Goodwin Penalty - confirmed

[maccas_no1]

What annoys me about this whole fiasco, is all the players have been named, what their crimes were and how much they bet has been made public and they have all be penalised, yet the three players using illegal drugs have had the opposite, when is the AFL going to get fair game on any illegal activity that is committed by any player for any offence??? They are all against the AFL's 'code of conduct' arent they???

 

[*PAF]

In Hong Kong he would have been jailed.
How's that about Muncey?

 

[mb2326]

Funny about that. Yet we haven't heard boo from Alberton this week after the Kerr assault incident. Funny about that.

Its to be expected. They only comment on issues that involve the AFC, as they feel insecure and will sink the boot in whenever they get the chance. Big brother syndrome personified

 

[macca23]

Brilliant work by the master!!

Well done DT!!

 

[TheFridge]

What annoys me about this whole fiasco, is all the players have been named, what their crimes were and how much they bet has been made public and they have all be penalised, yet the three players using illegal drugs have had the opposite, when is the AFL going to get fair game on any illegal activity that is committed by any player for any offence??? They are all against the AFL's 'code of conduct' arent they???

Don't be annoyed Macca, there are some reasons behind this:

1. The clubs released the names not the AFL;
2. They are separate issues - one relates to perceptions of integrity of the competition, the other doesn't (none of the infamous "known" drug offenders - and you can almost bet your bottom dollar there are more who have since tested positive but we haven't heard about - were guilty of performance enhancing drug usage); and (finally)
3. The AFL have actually documented, with numerous consultation with AFLPA, the rules of engagement wrt to illicit drugs in the game. Simialrly they have clear detailed guidelines wrt to player payments. These clearly spell out the guidelines wrt release of player names in the event of a transgression of the rules and are in compliance with relevant privacy legislation. This has been accompanied by clear guidelines wrt to drug testing etc.

Also, at no time, have the AFL previously spelt out what punishments would fit gambling crimes, nor have they instituted any governance programs around these (such as they have for both drugs and player payments). These to me has been the biggest deriliction of duty in the whole saga and accordingly I think it would have been over the top to impose any suspensions on the guilty parties.

Going forward, youwould think the AFL will better address the whole approach to identifying and handling players who break the gambling guidelines.

 

[NikkiNoo]

I have a couple of questions about the gambling rules that haven't been answered in any of the articles on the issue so if anyone does know the answers to these I would appreciate hearing them.

1. When did the AFL introduced the rule / clause that is currently in the contracts?

2. Did the AFL let the clubs know that they had to change all the contracts asap to include the new clause or did they allow the clubs to then insert the clause when new contracts were being negotiated.
If it is the second way then it would mean that there were players in one year with the clause in their contract but other players in the same team and during the same year that didn't have it.....

3a. Were rookies included in the draftees weekend in melbourne where the AFL educates them on these and other issues/expectations?

3b. If not, do they wait until a rookie is elevated to a senior list?

3c. If they wait until they are elevated, do they then wait until they have a few of them to fly to Melbourne to provide these workshops? or do they ask the clubs to provide those education programs?

4. When the AFL introduced the new gambling rules, did they provide an education program for ALL players on the new rules or did they leave it up to the clubs to inform their players?


Cheers

 

[AAMI]

In Hong Kong he would have been jailed.
How's that about Muncey?

Q: Who is the only man weighing 95kg to have ridden a Melbourne Cup winner?

A: Chris Munce's cell mate.

 

[*PAF]

Q: Who is the only man weighing 95kg to have ridden a Melbourne Cup winner?

A: Chris Munce's cell mate.

They don't take long to start do they.

Back to Muncey, he too did nothing "morally" wrong in as far as not fixing races etc goes.

 

[jenny61_99]

Very happy and pleasantly surprised with the penalty. I felt for sure he'd lose matches and am very grateful he hasn't. The onus is on the players now - bet on AFL and you will suffer!

Good questions NikkiNoo - but one thing that surprised me with Simon's statement was that he said he KNEW about the rules and did it anyway. Perhaps I am overestimating his intelligence???

