‘Treble-Trouble’: How avoiding 180s left a darts pro with a mammoth suspension

The DRA’s Disciplinary Committee Hearing heard evidence that the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA) had tipped the DRA off to ‘suspicious betting patterns in five matches involving Jenkins’,² with betting platforms subsequently notifying the DRA of eight matches of concern.³ The DRA pursued match-fixing charges in 12 of these games, with multiple charges often occurring within the same fixture.

 

The hearing heard how five bettors, each with a traceable link to Jenkins,⁴ had wagered with four different betting operators (on 12 separate matches) for Jenkins to lose, and/or fail to hit a 180, and/or lose without winning a leg. The five bettors had used a variety of betting accounts to make 124 bets of roughly £80 each (totalling nearly £10k) on the matches in question, making over £10k profit, with their bets having a 87.9% success rate.⁵ Suspicious text messages between some of the bettors were also reviewed by the hearing, although none involved messages from Jenkins directly.⁶

 

Richard Gardner, a former professional darts player and a longstanding DRA member, conducted a video analysis of the games in question to review whether Jenkins had been deliberately missing 180s, determining that ‘nearly all of these matches saw him have a very poor attempt after the 1st two darts were in the treble 20’,⁷ with similar conclusions echoed from Steven Richardson (an independent investigator engaged by the DRA).⁸ 

 

Through his representative from the Professional Darts Players Association (PDPA), Jenkins relayed that he relied on his position stated in previous interviews, and would not be calling any witnesses or serving any evidence to the committee. Emphasising that he had cooperated with the relevant investigations, signposted some qualifications/uncertainties in Gardner’s report, pointed out the difficulty top professionals have in hitting 180s, clarified his mobile phone had been handed in prior to the relevant matches - making communication with bettors during the match impossible, and questioned whether a fully independent review would have been preferable than hearing evidence from Gardner.⁹

 

The committee determined that it was satisfied that: (a) there was a connection between Jenkins and the bettors, (b) the betting on the relevant matches was suspicious and indicative of match fixing, (c) the communication between bettors was indicative and suspicious of match fixing, and (d) Jenkins’ performance in the matches was indicative of efforts to fix a result or specific outcome relating to the bets.¹⁰

 

Consequently, the committee found Jenkins in breach of all 24 counts of match fixing,¹¹ handing down an 11-year ban from play or involvement in any DRA-regulated event, alongside an order for £17,580.03 in costs.¹²

The Commission Director of Enforcement of the Gambling Commission’s Sports Betting Intelligence Unit (which assisted with the DRA’s investigation) stated that ‘this case sends a strong and unequivocal message to all sportspeople - if you fix matches, you are likely to be caught and face serious consequences.’¹³