did not know of the 250 machine limit. It was, he said, easier to place the bets using the different machines. Even now he said he could not explain why he did it. 20. He repeated the conduct on 6 Match He said he was (again) not thinking clearly when he did it. Page 6 of 20

7 21. He regretted deeply his foolishness. He put it in this (vivid) way: having my whole career on the line for a minimum gain is something I will regret for the rest of my life. 22. We read and had regard to written references from Richard Cockerill, Leicester Tigers Director of Rugby, and Gary Flower, former CEO Australian Rugby Union. They spoke of PB as a man of the highest integrity with the utmost professionalism who at his club is very well respected and popular. In a letter dated 28 April 2015 Simon Cohen, Leicester Tigers Chief Executive, spoke of PB s extremely positive contribution and a very sensible and mature character. We heard from Geordan Murphy who spoke of PB in glowing and generous terms. 23. Mr Tully readily conceded that PB should forfeit his winnings. He acknowledged the need for deterrence. However, he sought to persuade us that these were unsophisticated breaches, which did not undermine the integrity of the sport, competition or either match. The sums involved were, he submitted, not substantial, the winnings modest but the damage to the reputation and standing of his client very significant indeed. DECISION Regulatory Breaches 24. The particulars of Charge 1: On Thursday 11 December 2014, Philip Blake, whilst employed as Leicester Tigers RFC s defence coach, placed four separate bets, using self- service sport betting terminals ( SSBTs ) at the Grosvenor Casino in Leicester, on the Toulon v Leicester Tigers match to be played on Saturday 13 December 2014 as follows: Page 7 of 20

8 BET STAKE MACHINE MACHINE WINNINGS TIME :08: :10: :19: :20: Charge 2: On Friday 6 March 2015, Philip Blake, whilst employed as Leicester Tigers RFC s defence coach, placed four separate bets, using SSBTs at the Grosvenor Casino in Leicester, on the Newcastle Falcons v Leicester Tigers match to be played on Sunday 8 March 2015 as follows: BET STAKE MACHINE MACHINE WINNINGS TIME :10: :14: :16: :25: The winnings columns above include his stake. His total profit (excluding his stake) amounted to By virtue of Regulation 17.2 an anti- corruption breach is defined as any breach of RFU Regulation 17 or IRB [as it then was] Regulation 6. By the same provision an anti- corruption breach will also amount to Misconduct. 28. Regulation 17.3 contains the Anti- Corruption Breaches. The breaches do not require proof of a mental element: A Connected Person commits an Anti- Corruption Breach if he engages in and/or Attempts to engage in any of the conduct set out in Regulations to and/or commits any other breach of the requirements of these Anti- Corruption Regulations. Accordingly, it is not necessary that Page 8 of 20

9 intent, fault, negligence and/or knowing commission of an Anti- Corruption Breach on the Connected Person s part be demonstrated in order to establish that an Anti- Corruption Breach has been committed. 29. As for the particular breaches, Regulation sets out what is designated Prohibited Wagering and it provides thus: All Connected Persons (a) No Connected Person shall, directly or indirectly, Wager and/or Attempt to Wager on the outcome or any aspect of any Connected Event and/or receive and/or Attempt to receive part or all of the proceeds of any such Wager and/or any other Benefit in relation to a Wager, subject to below. (b) No Connected Person shall and/or shall Attempt, directly or indirectly, to solicit, offer, induce, entice, instruct, persuade, encourage, agree with and/or facilitate any other party to Wager and/or Attempt to Wager on the outcome or any aspect of any Connected Event, subject to below. Contract Player(s) and Contract Player Support Personnel (c) No Contract Player or Contract Player Support Personnel shall, directly or indirectly, Wager and/or Attempt to Wager on the outcome and/or any aspect of any Event and/or receive and/or Attempt to receive part or all of the proceeds of any such Wager and/or any other Benefit in relation to a Wager, subject to below. (d) No Contract Player or Contract Player Support Personnel shall and/or shall Attempt, directly or indirectly, to solicit, induce, entice, instruct, persuade, encourage, agree with and/or facilitate any other person to Wager and/or Attempt to Wager on the outcome or any aspect of any Event, subject to below. 30. Regulation 17.2 provides that a Connected Person is: Any International Player, Contract Player, International Match Official, Contract Player Support Personnel, any coach, trainer, selector, health professional, analyst, team official, administrator, owner, director and/or Page 9 of 20

