West Ham midfielder Lucas Paqueta finds himself embroiled in a serious situation. The Brazilian faces charges of spot-fixing, leading to much speculation and concern. While social media has been abuzz with videos of his yellow cards, suggesting potential guilt, a closer look reveals a more nuanced picture.
The FA’s decision to charge Paqueta wasn’t necessarily an indictment of his guilt. Rather, it aimed to avoid a potential lawsuit from Paqueta’s representatives. This move removes the FA from the direct decision-making process and allows for a fair and impartial assessment. The case now rests with an independent three-person panel.
This independent panel holds the power to determine Paqueta’s fate. Their decision will hinge on the evidence presented, not assumptions based on circulated video footage. The extent or nature of any additional evidence beyond the videos remains unclear.
While the situation is undeniably serious for both Paqueta and West Ham, a guilty verdict is not inevitable. The independent panel process offers a chance for Paqueta to defend himself. West Ham also has experience navigating similar situations with independent panels, as evidenced by the Carlos Tevez affair in 2008.
In 2008, West Ham faced a relegation threat due to an irregular player transfer involving Carlos Tevez. They navigated a similar independent panel process, which ultimately resulted in a £5.5 million fine but crucially avoided relegation. This case offers a glimmer of hope for West Ham, demonstrating the potential for a positive outcome through an independent tribunal.
The independent panel’s decision will be crucial in determining Paqueta’s future and potentially impacting West Ham’s midfield. While the situation warrants serious attention, it’s important to wait for a fair and thorough investigation before reaching any definitive conclusions. Patience and a commitment to due process will ultimately determine the outcome of this case.
One off the games they claim he did it was the 3-1 win over Leeds, however he was booked on the 94th min when there was only 5min on extra time given. So if he had planned it for that game, he left it very very late, and you got to ask if money was on it, why risk it on what could have been the last kick of the game?
If there is evidence showing a link then the betting companies should be taking the lead on this by pursuing a criminal charge via the police. The evidence must be clear for a conviction and I have no confidence that an “independent panel” will demand the same levels of evidence a court of law would.
Why just pick those 4 games if I was a betting man i’m sure I could have made a few bob by betting on him getting a yellow the times he has been booked. As said unless they can actually prove he made any contact to advise which game to back I can’t see how they can find him guilty ?
Unless the FA has evidence to a direct link from those on Paqueta Island and Lucas Paqueta I cannot see how they can fine of worse ban him. Next we will see Alvarez being pulled up on getting irregularities from Mexico because he gets so many yellow cards. It’s the betting companies that need to stop these types of bets in the first instance. This will be hard to prove without strong positive evidence.
And wasn’t it Betway, our sponsor who started all of this…….I wonder how that relationship is going….
Unless there’s a video showing him to be involved or an email from him saying I’ll get a yellow today put a couple of bob on it, it’s all hearsay.
West Ham’s Brazilian star Lucas Paqueta has now been charged with breaking betting rules and the whole investigation began after wagers were placed from an island bearing his name 6,000 miles away.
A flurry of bets placed on the 0.5mile square island’s most famous resident, Lucas Paqueta, to be booked for fouls in a Premier League game 6,000 miles away in March 2023 triggered a global investigation that has been quietly gathering pace for five months,
What will this mean for Paqueta’s immediate future? Will he be allowed to play while he is being investigated? Or could it cause problems like the Tevez case with other clubs if he did?
It requires more evidence than four bookings of a player who is frequently booked plus a statement from the gambling industry that there were irregular gambling patterns. There needs to be something in addition to just that which strongly links the two things. Even then there would be mitigations of having complied with the enquiry and having no prior. Plus of course the detriments to Paqueta so far, it would be fairly easy for him to show that he would have been able to move to Man City on a higher wage.