Saintsational Fan Forum - A passionate community of St Kilda Football Club fans discussing news, history, players, trade rumours, results, AFL stats and more.
sainterinsydney wrote:What does the 6 weeks suspended mean?
It means he's a collingwood player.
So you honestly thing he should have been suspended for 14 weeks for a 410 bet. Imangine if it was a Saints player. The conspirancy, the corruption, the hatred of our club. Stupid thing to do but even a supidier penalty.
He was given a 14 week suspension... what's the point of suspending 6?
I think they had to come down very very hard as they'd want to send a message loud and clear... much like the treatment of the sling tackle.
Yes, I reckon if it was Baker there would probably be no suspended sentence... just my opinion.
What a lot of rot. I think you will find they have always had suspended sentances when dealing with betting offences. This is the first player to be suspended and I think 8 weeks is more than enough. What did Goodwin get? And was it Ward. What happened to him. I think being a pies player effects common sense. If it was one of ours we would bepointing out the penalites of Goodwin and Ward and saying it is typical for us to get treated worth. Now we have people saying 14 seems ok.
Did the other cases involve betting on their own team or inside information?
It demonstrates a mindset that has to be totally squashed.
What if shaw had handballed to Maxwell ahead of another option for the goal?
How do we know other bets haven't been placed on less easily traceable and more easily manipulated events?
SENsaintsational wrote:Not the first to be suspended Plugger.
Matthew Primus got 2 weeks and a Richmond part time runner got 6 weeks by the RFC.
The suspension is right in my view. Should be hard.
I knew of the runner but cant remember Primus. When was that? Before or after Ward and Goodwin because if it was after it makes a bit of sense but if it was before it doesnt make as much sense. Plenty will agree with the penalty but maybe because I know of a few who still bet that maybe I think it is a bit unfair for Shaw when others still do it.
AFL website says Primus in 2010. Means he was an assistant coach last year and about to be senior coach. Don't remember it either.
The important point is that these players have been "exposed/caught." The size of the bets are trivial and clearly, there has been no intent to influence a match.
In this instance, the penalties far outweigh the actions. The publicity alone is enormous and should frighten off others who may be betting.
That's not to say that there should be no penalty, or a slap with a feather duster. I would have thought that half the penalty would have been sufficient.
sainterinsydney wrote:What does the 6 weeks suspended mean?
It means he's a collingwood player.
Ha - probably, at least in the sense that the penalty less suspended part was calculated by counting back from round 24 (Collingwood have 8 H&A games left), to allow him to play in the finals, but the actual penalty would rule him out for the remainder of the year, plus a bit more.
However, it sounds fair to me. As we are seeing elsewhere, a moment of stupidity can have grave consequences. But I'm not going to be too sanctimonious about it.
SENsaintsational wrote:Not the first to be suspended Plugger.
Matthew Primus got 2 weeks and a Richmond part time runner got 6 weeks by the RFC.
The suspension is right in my view. Should be hard.
I knew of the runner but cant remember Primus. When was that? Before or after Ward and Goodwin because if it was after it makes a bit of sense but if it was before it doesnt make as much sense. Plenty will agree with the penalty but maybe because I know of a few who still bet that maybe I think it is a bit unfair for Shaw when others still do it.
AFL website says Primus in 2010. Means he was an assistant coach last year and about to be senior coach. Don't remember it either.
What did Keiran Jack get?
He got a big fine for the type of bet it was. So this may be the first player suspended. I understand that betting on your own side is worse and as others have pointed out mightnt be his first bet but he got caught for only this bet. IMO 8 weeks is to much but so be it. 14 weeks would have been way over the top and as I said earlier nearly every single betting offence has had a suspended sentance so surely this is fair enough.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit too harsh?
Pure stupidity from Heaf but they've really thrown the book at him, I think they should wait until somebody bets against themself and then ban them for life...
ROBERT HARVEY A.K.A The Great Man, Banger, Harves, Ol' Man River...
384 games, 4 B&F's, 3 EJ Whitten Medals, St.Kilda Captain, 2 Time Brownlow Medalist, 8 Time All Australian, 2nd Highest Brownlow votes poller.... The greatest of ALL TIME!!
Armoooo wrote:Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit too harsh?
Pure stupidity from Heaf but they've really thrown the book at him, I think they should wait until somebody bets against themself and then ban them for life...
Perhaps the AFL has looked at his prior form and Eddies words in the past, and acted accordingly.
I don't think Goodwin, Jack and Primus bet on their own teams, Heath did.
Stupidity is good enough reason for this penalty, conveniently tailored to ensure he is available for finals. I mean $10 at 100 to 1 is chicken feed for a football player.
A true king doesn't glass his girlfriend.
A true king doesn't smear his blood on an opponent when he cannot break a tag.
A true king does not label umpires disgraceful.
A true king is Robert Harvey.
sainterinsydney wrote:What does the 6 weeks suspended mean?
It means he's a collingwood player.
So you honestly thing he should have been suspended for 14 weeks for a 410 bet. Imangine if it was a Saints player. The conspirancy, the corruption, the hatred of our club. Stupid thing to do but even a supidier penalty.
Just go dig a hole for yourself you miserable old sod!! Jezus!
Explain why i am miserable. It makes no sense all but is consistant with some of your other ramblings. IÃi put you in my no idea list.
Nigh on EVRY SINGLE THING you post is just claptrap, antognistic AFL apologist bulls***, just for the sake of bulls***. Because, you couldnt possibly believe the crap you come out with.
You have taken the lead in the no idea list. In case you havent noticed I disagree with the AFL penalty. It is a long list. You should be proud. And I believe everything I say where as others just say it because they feel like they have to say it.
What absolute bulls***. You do know what "nigh" means dont you? Keep digging
In the NRL Ryan Tandy was found to have bet on himself receving the first 'penalty' and has been thrown out of his club, most likely thrown out of the NRL, and is facing possible police charges.
His bet was in effect not too dissimilar to Shaw's.
In comparison, SHaw has gotten off relatively lightly, IMO.
I'm not sure I understand the penalty for Maxwell?
If he did something wrong then why isn't he punished similarly to SHaw.
If he didn't do anything other than tell a femily member that he was playing up forward, tehn why is he being fined?
Didn't some Indian cricketers get 3 years for betting or telling someone they were to bowl a no-ball on the third delivery in the second over or something like that? They didn't throw the match but they "compromised" the match and themselves for financial gain.
Well nobody ever thought the black and white had a spine anyway
A true king doesn't glass his girlfriend.
A true king doesn't smear his blood on an opponent when he cannot break a tag.
A true king does not label umpires disgraceful.
A true king is Robert Harvey.
sainterinsydney wrote:What does the 6 weeks suspended mean?
It means he's a collingwood player.
So you honestly thing he should have been suspended for 14 weeks for a 410 bet. Imangine if it was a Saints player. The conspirancy, the corruption, the hatred of our club. Stupid thing to do but even a supidier penalty.
So what do you suggest?
They probably cheated last year to. We should be awarded the 2010 flag.
Holder of unacceptable views and other thought crimes.