10 any other person involved with and/or engaged in relation to the Game by a Union or its National Representative Team and shall include any Union/Association/IRB panel of Match Officials at International Match and/or Contract Player level, Disciplinary Personnel, any Agent and/or representative of an International Player, Contract Player or Contract Player Support Personnel and/or family member and/or associate of any of the foregoing (to the extent that such family member/associate falls under the jurisdiction of a Union, Rugby Body and/or the Board) and/or any other individual or entity involved in the organisation, administration and/or promotion of the Game at International Match and/or Contract Player level. 31. There was (and could be) no issue that PB was a Connected Person within the meaning of Regulation 17. On each occasion he betted on a Connected Event. Further, the exception in Regulation does not apply. 32. By the same Regulation Contract Player Support Personnel is defined thus: A Connected Person who is involved with and/or engaged by a Contract Player, a Club, Rugby Body, team and/or Event which includes Contract Players and shall include the teammates and opponents of Contract Players, the Match Officials and Disciplinary Personnel appointed to an Event which includes Contract Players, the support personnel of such Contract Players and Match Officials and the directors, officers and personnel of Unions, Clubs and Rugby Bodies which engage Contract Players (and including without limitation the owners of Clubs and Rugby Bodies, save where the owner is a Union). 33. PB denied knowledge of the Regulations. As is clear from Regulation 17.3, it is not necessary to prove knowledge. In any event, there are (to us) four relevant points. First, he has been in professional sport for long enough to know he should not have been doing what he was. Second, if he did not know, Page 10 of 20

11 he should have done. Third, it would not have taken more than a few minutes to find the relevant Regulation, for it is published in the RFU handbook and on the RFU website. Fourth, and in any event, by Regulation (a) he, as a Connected Person, shall: Be deemed to have agreed that it is their responsibility to read and ensure that they understand all of the provisions of these regulations and to comply therewith. 34. PB was charged with breaches of both Regulation (a) and (c) both cumulatively and in the alterative. Mr Tully did not argue that PB should have been charged separately with each alleged breach contrary to (a) and (c). Further, he did not submit that either 17(1)(a) or 17(1)(c) was not made out. Accordingly: a. We deleted the word or from each charge; and b. PB admitted breaches contrary to both Regulation (a) and (c). 35. In light of PB s admission and the evidence before us we were satisfied to the requisite standard (balance of probabilities) that the alleged breaches were proved. Sanction 36. We repeat: this is the first such case that we know of in rugby union. It is certainly the first brought under the relatively new Regulation 17. This is new ground. 37. The starting point is Regulation Regulation provides: Where it is determined that an Anti- Corruption Breach has been committed, the range of sanctions applicable to an Anti- Corruption Breach are set out in Regulation 17.6 below. The sanctions set out below shall be applied in place of any recommended sanctions set out in RFU Regulations Page 11 of 20