 

[Ford Fairlane]

They don't take long to start do they.

Back to Muncey, he too did nothing "morally" wrong in as far as not fixing races etc goes.

Or come around again. I reckon I heard Graham Kennedy tell a similar joke 20 years ago, except Lester Piggott was the - pardon the pun - butt of the joke ...

 

[NikkiNoo]

Very happy and pleasantly surprised with the penalty. I felt for sure he'd lose matches and am very grateful he hasn't. The onus is on the players now - bet on AFL and you will suffer!

Good questions NikkiNoo - but one thing that surprised me with Simon's statement was that he said he KNEW about the rules and did it anyway. Perhaps I am overestimating his intelligence???

Jenny - I think it is more like yes he knew the rules, but people with addictions will often do something that they know is wrong. It's nothing to do with intelligence but more to do with the addictive personality and the ability to control that.

 

[*PAF]

Jenny - I think it is more like yes he knew the rules, but people with addictions will often do something that they know is wrong. It's nothing to do with intelligence but more to do with the addictive personality and the ability to control that.

Stop talking about me girl.

 

[jenny61_99]

Jenny - I think it is more like yes he knew the rules, but people with addictions will often do something that they know is wrong. It's nothing to do with intelligence but more to do with the addictive personality and the ability to control that.

To be honest, I am wondering if his "addiction" is more of a cop out??? I am fairly close to this type of addiction and let me tell you, there would have been MANY more bets than 4 if he was addicted. I could be wrong, but that's the feeling I get. Almost as if by admitting an addiction, people will forgive his stupidity??

 

[Crow-mo]

To be honest, I am wondering if his "addiction" is more of a cop out??? I am fairly close to this type of addiction and let me tell you, there would have been MANY more bets than 4 if he was addicted. I could be wrong, but that's the feeling I get. Almost as if by admitting an addiction, people will forgive his stupidity??

of course you're right.

that is inarguable.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

To be honest, I am wondering if his "addiction" is more of a cop out??? I am fairly close to this type of addiction and let me tell you, there would have been MANY more bets than 4 if he was addicted. I could be wrong, but that's the feeling I get. Almost as if by admitting an addiction, people will forgive his stupidity??

Remember too, that's 4 bets on his Betfair account only, and he is only claiming responsibility for 2 of those (two were placed by a "friend"). So you may well be right. After all footy clubs are very much into spinning positive PR out of any situation. The other point here is that these are just his football bets - no one knows about his betting on the gallops, trots, dogs, two flies crawling up a wall.

But it also has to be remembered that there is no access to his SA TAB accounts, let alone any bets placed with independent bookies. I know Crow-mo detests the Pete Rose example, and I agree that it is not a good comparison because of the nuances of the Rose case that don't compare to Goodwin's, but one of the issues with Rose was his alleged betting with bookies with organised crime links. Now no one ever accused Rose of match fixing, and this is obviously not the case with Goodwin. Certainly no one has suggested Goodwin has bet with shadowy figures, but you can see the murky alleys down which this can lead people's thought processes, especially if you claim have a gambling addiction.

 

[macca23]

But it also has to be remembered that there is no access to his SA TAB accounts, let alone any bets placed with independent bookies.

I wish there was - for all AFL players.

I know that Choco shot off his great big ugly gob as usual saying that Port players wouldn't bet on AFL and Pastor Tredrea wrote his thesis in the Advertiser stating that these sinners should be stoned to death, but FF, do you really believe that if they could get details of all Unitab betting accounts that there wouldn't be any Port players betting on the AFL??

Is anybody naive enough to believe that??

Bearing in mind that these would by far be the most common betting accounts in SA, I have no doubt that open scrutiny of all Unitab accounts would net more players from both Port Adelaide and Adelaide.

Add a revelation of all the accounts in wives, families or friends names and you'd be talking about a large number of players, not 4.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

I wish there was - for all AFL players.

I know that Choco shot off his great big ugly gob as usual saying that Port players wouldn't bet on AFL and Pastor Tredrea wrote his thesis in the Advertiser stating that these sinners should be stoned to death, but FF, do you really believe that if they could get details of all Unitab betting accounts that there wouldn't be any Port players betting on the AFL??

