In the final part of this three part article by Kevin Carpenter, Kevin reviews the discrete areas in the field of match-fixing that will be under the spotlight this year, including lie-detector testing, sanctions and the role of sponsors.

Having detailed some of the match-fixing scandals to have been prominent in 2012, and the approach taken at the London Olympic Games in part 1, we go on to examine action being taken across the globe.

2012 was predicted to be the year when match-fixing, particularly that related to sports betting, became the principal issue of sporting integrity worldwide with London hosting the Olympic Games. As it transpired there was only one such scandal at the 2012 Games and it was not related to betting. Yet the Olympics did provide the actors in the fight against match-fixing with many invaluable lessons. 

Corrupt sports betting and match-fixing was a high profile issue in the lead-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and continues to dominate the sports headlines. In this article Kendrah Potts looks at what we can learn from some of the processes that were put in place for the London 2012 Olympic Games to identify those involved in conduct which could undermine the integrity of sport.

The cycling world has been turned on its head with the recent developments surrounding Lance Armstrong and the allegations that he cheated his way to his sporting and financial success. During his reign as Tour de France champion, Armstrong was a sporting superstar, with some of the top brands in sport clamouring to be associated with him. However, with the recent publication of a report labelling him a 'serial cheat' and alleging that he systematically used performance enhancing drugs, the question of whether he deceived sponsors and employers for financial gain has come to the fore.

On Tuesday the 31st of July 2012, during the Olympic Badminton tournament, four ladies doubles pairs participated in 'Shuttlegate'. These two matches would end their Olympic journeys and serve as a very public example of the newest threat to modern sport; match-fixing.

In the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games the International Olympic Committee ('IOC'), representatives of the UK Government and others have stated that sports betting integrity and match-fixing has overtaken doping as the principal threat to the Games.

This is the second part of an interview I did with Julia Mackisack, Director of Corporate Affairs at the 
Gambling Commission ('GC'), who is responsible for managing the communications of the GC (both internally and externally) and works closely with the Chairman and Chief Executive in managing relationships with stakeholders.

An exclusive interview by Kevin Carpenter, Executive Contributor for LawinSport

In the build-up to the London 2012 Olympic Games the International Olympic Committee (‘IOC’), representatives of the UK Government and others have stated that sports betting integrity and match-fixing has overtaken doping as the principal threat to the Games. 

The Gambling Commission (‘GC’), established under the Gambling Act 2005, regulates the majority of commercial gambling in Great Britain and has been closely involved with sports betting integrity policies generally and more specifically in relation to the Games. In its recently published Annual Report and Accounts for 2011/12.¹

 it had this to say, “With the 2012 London Olympics approaching our priority has been to ensure that sports authorities, law enforcement agencies and the legal betting industry here and abroad are working together to counter any threat to sports betting integrity during the Games." 

To find out more last month I interviewed Julia Mackisack, Director of Corporate Affairs at the
GC, who is responsible for managing the communications of the GC (both internally and externally) and works closely with the Chairman and Chief Executive in managing relationships with stakeholders. I began by asking her about what the Government's intentions were for the GC back in 2005.

On 16 December 2011 the British Horseracing Authority (‘BHA’) Disciplinary Panel (the ‘Panel’) published its Reasons in arguably the biggest sport corruption case to be heard before a National Governing Body (‘NGB’) to date. The hearing lasted 11 days and involved charges against 13 named individuals. The outcome was:

- near lifetime bans from the sport for Maurice Sines and James Crickmore, the main protagonists in racing’s latest tale of premeditated corruption;
- lengthy (likely career ending bans) for jockeys Paul Doe and Greg Fairley; and
- significant bans also for Jimmy Quinn and Kirsty Milczarek. 

The depressing case of the criminal convictions of Mohammad Amir, Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif for spot-fixing during Pakistan’s 2010 test series against England was a sobering reminder that corruption is a live problem in sport.

Money laundering in football is not a new phenomenon but the poor financial health of world football overall has lead to increased scrutiny in recent years by leading organisations such as Transparency International ('TI') (the world’s leading non-governmental anti-corruption organisation) and the Financial Action Task Force (‘FATF’) (an independent inter-governmental body that develops and promotes policies to protect the global financial system against money laundering and terrorist financing).

With recent attention being focussed on the introduction of the new big bad Bribery Act 2010 it has been easy to forget the legislative regime governing a wider remit of bribery offences in the UK prior to 1 July 2011 (the date on which the Bribery Act came into force). However, Tuesday 1 November 2011 saw the old guard once again taking centre stage

By Kevin Carpenter. An effective strategy to combat the complex global threat of match fixing must be built on a thorough understanding of the nature and scale of the threat by all the stakeholders in sport. Having examined the nature andscale of the threat, in the final part of the article I will analyse and evaluate what action is being taken to tackle match fixing in sport.

Kevin Carpenter's second part on corruption in sport. Now this may sound like a rhetorical question, and yes of course money is the main motivation, but in a true psychologists style there has to be reasons why some people and sports are more susceptible than others¹, particularly given the professional and legal ramifications of getting caught. Further it is rarely money alone that is the sole reason for agreeing to participate in match fixing.

ByKevin Carpenter. The issue at the heart of this article makes me sit up and take notice as a lawyer, a qualified football referee and a passionate follower of sport across the board. It has been described by many, including high profile sporting figures, sport administrators and governing bodies, as a greater threat to the integrity of sport than doping. This threat is match fixing.