l Am Confused

[mavs5]

Let me start by saying that l am a Collingwood supporter and l agree with the punishment.

l think Collingwood should suspend him for the rest of the season.

But how can a player been suspended for 8 games for an activity that is legal (gambling) with a first offense, while another player can be given three chances before he is suspended for an activity that is illegal (drugs)??????

That does not make sense.

 

[Wagamama]

..and both are addictions. Hmm.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

Because if afl's image is tarnished (in relation to punting) they stand to lose alot of revenue. It's bullshit but that's the nature of the beast

 

[Chism]

Let me start by saying that l am a Collingwood supporter and l agree with the punishment.

l think Collingwood should suspend him for the rest of the season.

But how can a player been suspended for 8 games for an activity that is legal (gambling) with a first offense, while another player can be given three chances before he is suspended for an activity that is illegal (drugs)??????

That does not make sense.

What Heath Shaw did was not legal because he was betting with the use of inside information and ALL forms of betting on AFL matches for players and club officials are banned and this news is not new and the AFL councils players on this exact thing all the time to make sure they fully aware of the fact and their stance on it.

Drug policy is totally different and the AFL's stance on this is clear and i don't agree with the 3 strike policy but what can you do??

Poor comparison.

 

[LongBomb]

Because we can't have players betting on games.

Simple really.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Let me start by saying that l am a Collingwood supporter and l agree with the punishment.

l think Collingwood should suspend him for the rest of the season.

But how can a player been suspended for 8 games for an activity that is legal (gambling) with a first offense, while another player can be given three chances before he is suspended for an activity that is illegal (drugs)??????

That does not make sense.

First you say you agree with the punishment, then you question it. Yep, you're confused alright.

 

[Prudster]

Just putting it out there, but imagine if you had your career ended because somebody slipped you something. Drugs policy needs to have some leniency. Shaw and Maxwell are just idiots.

 

[VicO]

One threatens the very credibility of the sport, the other (non-performing enhancing drugs) doesn't. Look at what betting has done to cricket, we don't want that. I like Shaw, but you need to act hard to make a statement, even if it was for something relatively small.

That said, we reap what we sow and the proliferation of betting websites isn't helping. They need to be reigned in and reigned in very quickly.

 

[Financialpanther]

Let me start by saying that l am a Collingwood supporter and l agree with the punishment.

l think Collingwood should suspend him for the rest of the season.

But how can a player been suspended for 8 games for an activity that is legal (gambling) with a first offense, while another player can be given three chances before he is suspended for an activity that is illegal (drugs)??????

That does not make sense.

Because drug usage undermines the integrity of the player and possibly the club. Players betting on the game they play severally questions the integrity of the entire competition and sport.

Dud comparison

 

[g-man]

I agree with the Shaw suspension but if you are going to argue how it's about the image of the game and that it's bringing the game in to disrepute as some have argued then how are those who have failed drug tests any different. I would think that taking illegal drugs, especially those that are repeat offenders, would be just as harmful for the image of the AFL. Plus how would involving yourself with drug dealers be good for the image of the game. That could also open a player up for a world of trouble. I'm not excusing Shaw's actions but I don't see how he gets named and shamed after 1 incident while others don't.

 

[THRILLHO]

Look at Pakistan and cricket for an example of how dangerous spot-fixing (which first goal-kicker is) and match-fixing can be for the integrity of a sport.

If a sport has no integrity it has no credibility. It'd be like professional wrestling.

FWIW, Shaw's suspension was far, far, far too lenient. Mohammed Aamer, arguably, got pressured to bowl a no-ball (just one) at a specific time and got a life ban. Shaw places a bet on first goal kicker and gets 8 games? Seriously? Should've been 22 minimum.

 

[FIGJAM]

Poor comparison.

Agreed.

I think a better comparison would be the Chicago White Sox throwing the 1919 World Series.

 

[THRILLHO]

Agreed.

I think a better comparison would be the Chicago White Sox throwing the 1919 World Series.

Nah. That's a match-fix. What Shaw was engaging in was a spot-fix.

Pakistan no ball spot-fix a better comparison.

 

[g-man]

One threatens the very credibility of the sport, the other (non-performing enhancing drugs) doesn't.

I would argue any player involving themselves with illegal drugs and therefore dealers could certainly do that.

 

[VicO]

I would argue any player involving themselves with illegal drugs and therefore dealers could certainly do that.

I wouldn't. It tarnishes the image of the game, but it doesn't threaten its credibility.

That said, comparing what Shaw did to what the Pakistani players did is ridiculous. They bowled no-balls and in essence under-performed. Shaw had a $10 bet on his side. There's no comparison.

 

[Wagamama]

One threatens the very credibility of the sport, the other (non-performing enhancing drugs) doesn't.

Huh?
Professional elite sportmen taking drugs is credible...riiiigggghttt.

 

[Blue and Silver]

I would argue any player involving themselves with illegal drugs and therefore dealers could certainly do that.

