What do people think of these 'Sting' operations?
Is it fair to tempt or coerce someone who might otherwise never do anything wrong?
What happens if the Stingee behaves impeccably?
I've always thought it was slack methodology and the results they produce are proper flaky. Remember when Lawrence Dallaglio was sensationally caught admitting to quaffing coke on a regular basis? Turned out he was just trying to impress people, play the big man. Perfectly normal human frailty. What about those wives who set a honey trap to find out if their husband cheat? Well if a fella has a few drinks in a bar and is approached by a super sexy woman who lavishes attention on him it's normal human frailty to play along with the flattery. But what about if he falls into the hotel room with this woman and before anything happens he says you know what, I love my wife, I can't go through with this. The guy doesn't get that chance, he's bang to rights guilty before it gets to that stage.
Moving onto big Sam, the facts are he didn't receive any monies and he insisted anything agreed would need FA approval. So what is he guilty of? Calling Gary Neville a plonker, errr agreed. And calling Roy Woy, errr so does everyone. He is guilty of having a few beers and playing the big man, normal human frailty. I do agree he has been very dumb because how many times are people going to meet fake sheiks with grand ideas before they start smelling a rat? But ultimately the media lay the sting and then report the results any way they choose which doesn't seem like cricket to me.
Those honeypot stings must be infuriating. Sitting there on heat trying to compute how the wife has suddenly entered the equation and is screaming at you.