12 and the mitigating and aggravating factors set out in IRB Regulation 6 shall apply. 38. Regulation contains the said range and there is value in repeating it here: ANTI- CORRUPTION BREACH Prohibited Wagering (Reg ) Corruption Related to Fixing (Reg ) Misuse of Inside Information (Reg ) General Corruption Offences (Reg ) RANGE OF SANCTIONS PER OFFENCE Minimum: reprimand and/or warning Maximum: Life Suspension Minimum: reprimand and/or warning Maximum: Life Suspension Minimum: reprimand and/or warning Maximum: Life Suspension Minimum: reprimand and/or warning Maximum: Life Suspension ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS AND (in all cases) The Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer shall have the discretion to impose a fine on the Connected Person arising out of, or in connection with the Anti- Corruption Breach(es) AND (in all cases) Appropriate further options including without limitation the cancellation of sports results/events, demotion, points reduction, return of rewards, replay of fixtures (for example in cases of Match Official corruption) where risk of fraud has been established or identified, withdrawal of accreditation, exclusion from Match venues and/or official Player environs, as appropriate. 39. The Regulation 6 referred to therein is World Rugby Regulation 6 ( Regulation 6 ), from which Regulation 17 derives. For example, in the table above, for Regulation read Regulation Page 12 of 20

13 40. The range of sanction is extensive, from a reprimand to life suspension. The discretion is similarly considerable. We understand why: the facts of individual cases will be many and varied. 41. Although Regulation 17 provides little express assistance on the factors to be considered in assessing the seriousness of a particular breach or in fixing the appropriate level of sanction, Regulation incorporates the mitigating and aggravating factors adumbrated in Regulation Regulation provides that aggravating features of such conduct shall include the following: (a) Whether the Connected Person has a high degree of fault in relation to the Anti- Corruption Breach; (b) Whether the Connected Person has previously been found guilty of any similar Anti- Corruption Breach under these Anti- Corruption Regulations or any Misconduct regulations, whether by World Rugby, a Union or a Tournament Organiser, or of a similar offence under any other laws and/or regulations; (c) Where the amount of any Benefit, directly or indirectly received by the Connected Person as a result of the offence(s), is substantial and/or where the sums of money otherwise involved in the Anti- Corruption Breach(es) were substantial; (d) Where the Anti- Corruption Breach substantially damaged (or had the potential to damage substantially) the commercial value and/or the public interest in the relevant Event(s); (e) Where the Anti- Corruption Breach affected (or had the potential to affect) the result of the relevant Event(s); (f) Where the welfare of a Connected Person or any other person has been endangered as a result of the Anti- Corruption Breach; (g) Where the Anti- Corruption Breach involved more than one Connected Person; Page 13 of 20

14 (h) Where the Connected Person has not cooperated with any investigation and/or the process (notwithstanding that this may amount to a separate Anti- Corruption Breach); and/or (i) Any other aggravating factor(s) that the Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer (or in the case of an appeal as applicable, the Appeal Committee) considers relevant and appropriate. 43. The footnote to Regulation (a) gives as examples of a high degree of fault an orchestrated fix or passing of Inside Information. Neither is present in this case. 44. Regulation provides that mitigating features of such conduct shall include the following: (a) Whether the Connected Person has a low degree of fault in relation to the Anti- Corruption Breach; (b) The presence and timing of an acknowledgement of culpability/wrongdoing and/or remorse by the Connected Person; (c) A good disciplinary record and/or good character of the Connected Person; (d) The youth and level of experience of the Connected Person; (e) Where the Anti- Corruption Breach did not substantially damage (or have the potential to substantially damage) the commercial value and/or the public interest in the relevant Event(s); (f) Where the Anti- Corruption Breach did not affect (or have the potential to affect) the result of the relevant Event(s); (g) Where the Connected Person provides Substantial Assistance to World Rugby and/or a Union, a criminal authority or professional disciplinary body that results in World Rugby or Union discovering or establishing a Anti- Corruption Breach by another Connected Person or that results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering or establishing a criminal offence or the breach of professional rules by another Connected Person or other third party; Page 14 of 20

