Shocking inconsistency, really disappointing.

Rules for one

but not for all..

Both cases are a little different though.

Pie Man seemed to do it as a deliberate act to (allegedly) win a bet for some people, Terry (and I don’t particularly like him) was taken off at 26 mins so he could be honoured by his fans. Any bookie that was foolish enough to take a bet on Terry being taken off at 26 mins deserves to get burnt for it.

Agreed.

It’s not “one rule for one” it’s the same rules for both, one was probably guilty, one probably wasn’t.

Terry, who has since moved to Aston Villa, admitted his 26th-minute farewell was his idea and he had agreed it with manager Antonio Conte.

Sounds pre-meditated to me.

Any bookie that was foolish enough to take a bet on Terry being taken off at 26 mins deserves to get burnt for it.

Any bookie willing to take a bet on a guy who eats pies at games on a regular basis, in the biggest match of his career, and on live TV, do they not deserve to get burnt for it?.

Terry is still a scumbag though.

Sounds pre-meditated to me.

there’s probably no evidence he rang all his mates telling them about a sure thing.

Quite.

Sounds pre-meditated to me.

It was, but that is not the thing that the rules don’t allow.

One did it in order to win money off the bookies. One didn’t. That is the difference.
(EDIT or rather one did it, knowing the bookies had offered odds on him doing it)

Terry is still a scumbag though.

yep

or rather one did it, knowing the bookies had offered odds on him doing it

A moot point, you can bet on anything happening in football now, the big keeper eating a pie odds were just a fun bit of advertising for the bookies, in reality there is no such thing as offered odds now, it’s all fair game.