Steve - I cannot think that anyone in our industry who will be unaware of this situation and they will be equally aware that it would be seen as somewhat inappropriate for a company to supply either barnett or sables with paint.
We've already witnessed one example of altruism from John Payne in declining to sell paint to either of them but the lure of a few hundred quid may well prove too much for some .. ethical restraints have buckled for a lot less money than that in the past.
The one abiding advantage we have here is the sheer scale of interest this thread has incited.
I was dumbfounded when I first realised the response this was generating both from player and industry alike.
Our industry will realise that selling them paint will have a premium attached to it and that is forever being known as 'The company who sold paint to people like barnett and/or sables'..
That's not an indictment that most companies would relish and would be hard to shake.
At this point, I'd normally suggest something with a political tint to it, something like, ' ....but who am I to judge people' .... but in this situation, anyone in our sport can judge, this situation demands we should.