Is anybody naive enough to believe that??

Bearing in mind that these would by far be the most common betting accounts in SA, I have no doubt that open scrutiny of all Unitab accounts would net more players from both Port Adelaide and Adelaide.

Add a revelation of all the accounts in wives, families or friends names and you'd be talking about a large number of players, not 4.

I never said there would be no Port players in the same boat and I won't be casting any stones - at the end of the day they're all human beings with the same frailties, no matter what guernsey they wear.

To be fair to Warren and Mark, they were probably asked their views and gave answers that they really believe or what they figure is the right thing to say - and you'd expect people at your club to do the same. Sometimes the two views aren't mutually exclusive. But then if you'd asked either of them a year or so ago, they probably would have said no Port player would punch anyone - no matter how boofheaded - at an airport ...

 

[macca23]

I never said there would be no Port players in the same boat and I won't be casting any stones - at the end of the day they're all human beings with the same frailties, no matter what guernsey they wear.

To be fair to Warren and Mark, they were probably asked their views and gave answers that they really believe or what they figure is the right thing to say - and you'd expect people at your club to do the same. Sometimes the two views aren't mutually exclusive. But then if you'd asked either of them a year or so ago, they probably would have said no Port player would punch anyone - no matter how boofheaded - at an airport ...

And a fair point too.

Cornesy has a saying "Be careful what you say or it may come back to bite you".

That's the track I was going down with Choco and St Tredrea. A footy club never knows what is just around the corner with 40 players on it's list, so best to say nothing when you're not involved.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

That's the track I was going down with Choco and St Tredrea. A footy club never knows what is just around the corner with 40 players on it's list, so best to say nothing when you're not involved.

Yeah fair call. But they were pretty much commenting only on what they believed the situation to be at Port. Other than saying that you have to wear the punishment that's handed out, they didn't imply this was some sort of problem endemic to the AFC. And if any of our players gets sprung, well what's good for the goose etc.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

there someone else goes again, that has never been proven. further more, it was supposedly while he was a manager, and not a player.

for every person who says he did, there is another who says he didn't.

can we stop using this as an example?

Before I give a longer response can you please clarify a couple of things you are argueing. Are you saying;

a) He never gambled when he was just a player ie upto the end of 1984?
b) He never gambled when he was a player and a manager in 1985 and 1986?
c) Are you saying there is no absolute proof he gambled when he was only a manager in 1987, 1988 and 1989?

I agree with you in respect to a, and disagree with you if you are argueing b and c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose
Coming clean

In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, published by Rodale Press on January 8, 2004, Rose finally admitted publicly to betting on baseball games and other sports while playing for and managing the Reds. He also admitted to betting on Reds games, but said that he never bet against the Reds. He repeated his admissions in an interview on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday. He also said in the book that he hoped his admissions would help end his ban from baseball so that he could reapply for reinstatement. The criticism of Rose did not diminish after this admission—even some Rose supporters were outraged that Rose would suddenly reverse fifteen years of denials as part of a book publicity tour. In addition, the timing was called into question—by making his admission just two days after the Baseball Hall of Fame announced its class of 2004 inductees, Rose appeared to be linking himself publicly to the Hall.


I haven't read his book or read the transcripts of the Primeltime Thursday show, unlike "our" ABC the USA ABC charge for the transcripts of their shows. The author of the Wiki article may have been a little lose with his language but there is plenty of evidence before and after the release of his autobiography confirming pts b and c above.

 

[Crow-mo]

Before I give a longer response can you please clarify a couple of things you are argueing. Are you saying;

a) He never gambled when he was just a player ie upto the end of 1984?
b) He never gambled when he was a player and a manager in 1985 and 1986?
c) Are you saying there is no absolute proof he gambled when he was only a manager in 1987, 1988 and 1989?

