What penalty should Goodwin get?

[jenny61_99]

Why don't we chemically castrate the miscreant as well?

There's absolutely no suggestion that there's anything sinister like match-fixing going on here. It's just a few dopey footballers making an error in judgement. Yes they, and all AFL players need to learn from this episode and be aware of their responsibilities, but your proposed raft of penalties are ludicrous.

Whether or not "anything sinister" went on in these instances is not the point. In fact you miss the point completely. This is not about "dopey footballers". This is about the fact that match fixing, or insider information, for want of a better term, COULD happen. Simon Goodwin is a SENIOR player. In fact I think he is generally a pretty cluey bloke. Not the "dopey footballer" you portray in any case. This is not one error in judgement, this is (from what we know) 10 bets of sizeable amounts.

I stand by my call for harsh penalties. The integrity of the game must not be brought into question. Slaps on the wrist would do nothing to deter other players from doing the same thing. The question has to be "Would you risk your career for this bet?"

 

[maccas_no1]

Whether or not "anything sinister" went on in these instances is not the point. In fact you miss the point completely. This is not about "dopey footballers". This is about the fact that match fixing, or insider information, for want of a better term, COULD happen. Simon Goodwin is a SENIOR player. In fact I think he is generally a pretty cluey bloke. Not the "dopey footballer" you portray in any case. This is not one error in judgement, this is (from what we know) 10 bets of sizeable amounts.

I stand by my call for harsh penalties. The integrity of the game must not be brought into question. Slaps on the wrist would do nothing to deter other players from doing the same thing. The question has to be "Would you risk your career for this bet?"

Okay fair point, but where do the players stand that had their names covered up for illegal drug use???

I think the light of what has happened here it has been in some ways handled poorly by the AFL.

 

[jenny61_99]

Okay fair point, but where do the players stand that had their names covered up for illegal drug use???

I think the light of what has happened here it has been in some ways handled poorly by the AFL.

I believe the two issues really cannot be compared. As has been discussed by others, illegal drug use is something that affects the player and, only if he is stupid enough to do it during the season, his team mates. The potential for someone to fix a game or use information in order to win a bet, has far more serious repercussions for the whole game.

Was Adelaide the one to name Goody first, or did the AFL do it? (In any case, the AFL have not got a good track record for handling these things, so this is nothing new).

 

[maccas_no1]

I believe the two issues really cannot be compared. As has been discussed by others, illegal drug use is something that affects the player and, only if he is stupid enough to do it during the season, his team mates. The potential for someone to fix a game or use information in order to win a bet, has far more serious repercussions for the whole game.

There was no intent to 'fix' the game Goody didnt bet on a game that involved the AFC, Its hard to 'fix' an AFL game.

Was Adelaide the one to name Goody first, or did the AFL do it? (In any case, the AFL have not got a good track record for handling these things, so this is nothing new).

Im not sure how that was reported I would say the AFL conducted their own investigation as it involved other AFL clubs not just the AFC.

 

[rayven]

Its only his first strike so counselling, court suppression of his name and compensation for the leak of his name.

 

[*PAF]

Agree as I said in the AFL's eyes he has done the wrong thing, in society's eyes............ play on
...

Absoultely agreed. He has done nothing morally wrong, reading back on some posts you'd think he had, but he cerainly has not.
However, he has broken an employer's condition. What does that mean? Well there is no law that says one shouldn't drink at work (at least in many workplaces where OH&S isn't a concern) but if you do then consequences will follow. He now has to face them, but banned for heaps of games? C'mon ... would say your No 1 fan.

 

[Crow-mo]

I meant that's why the rules are inplace in general.

Do you think this is the "final strike" so far as Goodwin being in the leadership group is concerned? Who will his replacement be if needed?

for me, honestly?

I couldn't care less about the leadership group malarkey. Imagine it would be under scrutiny.

 

[Crow-mo]

Some of you see this as trivial, but the implications of players betting on AFL games is why these rules were put in place. The rules don't just say a player is not to bet on his own team - it clearly states that a player is not to bet on football PERIOD! The possibility of collusion is just too high (see the previous stated examples of cricket, soccer, boxing and baseball games). I think the AFL have got it right (the rules) and I believe the punishment will be severe.

actually the potential for collusion is extremely remote due to the nature of the game. I can't see any examples provided from soccer, boxing, cricket or baseball (as you suggest) that lead to conclusions of collusion.

the AFL have this ENTIRELY WRONG! if they were serious, they would have pursued agreements with all the bookies, not a fragmented piecemeal approach that has seen organisations like the SA TAB not sharing data because the AFL did not setup an information sharing agreement with them.

another example where the AFL have arsed about and made a mess of things. if this is so serious, why hasn't the league taken it seriously?

 

[Crow-mo]

If you think that the rule is only an AFL rule is naive. THE SANFL has the same rules. Its the same in horse racing, motor racing, infact anything you can have a bet on.

Why because someone can affect the result or outcome of a sport.

can they? it all depends on the sport. the more particpants involved, the less chance this is possible.

