viewtopic.php?f=2&t=494088

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=494088

If the RFL had any balls this probably wouldn't have happened.

The old betting 'scandal' resurfaces.

Although I agree no player should willingly bet against or on his own team in a fixture, betting on matches in RL is widespread in players (just in case people think I'm suddenly saying players bet on or against thier team, what I mean is players bet on/against other teams in other fixtures that thier team are not involved in).

In the CC when a professional team plays an amatuer team, amateur players often bet on thier team scoring the first point, hence why sometimes the first point in a game is a drop-goal. Can that be classified as a scandal?

Leaf to me appears either incredibly thick or incredibly cocky, reading the article it appears to me Leaf has spoken to someone he may not know, spoken to someone taking photo's of him in the bookmakers, recorded the conversation. Now he was either too thick to notice this dodgy stuff going on with a bloke he doesn't know asking him about gambling in RL or was just too cocky in thinking he wouldn't ever be caught.

Whichever it was, I don't think he'll ever play pro RL again. He'll be playing in the NCL soon enough.

After an exhaustive 20 minute enquiry the RFL have cleared their employees of any wrongdoing but, to be on the safe side, have given staff a 30% pay bump so they are not tempted to cash in on betting scams.

Triple brandies and 6 figure salaries all round.

The highlighted quote is and should be a major major worry for the RFL. This has the potential to be highly damaging to RL's image.

Yep, I had the same thought:


Sweet is a sun journalist so what he wrote may not quite match the facts of course.

Whatever, the player has been suspended and will face an RFL investigation.

Aside from the obvious errors Leaf has made, and yes, if found guilty he should be banned, this article just stinks of something that was written by someone who has never watched a game of RL, let alone knows anything about the sport.

The facts are paper-thin, the comments and accusations are dangerous and as mentioned, libellous, and it just smacks of something that is not very well known about. Claiming:



..and grouping players like Leaf with everyone else is something that is a magnificently stupid thing to say, especially from a paper as famous as the Sun, but as it's not a football story, you'd expect them to make total and utter asses of themselves.

I think the people suggesting he should be banned for life need to calm down. The consensus on this board was to allow Gareth Hock back to play, and I don't see anyone consistently suggesting Ryan Hudson shouldn't be playing yet they both committed a far greater breach of the rules.

The situation is also not the same as the Long & Gleeson incident. They knew that the saints team would be weakened. This lad took a gamble that his team would lose heavily to a SL side, which is hardly suprising. He's been stupid and broken the rules and I wouldn't be against a long ban, but certainly not banned for life for placing a bet.

However, if it's proved he's deliberately tried to throw games in the past then a lifetime ban would be appropriate. But so far I don't think that has been proved yet.

Questionable journalisim in my view, If true ban him & anyone else caught. But what irks me is that they splash out a big scoop type headline but hardly ever give space to our sport at any other time. I just dont see why they are interested in that story but not a decent day to day reporting of the Leagues.

This is just news today and it’ll be archives tomorrow. Hopefully Wayne Rooney has slept with a transvestite and he was too drunk to realise. That’d divert the attention away!

So notoriously dodgy rag sensationalises a story and can't even be bothered to get the player's age right. Tomorrow's chip paper...

RLFANS has bread paranoia in regard to 'libel' and now on this forum every time someone mentions someone else without a truck load of photo's, witness statements and photographs then then it is usual "locked, potentially libel etc etc"
In the real world it's very different and the comments made by Sweet were not libellous, dangerous, or un-thought. It was a well researched and planned piece of journalism and is probably the most interesting story on rugby league I've read in a while.

Too many people on here are jumping down the throat of the journalist when all he has done is highlight an inherent arrogance and problem within our sport. There are problems in all sports, and it is up to the governing bodies involved to protect the sport. The RFL are completely spineless and inconsistent in the way they handle problems within the game and all that has been done here is highlight yet again another of their failings.

Well researched? It amounts to nothing more than "a bloke in a pub told me...". Casual pub conversations are neither evidence nor solid research. He's produced a damning article condemning the whole of RL based on one player's unproven boasts. Ok, so he placed a bet and spoke of another - that can be dealt with. But the rest is sensationalism, nothing more. The journalist mentions 'rugby league's cheats' - PLURAL. I assume he has solid evidence of this? He also seems to believe Shaun Leaf can tell if the opposition have also placed bets on the outcome - based on their tackling!

And to blame the RFL for this is pathetic. They have strict rules in place designed to prevent illicit gambling in the sport, but in a sport involving thousands of people there will always be a bad egg. What exactly do you propose the RFL could have done to prevent Shaun Leaf placing bets and talking to an undercover journalist like this? Come on, you're full of accusations, where's your solution?

Speaking as a Dons fan i would be shocked if any of this turned out to be true. I have never seen Leafy ever give less than 100% for the team....

You mean:

"A senior rugby league official (The Sun knows his name) took a more-than-usual interest in a fixture where Toulouse carried a 48-point handicap."
?
I assume they've got nothing, as they neither name anyone, nor actually make any allegation whatsoever. Define what 'usual' level of interest such an official would have in such a game, then tell me how you judge the anonymous official's interest to be 'more than usual', and if it was, what is wrong with that? Maybe his dad is from Donny, or his granny is French?

Plus, we are told that none of the playing players knew anything about any betting, so what did the official achieve from his more-than-usual interest?

Who gives two hoots what that rag says ?

In the Sun???

The story seems to consist entirely of "I (Sun journalist) met this bloke down the pub who's a rugby league player for Doncaster. I said to to him: "fancy a bet on Doncaster losing to Wakefield". He said: "yeah. I've bet on our games before"

All of which makes Leaf a very silly, and very naught boy, who deserves whatever is coming to him and casts doubt on the journalist's claim in his Twitter profile to be "an all-round good bloke" but doesn't revel max fixing, as the rag claims it does.

Shaun Leaf is scarcely Hansie Cronje

What's his Twitter?

The Sun = Andrex

£200.

Lol.

What a joke. The back 3 pages of The Sun this took up, even in the southern edition. Fantastic.

Not really, the article says nothing at all really.

The great thing about this is, it shows rugby league fans value fairplay and honesty, but can also see though nothing stories in crap papers.

The "fame and fortune" comment at the end really made me laugh.

He didn't play so Its not something that bothers me

“@garethwalker13: The People's Nigel Wiskar blogging sensibly on Shaun Leaf story: t.co/TCcaXPQ #rugbyleague” At last some perspective. Shame more journos AND fans can't be more grounded.

“@garethwalker13: The People's Nigel Wiskar blogging sensibly on Shaun Leaf story: t.co/TCcaXPQ #rugbyleague” At last some perspective. Shame more journos AND fans can't be more grounded.