I agree with you in respect to a, and disagree with you if you are argueing b and c.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Rose
Coming clean

In his autobiography My Prison Without Bars, published by Rodale Press on January 8, 2004, Rose finally admitted publicly to betting on baseball games and other sports while playing for and managing the Reds. He also admitted to betting on Reds games, but said that he never bet against the Reds. He repeated his admissions in an interview on the ABC news program Primetime Thursday. He also said in the book that he hoped his admissions would help end his ban from baseball so that he could reapply for reinstatement. The criticism of Rose did not diminish after this admission—even some Rose supporters were outraged that Rose would suddenly reverse fifteen years of denials as part of a book publicity tour. In addition, the timing was called into question—by making his admission just two days after the Baseball Hall of Fame announced its class of 2004 inductees, Rose appeared to be linking himself publicly to the Hall.


I haven't read his book or read the transcripts of the Primeltime Thursday show, unlike "our" ABC the USA ABC charge for the transcripts of their shows. The author of the Wiki article may have been a little lose with his language but there is plenty of evidence before and after the release of his autobiography confirming pts b and c above.

the key to remember here, is that a player only has 20 years after he becomes eligible to make it to the hall of fame. after that, he can't be admitted. Rose's so called confessions were clearly in line with the last year of eligibility he had - particularly seeing as the issue morphed into one, where by the over moral baseball writers of America (see how morally ambiguous they are by studying their respective positions on Barry Bonds & Mark McGwire) - headline the issue as his refusal to "admit" to the gambling, but not the supposed betting itself. There hung in the air, this idea that if he finally came clean, one of the likely 3 best 'pure' hitters in History (see also Ty Cobb & Ted Williams) then there wouldn't be any remaining obstacles to his reinstatement. not surprisingly this turned out to be a honey trap, with no reward - and many are not sure whether these were sincere or forced confessions. most have decided it no longer matters, the hypocrisy of the administration has obfuscated matters beyond repair.

The 'commissioner' of baseball is all powerfull, he doesn't report to the owners, anyone, he is the arbiter of the best interests of the game - back in the day, he ordered a hastily convened report into the matter, which - not surprisingly came back quickly with a conclusion that salved the conservative notions of the commissioner at the time. done, dusted, excluded from baseball. Fine, except many baseball scholars have since pulled apart this report (whose name escapes me, I'd look it if I could be bothered - I can't ). The most compelling being that of Bill James, one of the most revered and analytical commentators in baseball, one who completely reshaped the way the game was recorded and reported. a very deep thinker on the game. A fair hypothethical proxy would be, a hastily convened kangaroo court, perhaps organised by say, the pakistani cricket board, looking into similar allegations by a former cricket captain - rather abruptly finding him not guilty of match fixing (or doping ), and having the final report systematically dissected by Wisden or similar.

It doesn't prove that this did or didn't happen, I don't know - but there is a huge cloud over the whole affair. so many partisan views and conflicts of interest (of which Baseball has always been famously disingenuous).

aside from the Bonds/McGwire issue, there is the fact that Ty Cobb was a vile, redneck racist, wife beater, and general all round scumbag (who made it to hall of fame), the way baseball looked the other way after yet another strike (1995) and let obviously doping players revive interest in the game, through a steroid induced home run assault on the all time records. The way certain baseball writers did not vote for Cal Ripken to be a unanimous electee to the HoF - an obvious, no questions allowed candidate - and one of them anonymously (it's always anonymous - as the moral minority usually is) stated that he couldn't be sure that Baseball was clean, so felt uncomfortable casting a vote - he abstained. there is still an outcry to have him and others identified and removed from the process.

Bottom line, Baseball and Rose, has far too many conflicts, and agenda's running rife through it, for it to be a useful example for the AFL betting situation.

Ps. REH, that's me done.

 

[jenny61_99]

the key to remember here, is that a player only has 20 years after he becomes eligible to make it to the hall of fame. after that, he can't be admitted. Rose's so called confessions were clearly in line with the last year of eligibility he had - particularly seeing as the issue morphed into one, where by the over moral baseball writers of America (see how morally ambiguous they are by studying their respective positions on Barry Bonds & Mark McGwire) - headline the issue as his refusal to "admit" to the gambling, but not the supposed betting itself. There hung in the air, this idea that if he finally came clean, one of the likely 3 best 'pure' hitters in History (see also Ty Cobb & Ted Williams) then there wouldn't be any remaining obstacles to his reinstatement. not surprisingly this turned out to be a honey trap, with no reward - and many are not sure whether these were sincere or forced confessions. most have decided it no longer matters, the hypocrisy of the administration has obfuscated matters beyond repair.

