Betting Story / Scandal

[Budgie]

I suppose the announcement that the NRL will be severing all ties with any organisation with links to gambling can be expected any time soon....
Yeah right, not when we can get duplicity and mock indignation instead.

Au contraire. Now we are about to get the announcement that clubs will be forced to disclose injury status of players. Surely this can only be to help gamblers and thus, encourage gambling (perceived fairer playing field).

The hypocrisy of all this is stuck so strongly in my craw that this little Sea Eagle can hardly balance on a branch anymore.

 

[Masked Eagle]

He bet on himself to be leading try scorer. Pretty stupid thing to do. Whilst it might sound harmless what happens if he would have found himself in space with only the fullback to beat and instead of a simple draw and pass to support he tries to take him on. Because he has laid that bet it puts his decision on the field in a different light. He might not have even thought about it in the moment on the field but still, what if he bombed the try in a game that cost the team and the players found out about it?

As for the game getting involved with bookmakers, I have no problem with that. These companies make millions off the sport so why shouldn't the game get some of that back to reinvest into other areas?

 

[bob dylan]

@simon64 jockeys don't punt but I know for a fact one of Australia's biggest punters is a well know Melbourne cup winning jockey.

 

[SwornEagle]

Too many hypotheticals in this thread. 30 small bets over 3 years to win ... all. No concern of match fixing. Silly but minor misdemeanor. Move on.

 

[Budgie]

He bet on himself to be leading try scorer. Pretty stupid thing to do. Whilst it might sound harmless what happens if he would have found himself in space with only the fullback to beat and instead of a simple draw and pass to support he tries to take him on. Because he has laid that bet it puts his decision on the field in a different light. He might not have even thought about it in the moment on the field but still, what if he bombed the try in a game that cost the team and the players found out about it?

As for the game getting involved with bookmakers, I have no problem with that. These companies make millions off the sport so why shouldn't the game get some of that back to reinvest into other areas?

Always 2 ways to look at any situation. I did think about this and then I realised that it was an unlikely scenario (because he makes plenty of money) and it was likely as much a motivational ploy - an affirming literal backing of himself.
As for those suggesting the doorway to organised crime theory: he was betting with a recognised agency. These agencies are not the way organised crime works. It is this:
Player bets with bookie - builds up big debt.
Bookie puts crooked mates onto him.
Solution is to fix a game to clear debt.
Not the Wolfie scenario.

I don't condone what he has done but I'm with the crowd who say wife beaters, drunk drivers etc. are the real blight on the game. Wolfie has scored many a great try for our mighty Eagles, has been great PR for the club, has been generous with his time for fans, and has worked his backside off to be back on field for us after horrific injuries. What more could we ask?

Finally, for those suggesting he might have gotten his brother to bet for him? Now that would really indicate his intentions were dishonourable rather than just a fun and unorthodox (who? Wolfman? unorthodox?) attempt to motivate himself.

 

[HappilyManly]

Where does everyone get the idea that the bets were only $5? Doyle said "often as little as $5"

Given the severity of the suspension I suggest he has put more than a lazy fiver down. Insert emoticon so all can understand

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-10/williams-banned-for-betting-on-nrl-matches/5588034

Williams was dealt the most severe of the penalties for making multiple bets with amounts ranging from $5 to $60.

"They were relatively small bets and we didn't see any potential for match fixing whatsoever," NRL chief operating officer Jim Doyle said.

Wolfie backed himself and his Club to win - put his money where his heart is

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Once again take the blinkers off. He has bet on games he has a direct impact upon or inside knowledge at the least. It is against the rules and for good reason. You can't be a little bit pregnant. It's a shame that he won't play for us again and an even bigger shame that a provable media/social media/dancing with the stars future won't unfold. He stuffed up. He did the wrong thing. Sandow could have gambled millions away but it wasn't on his own team.

To put it in perspective – Lillee and Marsh were playing a Test for Australia and were in such a strong position at one stage that bookies were offering 500–1 England. Via a 3rd party they each made a small bet and collected 7,500 pounds when England pulled off a comeback victory. Wiki: "Both men openly discussed the incident and received no official censure or sanction".

Different world now, and it is about perceptions, and Williams has to cop some punishment for being silly. But to say he should be drummed out of the club or the game is absurd.

The point of this exercise by the NRL is to draw a line in the sand, so everyone is on notice for the future. To make sure no-one misses the news that it is a different world now.