15 (h) Where the Connected Person has already suffered penalties under other laws and/or regulations for the same offence; and/or (i) Any other mitigating factor(s) that the Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer considers relevant and appropriate. 45. The footnote to Regulation (a) gives as an example of a low degree of fault the inadvertent passing of Inside Information without benefit. 46. The gravamen of a Connected Person placing prohibited wager/s on a Connected Event as was the case here - is twofold. First, there is the obvious and wider integrity of the Game factor. Second, such a person will generally have Inside Knowledge. Regulation 17.2 defines Inside Information thus: Inside Information Any non- public information relating to any Event including any aspect thereof that a Connected Person possesses by virtue of his position within the Game. Such information includes, but is not limited to, relevant information regarding a Participant(s), conditions, tactic(s) and/or strategy(ies), selection, injury(ies), and/or any other information relating to the likely performance of a Participant(s) and/or outcome of an Event including any aspect thereof, and/or any other relevant information in relation to an Event which is known by a Connected Person(s) but which is not already published or a matter of public record, which is not readily acquired by an interested member of the public and/or disclosed according to the rules and regulations governing the Event. 47. The Connected Person is very likely to be possessed of such information. That gives him an advantage over the wider public and over the person/institution setting the bet. That was illustrated in this case. When explaining his decision to bet on the Toulon v Leicester match PB said (to us) that he considered the odds ridiculous given that Leicester beat them the preceding weekend before and knowing how well we had prepared in the week before. Page 15 of 20

16 48. Of course both the suggested aggravating and mitigating features apply to anti- corruption breaches generally and not just prohibited wagering. We think it may be useful if we set out the factors we consider to be relevant in assessing the seriousness of a prohibited wagering breach. They are the matters to which we have had regard in assessing the gravity of PB s breaches. They are as follows: a. The number of prohibited wager/s. b. The size (i.e. stake) of the prohibited wager/s. c. The nature of the prohibited wager/s: a bet to win, to lose or a spread bet. d. Whether the prohibited wager/s was placed on his/her own side or another. e. Whether the prohibited wager/s was placed on match/es in which the person participated or was otherwise connected or engaged. f. Whether the prohibited wager/s was placed in reliance upon or otherwise with Inside Information. g. Where the prohibited wager/s was placed in reliance upon or otherwise with Inside Information, both the nature of and degree or extent of reliance upon that Inside Information : from the general (team has trained well) to the more specific (player x will come off after 60 minutes). h. Whether the prohibited wager/s was placed in respect of an event or result over which that person could affect or attempt to affect or over which or in respect of which they had some direct or indirect influence. i. Where the person is a Connected Person, the position or role occupied by that person. 49. As Mr Tully rightly acknowledged, we must have regard to the wider interests of the Game. It is important that those involved in the Game and the wider public understand that any breach of the anti- corruption and betting regulations will and must be treated seriously. Such behaviour Page 16 of 20

17 undermines public confidence in the integrity of the sport and strikes at the foundations of the Game. It is fundamental to the sport s integrity that the participants and public alike believe they are watching and involved in a genuine contest between two teams competing to win. 50. The RFU provided us with a schedule of sanctions imposed for similar offences in other sports. Though we are grateful for the effort that went into the compilation and preparation of the same, we derived little assistance from it. Indeed, Mr Segan (no doubt recognising its limitations) sensibly put it no higher than the most one could take from it was that such offending invariably resulted in a period of suspension. However, as he noted not all did. Further, there was force in Mr Tully s observation that the facts of each were brief and all could be distinguished (on their facts) from the instant case. We therefore approached this case by applying the principles we have identified above. 51. The following factors make the instant breaches serious: a. PB was a Connected Person who wagered on Connected Events. b. He did so by placing 8 separate wagers (bets). c. He placed such wagers on two separate occasions (December and March). d. The sums wagered were not insignificant. e. He was betting on his own team. f. The wagers placed on 11 December 2014 were spread bets. He won even if his team lost, as proved to be the case. We find it inconceivable that he did not know the nature and effect of those bets, when he placed them. g. He occupied a position of leadership and responsibility at Leicester Tigers. 52. In mitigation: Page 17 of 20

