When should they have stopped?

IMO if someone hasn’t even been charged with a crime, they should be given the benefit of the doubt. This isn’t even “innocent until proven guilty”, it’s just “not assumed to be guilty before even charged”.

Can you imagine the chaos if it was widely known you could stop a club from playing a player just because the police were investigating? Gangs would make a fortune by placing bets against a team / player then arranging for an associate to make an accusation. Even if the charges were later dropped for a complete lack of evidence, the gang makes their profit in the window while it’s uncertain.

If you’re going to draw a line in the sand, where do you draw it? If you draw it at a conviction, that’s reasonable. I don’t think anybody would expect that a player who’s convicted of a crime should still get their full wages, and get to play if they’re appealing or if they’re on probation or something. But, maybe you want to be even more harsh, so you draw the line at being charged. That’s a bit unfair, what happens if they’re found not guilty? Or what if the prosecutors drop the case before it goes to trial? You could give them back pay, but that won’t restore their reputation, and sufficient time without playing could destroy their careers. But, it wouldn’t affect too many people because it’s not common that players are charged. So, maybe that’s not completely unreasonable.

But, to me, treating a player who hasn’t even been charged differently from other players is taking it too far. Players are high profile targets, so they probably face a lot more attempts to get at their money than most other people.

And I don’t want to fan conspiracy bullshit, but the timing absolutely stinks to me!