 

[voicefromthehill]

Where does everyone get the idea that the bets were only $5? Doyle said "often as little as $5"

Given the severity of the suspension I suggest he has put more than a lazy fiver down. Insert emoticon so all can understand

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-10/williams-banned-for-betting-on-nrl-matches/5588034

Williams was dealt the most severe of the penalties for making multiple bets with amounts ranging from $5 to $60.

"They were relatively small bets and we didn't see any potential for match fixing whatsoever," NRL chief operating officer Jim Doyle said.

Wolfie backed himself and his Club to win - put his money where his heart is

My point exactly - not just $5

This rubbish that he 'backed his club to win' is just apologist claptrap. The rules are clear

 

[mike walker]

G'day all,The thread title brings back memories of young mike walker and his old man listening to the footy on the radio and at the completion of the match,especially if his beloved magpies were surprisingly rolled,the old man would say"a lot of money changed hands there son".
cheers mike

 

[ManlyBacker]

Wow. $5 on himself but never the opposition. Somebody grab a rope as the Wolfie deserves to swing! What a load of rubbish.

 

[Chip and Chase]

Wow. $5 on himself but never the opposition. Somebody grab a rope as the Wolfie deserves to swing! What a load of rubbish.

If our wingers make a break and they have support I want them taking the best option, not backing themselves to beat the fullback because they want to end up top tryscorer.

It was a stupid bet, as were the others and now he is paying the penalty. There should be zero tolerance on this IMO.

If they seriously want to have a bet then they'd have to be stupid not to be able to organise that without using their own account.

 

[ManlyBacker]

Anyone who thinks a top level player would deny a scoring opportunity because they have $5 on an all up bet doesn't understand punters. It would be more for fun and interest than any genuine hope of making money. Someone who puts something like $200 upwards on any option is a different matter. That wasn't Wolfie.

 

[HappilyManly]

Whilst waiting for the Gates to open today - I got my regular SportingBet free $5 bet email. :dodgy:

Wolfie clicked on his and is now paying the price.
Manly are not happy about the length of his suspension though

 

[Chip and Chase]

Anyone who thinks a top level player would deny a scoring opportunity because they have $5 on an all up bet doesn't understand punters. It would be more for fun and interest than any genuine hope of making money. Someone who puts something like $200 upwards on any option is a different matter. That wasn't Wolfie.

The issue is the inference that it could affect their performance. I don't think it is a good look that players are betting on matches that they are involved in, whether it is $5 or $25,000. Some punters bet for fun, and some have a problem. Plenty of evidence of players in all codes crossing that line, probably started out innocently enough though in their mind.

Zero tolerance for me. If you are that desperate to get a bit of fun from a punt, stick to the million of other options availble to you other than the sport you are actively involved in.

 

[bob dylan]

Yet again I ask.

If it was Lyon, DCE, Foran or Brett you would want them sacked?

 

[Chip and Chase]

Yes.

 

[Masked Eagle]

Anyone who thinks a top level player would deny a scoring opportunity because they have $5 on an all up bet doesn't understand punters. It would be more for fun and interest than any genuine hope of making money. Someone who puts something like $200 upwards on any option is a different matter. That wasn't Wolfie.

So what's the amount then when it goes from fun to a different matter entirely? $20? $50? $100.

 

[ALinda]

Manly are not happy about the length of his suspension though

And nor should they be!

To suspend Wolfie 'for the rest of 2014' is vague and quite unfair. If Wolfie had been playing for a wooden spoon side, it would've been an 8-week suspension but because he's playing for Manly it could potentially be a 12-week suspension. Where's the fairness in that? It should be a set number of weeks/games and therefore the same penalty no matter who he's playing for.

However, imo even an 8-week suspension is harsh. I think a hefty fine with a lesser suspension would've been more appropriate - hit him in the pocket where it hurts.

 

[globaleagle]

So.......the officials who can easily have a greater influence on the outcome of a match (as opposed to the players)......

are simply not going to be named?

Any media questioning on this?

Probably not.

 

[HappilyManly]

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/melbourne-storm-coowner-refuses-to-take-advantage-of-nrl-gambling-loophole-20140712-zt4k4.html

Actually a Journo did ask, Doyle's reply was that as most had other jobs, their reputations would be destroyed unecessarily

Wolfie is the fall guy for now for breaking a Code of Conduct rule. But I bet that the Media will pursue this whilst the NRL continue with the saturation coverage of wagering

Scumos are now partly owned by a Betting Agency.