Players don't have to be involved with dealers. Friends bring the stuff, the player just gets on the stuff.

Gambling in an issue because if you let any players get away lightly with it, then you open the door to a very slippery slope. Imagine just 1% of players took bets on the games they were involved in. Roughly 1 player in every 2 games. 1 player who is willing to miss a shot on goal. Give away a stupid free kick. Drop a mark. Have a string of damaging clangers.

The possibilities are endless. Players can't bet on games... ever. Too much risk

 

[Stig O'Hara]

Thought the AFL had a Constitution.

Today's Policy on the Run was blinding.

 

[g-man]

I wouldn't. It tarnishes the image of the game, but it doesn't threaten its credibility.

That said, comparing what Shaw did to what the Pakistani players did is ridiculous. They bowled no-balls and in essence under-performed. Shaw had a $10 bet on his side. There's no comparison.

I'm not saying it does happen but using illegal drugs could easily lead you down a darker and more dangerous path with some pretty dangerous people. Yes that is drawing a long bow but there is that risk. Who's to say what that could then lead to. I'm just using that to highlight that you could make a case, if ever so small, that mixing with the wrong people, moving in the wrong circles can just as easily lead to credibility issues. Imagine being forced to play poorly, give out information, simply to keep a drug habit or drug usage quiet. As I said, a very long bow but so is betting $10 on a games first goal kicker. Some people want him banned for life which is crazy. 14 weeks down to 8 is fair enough, no arguments with that.

 

[Mr Smiff]

Because we can't have players betting on games.

Simple really.

The REAL theory is ......"'DON'T GET CAUGHT".
Are you going to go one further, and say, that players of other teams do NOT get their mates to put a "friendly" wager on a game.?

I will add that Shaw was guilty on having someone place a bet on the game, and the fine is appropriate............but to penalise THE club, who had NO part in the bet, really is harsh.
Karma will and should follow.
Eddie will see to that.!

 

[VicO]

Huh?
Professional elite sportmen taking drugs is credible...riiiigggghttt.

Yeah mate, because that's what I said...

Let me make it really clear for you - betting related issues threaten the core of any sport. Most sports can withstand most scandals but when you don't have full confidence that players are giving 100% - that's when people switch off. Cricket has been badly effected by this. Will anyone bother watching a cricket match with Pakistan these days? You have no confidence that they're actually trying to win and as such, the sport becomes pointless and loses all credibility.

The cricket situation happened because the governing body, the ICC has been spineless to act and have lacked a decisive leadership in the past. The AFL needs to have a zero-tolerance policy and hopefully Shaw can contribute to in some way to the message that this isn't on and ensure we keep this crap out of our sport.

On the other hand, illicit drugs tarnish the game, but it doesn't threaten it's core credibility in the same way this stuff does. Which is a direct answer to the OP who sought to put the two on the same level. They're not.

 

[AlecDuncan]

Drugs corrupt an individual. Gambling corrupts an entire code.

 

[VicO]

I'm not saying it does happen but using illegal drugs could easily lead you down a darker and more dangerous path with some pretty dangerous people. Yes that is drawing a long bow but there is that risk. Who's to say what that could then lead to. I'm just using that to highlight that you could make a case, if ever so small, that mixing with the wrong people, moving in the wrong circles can just as easily lead to credibility issues. Imagine being forced to play poorly, give out information, simply to keep a drug habit or drug usage quiet. As I said, a very long bow but so is betting $10 on a games first goal kicker. Some people want him banned for life which is crazy. 14 weeks down to 8 is fair enough, no arguments with that.

Yeah I don't disagree that drugs are bad (m'kay). Rather we have different levels of indiscretions here.

I agree banning Shaw for life is absurd as are calls for him to be traded. He's a champion player of the club ffs, who certainly doesn't deserve to be tossed to the side like a piece of trash.

 

[Wagamama]

Neither leads to credibility. Not the act nor the AFLs response.
Both gambling and drugs are both addictive and have a significant impact in the community. Yet, the AFL choose to allow one set of addicts the opportunity within the game to go un-named and unpunished and the other to be named shamed fined ejected from the game for several weeks and pilloried by the media and the public.
Credible? Riiigggghtttt.
Perhaps you should argue the case for integrity rather than credibility.

 

[g-man]

Yeah I don't disagree that drugs are bad (m'kay). Rather we have different levels of indiscretions here.

I agree banning Shaw for life is absurd as are calls for him to be traded. He's a champion player of the club ffs, who certainly doesn't deserve to be tossed to the side like a piece of trash.

To me the issue is this. We all know what Heath Shaw has done after 1 time. There are threads on here with the usual people sinking the boots in to the player, supporters and club. He's been named and shamed and his name and face will be all over the news. Rightly so. He was an idiot who could have hurt his team big time. He deserves his punishment. Why then do people after two strikes under the AFL's drug policy still remain anonymous? That to me is wrong. Why wait until the third strike before naming and punishing them. Why do they get extra chances?