Ex-Leicester coach banned for betting

Date published: June 25 2015

1022.6666666666666x767__origin__0x0_Phil-Blake-2015_3318844

An RFU Disciplinary Panel has imposed a six month suspension on Phil Blake after he was found guilty of two breaches (eight separate bets) of RFU Regulation 17 (Anti-Corruption and Betting) while he was employed by Leicester Tigers as a defence coach for the 2014/15 Aviva Premiership season.

The first charge related to betting on a European Champions Cup match between Toulon and Leicester Tigers on December 13, 2014 and the second for betting on an Aviva Premiership match between Newcastle Falcons and Leicester Tigers on March 8, 2015.

The panel (Christopher Quinlan QC, Daniel White, Gareth Graham) also imposed a fine of £669 (the profit made on the bets placed) and ordered Blake to pay costs of £500.

Christopher Quinlan QC, Chairman of the RFU Disciplinary Panel said: “This is the first such case that we know of in rugby union and is certainly the first brought under the relatively new Regulation 17 so this is new ground. In arriving at the appropriate sanction we have been careful to remind ourselves that we must not make an example of Phil Blake. 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. 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.”

An appeal lodged by Phil Blake against the length of the sanction was dismissed with costs ordered in the sum of £500 by an RFU Appeal Panel chaired by Antony Davies with Gareth Rees QC and Tim Ward QC on Monday. 

Antony Davies said: "We find that the RFU Disciplinary Panel correctly applied its findings of fact arising from the evidence to the sanctioning process set out in the Regulations.

"We cannot find any fault with the Panel’s sanctioning process. The offending clearly merited an immediate period of suspension. Six months was, in our view, well within a reasonable range and was not so excessive as to be unreasonable."

The suspension began on 24 May and will end 24 November 2015.

COMMENTS