ON SOCCER:WITH THE league title long since won, we should have had some time in recent weeks to reflect on what has been an increasingly tight relegation battle and a race full of twists and turns to win promotion.

Instead, it seems, the on-field exploits of clubs like Galway, Finn Harps, Dundalk and Shelbourne are doomed these days to be overshadowed by countless financial crises around the country and, now, even a minor betting scandal.

I say "minor" because the admission by Gary Dempsey that he placed a €20 bet on Galway to beat St Patrick's Athletic and Manchester City to beat Newcastle United the same night is hardly earth-shattering stuff. Still, it's a significant story and one that a couple of the main protagonists look unlikely to come out of terribly well.

At the time of writing it remains unclear what Dempsey's employers are going to do about the situation. What's pretty clear, though, is that they take a rather dimmer view of the matter than either the midfielder or PFAI chairman Stephen McGuinness.

Dempsey, an undeniably talented central midfielder who has had a good season at Richmond Park, put out a statement over the weekend that barely qualified as an apology for his actions. Rather, the gist of it was that he had been unaware of any rule that he might be breaking, had not been made aware of one and was sorry ifhe'd upset anyone at the club.

St Patrick's (and by extension the league) had, in fact, been dragged through the wringer on Friday in the wake of reports of the meeting called to investigate rumours regarding the betting story. The vagueness of the stories, prompted by legal concerns, led to wild and damaging speculation so that some people wrongly concluded that what was being alleged included anything up to and including match-fixing on the part of the team as a whole.

On Friday, McGuinness weighed in, heavily criticising both the media, including this newspaper, which had run with the original story, as well as the club and association who had suggested they would investigate. At the time he challenged all concerned to cite grounds for calling into question the good names of his members.

That was all very well as long as nothing actually turned up, but it seems that McGuinness was unaware that one of those members, Dempsey, had already admitted to doing precisely what had been suggested: placing a bet on St Patrick's Athletic to lose a game.

Now opinion is divided on whether the fact the Galway-to-win element was merely one half of a double and that the stake was only €20 makes Dempsey's action less significant or simply more astonishing. Sure, it's not hard to accept that a player, who probably earns the guts of a couple of thousand euro a week, was not out to make a killing with a bet that stood to earn him at most a couple of hundred euro.

But it's somehow all the more bewildering that he would bet against his team-mates merely for recreational purposes.

But assuming there is not more to come in all of this, then his actions still appear to have given rise to the rumours that players at the club were betting on the team to lose still-important league matches. In the circumstances, it's hard to see how either those who chose to investigate those rumours or those who chose to report that decision to investigate can be blamed for what happened.

McGuinness, though, dismisses Dempsey's actions as so much small beer, and insists we should distinguish between a losing €20 bet on a game which he watched from the stands and a much more substantial punt on a game which he might have influenced from the heart of things.

Certainly, there is no suggestion of dishonesty here, but surely there should be a genuine acceptance on the part of both men that what happened was wrong if only because the scandal it gave rise to damaged the club, the league and the game as a whole.

And if the PFAI are to stick to their current line, then perhaps the union could let us know what their recommended limits of acceptability are: both in terms of ethical positions to be taken by players, and the scale of investment that can be made when at the bookmakers' counter.

In fact, there are those who argue that such betting is commonplace among players in Britain and Ireland, and they may well be right. But really, it shouldn't be.

Ideally, footballers should be obliged to refrain from betting on football, but at the very least there should be a rule banning them from putting money on the outcome of any competition, or any game in any competition, in which they are eligible to play in a particular season.

As it happens, it is not yet clear which, if any, rules an FAI disciplinary committee might choose to charge Dempsey under, although some form of action does seem likely.

There is certainly considerable doubt as to whether he has broken the letter of Rule 100 which was specifically designed to deal with betting by players. And in the event that he has not, then, for the umpteenth time, a rulebook endlessly rewritten in an attempt to address its shortcomings will again have been found to be wanting.

The association may, of course, look to fall back on one of the more catch-all rules, but St Patrick's will be particularly wary of how they proceed after getting their fingers burned earlier this season when the club sought to terminate the contract of Michael Keane for "just cause" in a case that was focused on fitness-related issues.

As for the bookies, there is little they could have done or be expected to do in a case like Dempsey's €20 double. However, in the broader context of protecting the integrity of a game that can, as we have seen, be damaged at least as much by rumour as reality, they might do well to review their policy of running books on First Division matches involving players who are in some instances getting paid no more than a paltry few quid in expenses.