Who ate all the pies

[LaCroix]

WTF sort of food is this. he's eating a pot pie with his hands

oh my god the google pics are horrible

[Gups]

IMO the betting house set itself open for abuse and collusion, as the bet was a pretty silly one that could be influenced easily a huge amount of cheap advertising.

I mean, this is the betting arm of the Sun newspaper. They started sponsoring the club immediately before this game. They apparently paid out £80K in bets but got headlines everywhere. It's pretty obvious that they colluded with the keeper and quite possibly the club.

[mongers]

WTF sort of food is this. he's eating a pot pie with his hands

oh my god the google pics are horrible

It's just a pasty. 

[Berkut]

Are the accusations of some kind of impropriety serious? Or just part of the gag?

[Josquius]

Are the accusations of some kind of impropriety serious? Or just part of the gag?

He lost his real job over it.

[Berkut]

Are the accusations of some kind of impropriety serious? Or just part of the gag?

He lost his real job over it.

That seems incredible.

I can understand the idea of someone being fired for throwing a game, or changing how they play the game in an effort to fix the outcome of a bet.

But if you are going to bet on my actions outside the scope of the game entirely, then how can you possibly hold me to account for what I do based on the existence of that bet? It is completely arbitrary, whether I tell my friends about it or not.

If someone bets on whether or not Tom Brady is going to take a piss before half time, does that then compel Brady to take one or not take one based on whether or not he knows about the bet? Does it compel him to NOT tell someone he knows what he is going to do? How can that possibly be an actual rule?

[grumbler]

Are the accusations of some kind of impropriety serious? Or just part of the gag?

He lost his real job over it.

That seems incredible.

I can understand the idea of someone being fired for throwing a game, or changing how they play the game in an effort to fix the outcome of a bet.

But if you are going to bet on my actions outside the scope of the game entirely, then how can you possibly hold me to account for what I do based on the existence of that bet? It is completely arbitrary, whether I tell my friends about it or not.

If someone bets on whether or not Tom Brady is going to take a piss before half time, does that then compel Brady to take one or not take one based on whether or not he knows about the bet? Does it compel him to NOT tell someone he knows what he is going to do? How can that possibly be an actual rule?

Part of the problem is the shit journalism about this story.  A line like "On Tuesday, Shaw was forced to resign from the club after the Football Association's gambling commission said it would investigate if consumption of the pie was a breach of betting regulations" tells you that the reporter is too lazy to investigate.  Shaw "was forced to resign?"  Really?  Passive voice?  Some mysterious power 'forced" him, or did a person that "forced him."  if a person, why not say who it was?  If it was a mysterious force, why not describe it?

You are, I think, correct to be incredulous that it is somehow illegal for a man to eat a pie, even as part of a public bet.  I think most of the problem is in the poor coverage, though.

[The Larch]

IMO the betting house set itself open for abuse and collusion, as the bet was a pretty silly one that could be influenced easily a huge amount of cheap advertising.

I mean, this is the betting arm of the Sun newspaper. They started sponsoring the club immediately before this game. They apparently paid out £80K in bets but got headlines everywhere. It's pretty obvious that they colluded with the keeper and quite possibly the club.

Ok, didn't know that, and it makes it much more conflict of interest-y.

[Admiral Yi]

If anyone took the short side of the bet it would be fraud.

It might be fraud anyway, to offer a bet that is not a bet.

[mongers]

If anyone took the short side of the bet it would be fraud.

It might be fraud anyway, to offer a bet that is not a bet.

The Sun gets a special dispensation in these matters, they did after all win a war for us. 

[Tonitrus]

If anyone took the short side of the bet it would be fraud.

It might be fraud anyway, to offer a bet that is not a bet.

The Sun gets a special dispensation in these matters, they did after all win a war for us. 

Did I miss a war of tits?

[mongers]

If anyone took the short side of the bet it would be fraud.

It might be fraud anyway, to offer a bet that is not a bet.

The Sun gets a special dispensation in these matters, they did after all win a war for us. 

Did I miss a war of tits?

Even has it's own page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It

[grumbler]

If anyone took the short side of the bet it would be fraud.

It might be fraud anyway, to offer a bet that is not a bet.

The Sun gets a special dispensation in these matters, they did after all win a war for us. 

Did I miss a war of tits?

In Britain elections are called (by some) "wars," and both Kinnock and Major are right tits, so, yeah, you could say that you missed a "war of tits."

[AllanPsype]

Am I the only one that tries to look at the BS around me and point it out? Seriously a lot of it is overlooked.

[Admiral Yi]

Welcome Alan.  Know where I can get some cheap prescription drugs?