England international footballer Kieran Trippier has been charged with misconduct in relation to alleged breaches of the English Football Association’s (FA) Betting Rules.

According to the FA, Trippier breached rules E8(1)(a)(ii) and E8(1)(b) in July 2019, but did not go into further detail on the alleged offences.

Trippier was playing for English Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur until 17 July 2019, when he left to join Spanish La Liga side Atlético Madrid.

FA Betting Rule E8(1)(a) states a participant shall not bet or instruct, permit, cause or enable any person to bet on the result, progress, conduct or any other aspect of, or occurrence in or in connection with, a match or competition.

Rule E8(1)(a) also bans betting on any other matter concerning or related to football anywhere in the world, including player transfers, the employment of managers, team selection and disciplinary matters.

Meanwhile, Rule E8(1)(b) refers to where a participant provides to any other person information relating to football that they obtained as a result of of their position within the game and is not publicly available at that time.

The FA said that a participant would be deemed in breach of this rule when any of the information is used by that other person for, or in relation to, betting.

According to FA Rule E8, players, coaching staff, officials and club employees are not permitted to bet on games or other matters related to the club.

The FA said Trippier will have until 18 May to provide a response to the ruling.

In March, the FA suspended former England and Liverpool footballer Daniel Sturridge for breaching its gambling regulations, after his initial punishment was deemed too lenient.

In July 2019, Sturridge initially received a two-week ban, plus a further four suspended, after the independent regulatory commission found that he had instructed his brother to bet on the player joining Sevilla in the January 2018 transfer window. This transfer never materialised.

However, the FA appealed the ruling, calling for both a stronger sentence for the breaches of which Sturridge, and for the commission to reconsider its dismissal of eight other charges.

The additional charges that were dismissed all concerned Rule E8(1)(b) of the FA’s rules.
 

WEST HAM are facing a Football Association charge alleging they broke rules on anti-doping.

The FA have launched disciplinary proceedings against the Hammers claiming the club failed to ensure its “Club Whereabouts” information was correct on three occasions in the past year.

PA:Press Association

The Premier League club have been given a week to respond to the charges.

West Ham face sanctions under rule 14(d) of the FA regulations, which bring football into line with the laws of the World Anti-Doping Agency.

It surrounds the club making sure it provides information making it clear where their players, or at least one of their players, are at certain times of each day, for drug testers to potentially carry out random checks.

The Hammers have acknowledged receipt of the charges and have promised to work with the FA to resolve the issues.

There is no indication of any wrong-doing on behalf of any of the players, and it is understood the breaches are down to administrative errors.

One one occasion, it appears testers visited the correct block of flats to get a random sample from a player who was in the building, but they had been provided with an incorrect door number.

A West Ham spokesman said: “The breach relates to administrative oversights on The FA’s whereabouts system, for example a player’s address had been registered and the house number digits transposed, and the Club will be responding to The FA in due course.

“We would like to make it clear that the breach is a Club administrative matter and does not concern any of our players.”

It is a similar charge to the one brought against Manchester City earlier this season.

In that instance, City were fined £35,000 and given a warning after they admitted their own administrative errors had led to the rule breaches.

Unlike in other sports, the three strikes and and a ban does not apply in the same way to the way club’s administer their overall information in football.

It is likely the Hammers will be hit with a slap on the wrist and a fine if their explanation is accepted by the FA.