18 a. The breaches did not substantially damage or have the potential to substantially damage the commercial value and/or the public interest in the relevant matches. b. The breaches did not affect or have the potential to affect the result of either match. c. Insofar as he was possessed of Inside Information in the context of the wagers placed it was of the most general nature. d. The prohibited wagers were not placed in respect of an event (i.e. the match results) over which he had a direct influence (other than in the most general sense as a coach of one of the two participating sides). e. He admitted the breaches immediately. f. We accepted his contrition and regret as genuine. g. The admitted conduct was out of character. h. He has an exemplary record, this being the first time he has appeared before a disciplinary tribunal. i. He has enjoyed a highly successful career in League and Union, of which he has (if we may say) every right to be very proud. We have no doubt that PB is a man of very considerable professional ability and personal qualities. However, and as Mr Cockerill rightly acknowledged (in his letter), these breaches represent significant (and repeated) errors of judgment. 53. Regulation (a) provides: Where a Connected Person is found guilty of committing two Anti- Corruption Breaches under these Anti- Corruption Regulations in relation to the same incident or set of facts and sanctioned separately, then any sanctions imposed should run concurrently (and not cumulatively). 54. In our judgment this is a case of two separate breaches of Regulation 17, one in December 2014 and the other in March The second aggravates the first. We could legitimately have imposed separate Page 18 of 20

19 consecutive sanctions for each charge. However, we had regard to the totality of the offending and imposed a global sanction concurrent on each charge, which reflected the totality of his conduct. 55. In arriving at the appropriate sanction we have been careful to remind ourselves that we must not make an example of PB. We have imposed a sanction which we consider fair and proportionate to what he did, while having due regard to the proper consideration of deterrence. We have sought to strike a proper balance between the competing factors and arrive at a sanction we consider to be just. 56. In the circumstances and notwithstanding Mr Tully s cogent submissions - we were comfortably satisfied that the breaches in each charge were so serious as to justify only the imposition of a period of suspension. Having regard to all that we heard, read and have set out herein, the shortest possible period of suspension is one of 6 months. For reasons we have explained, it is imposed concurrently on each charge to reflect the totality of his conduct. 57. The suspension imposed is in accordance with the terms provided by Regulation (d) namely: Any Connected Person who has been Suspended may not, during the period of Suspension, fulfil any role set out within the definition of Connected Person in Regulation 6.2 including, for the avoidance of doubt, playing or training as part of any team or squad, participating or being involved in any capacity in the Game and/or participating in any function, event or activity (other than authorised anti- corruption education or rehabilitation programmes) that is authorised, organised, sanctioned, recognised or supported in any way by World Rugby, an Association, a Union or Rugby Body. Unions shall take all reasonable steps within their powers to give effect to this Regulation (d) where they have the jurisdiction to do so. Page 19 of 20

20 58. In addition to the suspension, we also fine PB. We fix the sum deliberately to deprive him of his profit namely 669. The principal punishment is the suspension. 59. He must pay the fixed costs of the hearing in the sum of We draw PB s attention to Regulation (f) which provides: Once any period of Suspension has expired, the Connected Person will automatically become re- eligible to return to the Game provided that he has first: (a) completed a World Rugby- approved anticorruption education programme to the reasonable satisfaction of World Rugby and is rehabilitated; (b) satisfied, in full, any fine and/or award of costs made against him by any Judicial Committee or Judicial Officer (or in the case of an appeal as applicable, Appeal Committee); and (c) agreed to subject himself to such additional reasonable and proportionate monitoring procedures and requirements as the Anti- Corruption Officer may reasonably consider necessary given the nature and scope of the Anti- Corruption Breach committed. 61. PB has a right of appeal, notice of which must, pursuant to DR be served upon the RFU Head of Discipline within 14 days following the date of written notification of the disciplinary decision against which the appealed is lodged. Christopher Quinlan QC (Chairman) 24 May 2015 Page 20 of 20