 

[Crow-mo]

There was no intent to 'fix' the game Goody didnt bet on a game that involved the AFC, Its hard to 'fix' an AFL game.

that's not the point - oh wait, yes it is!

for a start, how much money would have to go on a game to make it worthwhile to 'fix' an AFL match, and what would the odds have to be, and how exactly would that escape notice? etc. etc.

the wowser fraternity has lost all sense of proportion.

Hell Daniel Ward bet twice on melbourne to beat geelong - he obviously felt there was something about Geelong they could handle. he was wrong, they lost both times - so much for his "inside" information.

 

[Truck Rutten]

Whether or not "anything sinister" went on in these instances is not the point. In fact you miss the point completely. This is not about "dopey footballers". This is about the fact that match fixing, or insider information, for want of a better term, COULD happen. Simon Goodwin is a SENIOR player. In fact I think he is generally a pretty cluey bloke. Not the "dopey footballer" you portray in any case. This is not one error in judgement, this is (from what we know) 10 bets of sizeable amounts.

I stand by my call for harsh penalties. The integrity of the game must not be brought into question. Slaps on the wrist would do nothing to deter other players from doing the same thing. The question has to be "Would you risk your career for this bet?"

Nice conspiracy theory, but this is a

 

[*PAF]

actually the potential for collusion is extremely remote due to the nature of the game. I can't see any examples provided from soccer, boxing, cricket or baseball (as you suggest) that lead to conclusions of collusion.

the AFL have this ENTIRELY WRONG! if they were serious, they would have pursued agreements with all the bookies, not a fragmented piecemeal approach that has seen organisations like the SA TAB not sharing data because the AFL did not setup an information sharing agreement with them.

another example where the AFL have arsed about and made a mess of things. if this is so serious, why hasn't the league taken it seriously?

The worst thing that can happen from a punter's or bookie's point of view and is a stuff up by the AFL IMO, is the farcical naming of teams that are nothing like what they end up being on gameday. That is where big money can be won or lost.

Having a longer thought about it, that is also where players could "unfairly" get an advantage over bookies.

 

[macca23]

The worst thing that can happen from a punter's or bookie's point of view and is a stuff up by the AFL IMO, is the farcical naming of teams that are nothing like what they end up being on gameday. That is where big money can be won or lost.

Having a longer thought about it, that is also where players could "unfairly" get an advantage over bookies.

And there's no prize for guessing which team is very guilty of that.

 

[*PAF]

And there's no prize for guessing which team is very guilty of that.

We certainly are one of the 16 guilty ones, but none of our players have ever had a bet on the footy.
Angels they are, angels.

 

[Pinepower]

We certainly are one of the 16 guilty ones, but none of our players have ever had a bet on the footy.
Angels they are, angels.

*PAF you are blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other.

 

[*PAF]

*PAF you are blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other.

Lucky for me someone invented voice recognition software hey?

 

[Crow-mo]

Absoultely agreed. He has done nothing morally wrong, reading back on some posts you'd think he had, but he cerainly has not.
However, he has broken an employer's condition. What does that mean? Well there is no law that says one shouldn't drink at work (at least in many workplaces where OH&S isn't a concern) but if you do then consequences will follow. He now has to face them, but banned for heaps of games? C'mon ... would say your No 1 fan.

a very fair summation.

 

[rayven]

but none of our players have ever had a bet on the footy.
Angels they are, angels.

Apparantly some bet on the Norm Smith medal

 

[Crow-mo]

The worst thing that can happen from a punter's or bookie's point of view and is a stuff up by the AFL IMO, is the farcical naming of teams that are nothing like what they end up being on gameday. That is where big money can be won or lost.

agree 100%

Having a longer thought about it, that is also where players could "unfairly" get an advantage over bookies.

absolutely.

 

[Markthirtytwo]

can they? it all depends on the sport. the more particpants involved, the less chance this is possible.

Yes. Simply by missing an important score, mark, tackle,etc.

And that doesn't even have to involve betting.

 

[Malibu#27]

Apparantly some bet on the Norm Smith medal

Source ?

 

[Markthirtytwo]

actually the potential for collusion is extremely remote due to the nature of the game. I can't see any examples provided from soccer, boxing, cricket or baseball (as you suggest) that lead to conclusions of collusion.

the AFL have this ENTIRELY WRONG! if they were serious, they would have pursued agreements with all the bookies, not a fragmented piecemeal approach that has seen organisations like the SA TAB not sharing data because the AFL did not setup an information sharing agreement with them.

another example where the AFL have arsed about and made a mess of things. if this is so serious, why hasn't the league taken it seriously?

How do the names King and Rose rest with you?

 

[Crow-mo]

How do the names King and Rose rest with you?

I don't know, why don't you explain both to me?

and don't spare the detail

 

[Crow-mo]

Yes. Simply by missing an important score, mark, tackle,etc.

And that doesn't even have to involve betting.

earth calling mork, the real world needs you back.

 

[*PAF]

Source ?

I think he heard wrong.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/footy/common/story_page/0,8033,21266260%5E20322,00.html