David Winnie has hit back at claims that a short stint playing for Middlesbrough had any bearing on his impartiality as a member of the independent disciplinary commission. Winnie sat on the panel that stripped Southampton of their place in the Championship play-offs as part of the ‘Spygate’ hearing.
The Scotsman made a solitary appearance for Boro while on loan from Aberdeen in 1994 during a 17-year playing career. He pursued a brief managerial career before retraining as a solicitor and, after qualifying in November 2009, is now a partner and Head of Sports at Scottish law firm Gilson Gray LLP.
Winnie says: “The suggestion that a single appearance for Middlesbrough Football Club more than three decades ago could in any way influence my judgment as a member of an independent disciplinary commission is wholly without foundation. My involvement with the club consisted of one professional appearance approximately 33 years ago and has no bearing whatsoever on my ability to approach these proceedings impartially and objectively.
“As with all commission members, my duty was to consider only the evidence, the applicable EFL regulations, and the submissions advanced by the parties. The decision reached was unanimous and followed detailed legal argument, documentary evidence, witness testimony and careful deliberation by an experienced independent panel.
“At no stage was any issue raised by either party regarding my independence or suitability to sit on the commission. Had there been any legitimate basis for concern, the appropriate procedures existed for that to be addressed before the hearing proceeded. Professional integrity in these proceedings is paramount. My role was to uphold the integrity of the competition and apply the regulations fairly, without fear or favour, and that is precisely what the commission did.”
Winnie also said: “As one of the members of the independent disciplinary commission in the matter involving the EFL and Southampton Football Club, I recognise that our decision will generate significant debate and will have serious ramifications across the footballing landscape and beyond. However, the commission’s duty was not to consider popularity, reputation or consequence in isolation, but to uphold the integrity of the competition and apply the regulations fairly, independently and without fear or favour.
“The commission unanimously concluded that the conduct in question represented a deliberate and organised attempt to obtain a competitive advantage in breach of fundamental principles of sporting integrity and good faith. Football depends upon public trust. Supporters, clubs, players and stakeholders must have confidence that competitions are conducted on a level playing field.
“This outcome reflects the seriousness with which the commission viewed repeated breaches of the regulations, particularly within the context of one of the most financially and competitively significant competitions in English football. The message is clear: cheating, in any form, has no place in the game and will not be tolerated. Whilst the sanctions imposed are severe, the commission considered them necessary, proportionate and essential to protect the integrity and credibility of English football moving forward.”