Reasons for Wayne Shaw suspension published

Former Sutton United goalkeeper Wayne Shaw was banned from football for two months after a panel ruled he had been "untruthful" and "unreliable", it has been revealed.

Shaw was found guilty of a betting-related charge during Sutton United's FA Cup tie against Arsenal on 20 February.

He denied intentionally influencing a football betting market, contrary to Football Association rules.

Live MNF

SunBets created a betting market - "Wayne Shaw to eat a pie live on air" - and substitute Shaw said he had been unaware of the market until he saw it advertised in a newspaper on the day of the match.

He claimed he chose to eat a pasty, not a pie, because he did not want to become involved in the betting market and the incident was "no more than banter with and response to the Arsenal supporters."

SunBets paid out £2,600 to its customers as if the pasty had been a pie.

Shaw's legal representative said he had been in "an unusual and somewhat vulnerable state" as he was "suffering from depression, had not slept… and had not eaten during the day" of the game.

A three-person panel, led by David Phillips QC, heard Shaw's case that he had forgotten the existence of the betting market and did not have it in mind when eating the pasty.

In written reasons, published by the FA, the panel concluded: "We found Mr Shaw's evidence on this issue to be unimpressive: in that respect, he was a manifestly unreliable witness who we did not believe.

"Some of his answers to what were difficult questions were simply evasive, and inherently improbable. We found that in relation to the central issue Mr Shaw was an untruthful witness."

The commission acknowledged Shaw was an "understandably nervous witness" and took into account his "continuing, and albeit now properly medicated, illness."

Shaw lost his job as a result of the incident.

The panel added: "Investigations into Mr Shaw's telephone records and bank account revealed nothing to suggest Mr Shaw had had any involvement in the betting market."

However, Shaw stated in a television interview on ITV that he had known that "a couple" of his friends had placed bets and that he had given them "the nod".

The panel ruled: "We considered it significant that in his interviews with the media Mr Shaw, either tacitly or expressly, indicated that he had been aware of the betting market. He made no suggestion that it had been forgotten during the course of the day. That was in stark contrast with Mr Shaw's evidence at the hearing."

The commission, which included Alan Hardy and Matt Wild, added: "It is clear from television interviews and, indeed, from Mr Shaw's own evidence, that this was a most important and exciting day. Mr Shaw plainly enjoyed the publicity and his celebrity status.

"The betting market was part and parcel of the event and we do not accept that it had been forgotten.

"We accept that Mr Shaw was naïve and became carried away on a special and exciting day."

Shaw was also fined £375 and ordered to pay £500 towards the cost of the hearing but the commission agreed the incident was "not at the top end of seriousness for such breaches."