The 'commissioner' of baseball is all powerfull, he doesn't report to the owners, anyone, he is the arbiter of the best interests of the game - back in the day, he ordered a hastily convened report into the matter, which - not surprisingly came back quickly with a conclusion that salved the conservative notions of the commissioner at the time. done, dusted, excluded from baseball. Fine, except many baseball scholars have since pulled apart this report (whose name escapes me, I'd look it if I could be bothered - I can't ). The most compelling being that of Bill James, one of the most revered and analytical commentators in baseball, one who completely reshaped the way the game was recorded and reported. a very deep thinker on the game. A fair hypothethical proxy would be, a hastily convened kangaroo court, perhaps organised by say, the pakistani cricket board, looking into similar allegations by a former cricket captain - rather abruptly finding him not guilty of match fixing (or doping ), and having the final report systematically dissected by Wisden or similar.

It doesn't prove that this did or didn't happen, I don't know - but there is a huge cloud over the whole affair. so many partisan views and conflicts of interest (of which Baseball has always been famously disingenuous).

aside from the Bonds/McGwire issue, there is the fact that Ty Cobb was a vile, redneck racist, wife beater, and general all round scumbag (who made it to hall of fame), the way baseball looked the other way after yet another strike (1995) and let obviously doping players revive interest in the game, through a steroid induced home run assault on the all time records. The way certain baseball writers did not vote for Cal Ripken to be a unanimous electee to the HoF - an obvious, no questions allowed candidate - and one of them anonymously (it's always anonymous - as the moral minority usually is) stated that he couldn't be sure that Baseball was clean, so felt uncomfortable casting a vote - he abstained. there is still an outcry to have him and others identified and removed from the process.

Bottom line, Baseball and Rose, has far too many conflicts, and agenda's running rife through it, for it to be a useful example for the AFL betting situation.

Ps. REH, that's me done.

Surely the man would never have admitted to it if he hadn't done it???? The "come clean and we'll admit you" scenario isn't logical at all.

Whether Pete' Rose's situation should be compared with this one is probably irrelevant. The fact is there is plenty of evidence across the sporting world that shows that players/coaches/umpires betting on games CAN lead the game/sport (pick one) into disrepute. The implications are just far too great to let it happen at all. I am glad the AFL have done something about this, glad too, to see it (the penalty) isn't an over-reaction in this instance. The silly buggers that get caught next time won't be so lucky.

 

[Crow-mo]

Surely the man would never have admitted to it if he hadn't done it???? The "come clean and we'll admit you" scenario isn't logical at all.

I'm not sure what you're saying here? the basic facts are not up for dispute.

Whether Pete' Rose's situation should be compared with this one is probably irrelevant. The fact is there is plenty of evidence across the sporting world that shows that players/coaches/umpires betting on games CAN lead the game/sport (pick one) into disrepute. The implications are just far too great to let it happen at all. I am glad the AFL have done something about this, glad too, to see it (the penalty) isn't an over-reaction in this instance. The silly buggers that get caught next time won't be so lucky.

Jenny, as has been shown before that's all good and well in theory...

 

[jenny61_99]

I'm not sure what you're saying here? the basic facts are not up for dispute.



Jenny, as has been shown before that's all good and well in theory...

The "facts" as I see them are the man admitted to it. How can there be grey in that. THere is no way a proud a man as Pete Rose was would admit to it if he hadn't done it.

And whats all good and well in theory??? You are confusing me. (Although that wouldn't be hard! )

 

[Crow-mo]

The "facts" as I see them are the man admitted to it. How can there be grey in that. THere is no way a proud a man as Pete Rose was would admit to it if he hadn't done it.

The facts as I see them - now there's a turn of phrase!