News & Reviews

AUTOBIOGRAPHIES: TO SANCTION OR NOT TO SANCTION, THAT IS THE QUESTION

Have a look back through your Christmas stocking. Which of the many available sporting autobiographies did your loved ones buy for you? Perhaps Matt Le Tissier's "Taking Le Tiss" or Andre Agassi's "Open: An Autobiography", both of which involve former sporting heroes who had hung up their boots/racquet by the time of penning their startling revelations.

Perhaps your friends and relatives delved further back in time and bought you Roy Keane's "Keane: The Autobiography" or Sean Long's "Longy: Booze, Brawls, Sex and Scandal - The Autobiography of the Wild Man of Rugby League", sportsmen who chose to tell all and risk the consequences during their careers.

In "Taking Le Tiss" Southampton legend Matt Le Tissier admitted that, during his team's 2-0 victory over Wimbledon in 1995, he had conspired to kick the ball out for a throw-in within 60 seconds of the start of the match, in order to win a 'spread-bet' he had placed with friends and team mates before the match. Le Tissier stated in his autobiography:

"Obviously I'd never have done anything that might have affected the outcome of the match but, I couldn't see a problem with making a few quid on the time of the first throw in…The plan was for us to kick the ball straight into touch at the start of the game and then collect 56 times our stake. Easy money…Eventually we got the ball out on 70 seconds. The neutral time meant we had neither won nor lost. I have never tried spread betting since."

The FA has chosen not to take any action against Le Tissier due to there being insufficient evidence. The pertinent question is whether, had there been sufficient evidence, The FA would have been able to sanction Le Tissier upon the release of his autobiography.

Arguably, Le Tissier could have been charged with bringing the game into disrepute (Rule E.3(1) in the 2009/2010 FA Regulations). He could have also faced further sanctions, firstly in relation to agreeing to accept any reward related to influencing the conduct of a match (Rule E.5 in the 2009/2010 FA Regulations) and, secondly, betting on the progress of a match in which he was participating (Rule E.8(a) in the 2009/2010 FA Regulations). However, to be sanctioned under these provisions, Le Tissier must be what is defined as a 'Participant' under The FA Regulations.

A 'Participant' does not include former players, as Le Tissier was at the time he admitted to this offence. However, Le Tissier was a player (and, therefore, a 'Participant') at the time of the offence. Therefore, the issue appears to be whether The FA (or, indeed, any other football governing body with jurisdiction) can act retrospectively to sanction individuals who are 'Participants' at the time of the offence but, only admit such offences when they are no longer 'Participants'. Sadly, the relevant regulations are silent on this point.

In the case of "Keane: The Autobiography", Roy Keane revealed that he had intended "to hurt" Alf -Inge Haaland when, five minutes from time in the 2001 Manchester derby, he was sent off for a blatant knee-high foul on the Norwegian as an act of revenge for an incident involving the two in a previous game, in which Haaland had accused Keane of faking an injury. Keane's account of the incident was as follows:

"I'd waited long enough. I ******* hit him hard. The ball was there (I think). Take that you ****. And don't ever stand over me sneering about fake injuries."

Keane actually received a three game suspension and a £5,000 fine from The FA at the time of the incident. However, following the publication of this autobiography, The FA banned Keane for a further five matches and fined him £150,000. The FA's justification for such a sanction was, presumably, that Keane had brought the game into disrepute under the equivalent of what is now Rule E.3(1) in the 2009/2010 FA Regulations.

Sean Long, the former St Helens and Great Britain rugby league international, has also made betting related claims in his autobiography, released in October 2009. Long was previously banned in 2004 for winning £900 on a bet for his own St Helens team to lose against Bradford, a match in which he took no part. Long, it was held, had taken advantage of the fact he knew his St Helens team would be fielding a considerably weaker side against Bradford. Commenting on the scandal, Long made the following claim;

"Everyone seemed to have money on Bradford…Players, mates of players, the bloke who sells the pies, the bloke who sells the pies' milkman, the milkman's postman, the postman's mistress."

Long explains at least "half a dozen" other St Helens players placed bets on the outcome of the fixture, as well as two previous Bradford players that he is aware of. These comments, as well as additional confessions relating to similar types of betting, not surprisingly, have caught the attention of the Rugby Football League (the "RFL").

The Communications Manager of the RFL has stated that Long could face a further misconduct charge for not fully divulging all he knew about the Bradford betting incident and face sanctions for other betting issues mentioned in his autobiography. Although no formal decision has been made by the RFL yet, the relevant sections of the current RFL Operational Rules under which Long could be sanctioned are as follows:

D1:10
Any single breach of the following Operational Rules constitutes misconduct:

E5.3.1.4.4
Failing to disclose to the RFL Compliance Manager without delay full details of any approaches or invitations of which the Person is aware that have been received by any other party to engage in conduct that would amount to a breach of this Betting Code.

E5.3.1.4.5
Failing to cooperate with any investigation by the RFL Compliance Manager in relation to possible breaches of this Betting Code, including failure, without reasonable excuse (and subject to the right of objection set out at clause 4.3, below) to provide any information requested by the RFL Compliance Manager that is relevant to such investigation.

It would seem, therefore, that it is possible for a retired professional to admit to past breaches of the relevant rules and regulations and escape punishment. However, the same cannot be said for those still active in their chosen sport. In both circumstances, the rules have still been breached, so why is it right for one to be punished and the other not? Should sporting bodies do more to be able to discipline those in breach, regardless of whether or not their playing careers have come to an end, or would this be a waste of a governing body's time and resources? In reality, could a governing body even practically and effectively discipline a retired professional in the same way it could an active player when sanctions such as playing bans are no longer relevant?

In "Open: An Autobiography", eight time Grand Slam champion and Olympic gold medalist Andre Agassi revealed that his father used to give him drugs to take before matches, including pills that were high in caffeine and speed. Furthermore, Agassi admitted that he explained his positive test result for 'crystal meth' in 1997 by sending the Association of Tennis Professionals (the "ATP") a signed letter claiming that he had "unwittingly" taken the drug in a "spiked soda".

The claims made by Agassi have sparked outrage from fans, the media and even current professionals. Some have called for Agassi to be fined by the ATP and the International Tennis Federation (the "ITF"), others have suggested he should be made to return all of his prize money and the medals he won during his career while some have even gone further, stating criminal charges should be brought against him. The director of the World Anti-Doping Authority has even publicly stated that Agassi should be punished by the ATP and the ITF for his actions but, is this even possible?

Section 8.04 of the ATP Rules states that "it is an obligation for ATP players …to refrain from engaging in conduct contrary to the integrity of the game of tennis". Agassi would appear to fall foul of this provision, except that such rules only appear to relate to current, and not former, players. The ATP have recently confirmed that they will not be re-opening the case, as they cannot impose sanctions retrospectively upon former players.

However, interestingly, the ITF does have the ability to retrospectively sanction retired players, at least in relation to doping offences. Section B Part 5 (Covered Players and Events) of the ITF Tennis Anti-Doping Programme 2009 reads as follows:

"A Player shall continue to be bound by and required to comply with the Programme unless and until the Player is deemed under the rules applicable to him/her to have retired from the sport, and the ITF shall continue to have jurisdiction over him/her after such retirement in respect of matters taking place prior to retirement."

There is, however, a condition to this rule, to be found in Section R (Statute of Limitations) of the same rules, which states that:

"No action may be commenced under this Programme against a Player or other Person for a Doping Offence unless such action is commenced within eight years from the date that the Doping Offence occurred".

It would, therefore, seem that Agassi could only be sanctioned for any offences committed in the last eight years, which would not include his positive test for 'crystal meth' in 1997.

If the governing bodies for football and, indeed, other sports were to follow the example of tennis and insert a simple provision into their regulations stating that they shall continue to have jurisdiction over any player after his/her retirement in respect of matters taking place prior to his/her retirement, and ensured that no limitation period applied and that the sanction was not limited to doping offences, they would be able to take appropriate action against the Agassi's and Le Tissier's of the future, and not just the Keane's and the Long's.

Nevertheless, if such a regulation was incorporated, what meaningful punishment would a governing body be able to hand out? Would it be possible and, indeed, appropriate to ban the individual from any involvement in the game (for example as a manager/coach) for a certain period of time, or strip him of prize money/medals? Quite possibly not. The likelihood is that governing bodies would conclude that fines are the only appropriate sanction in such cases. Given the potential increased revenue of revealing such stories in autobiographies, it may be the case that retired sportsmen and sportswomen are prepared to take this risk.

Simon Grove and Joseph Parks of IPS Law LLP