One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => Richmond Rant => Topic started by: one-eyed on June 08, 2010, 07:07:17 PM
-
Tiger runner banned for bets
* Al Paton
* From: Herald Sun
* June 08, 2010 6:10PM
RICHMOND has suspended a runner for placing three bets on AFL games this season.
Part-time runner Justin Quill has been banned for six weeks.
The Tigers released a statement late today saying the AFL had approved of the penalty and would not take any further action.
The club said Quill only realised the full ramifications of three bets he placed of $5, $10 and $20 earlier this season, after seeing media coverage of other AFL and club officials suspended last month.
Quill immediately contacted the club and informed it of the bets he placed. He was not involved in nor had any information about any of the games he placed bets on.
“The Richmond football club is aware that the AFL’s rules on gambling are important in protecting the integrity of the game, and we take any breaches of the rules very seriously,” Tigers chief executive Brendon Gale said.
“We are disappointed in Justin’s actions, but commend his honesty in coming forward to the club.”
Last month the league penalised a goal umpire, two timekeepers, an interchange steward, Port Adelaide assistant coach Matthew Primus and Western Bulldogs director Geoff Walsh for placing bets on games.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/tiger-runner-banned-for-bets/story-e6freck3-1225877163125
-
wonder if he was betting on richmond ::)
-
If he is not betting on Richmond to lose who gives a flying stuff.
-
If he was betting on Richmond to win then he was stupid on two fronts :wallywink.
-
Guys, read closely:
He was not involved in nor had any information about any of the games he placed bets on.
-
It's a runner ffs - rules r rules but! - seen the tiges fat chick runner? On a warm day she has finished the drinks by the time she gets to the playas :rollin x 10
-
It's a runner ffs - rules r rules but! - seen the tiges fat chick runner? On a warm day she has finished the drinks by the time she gets to the playas :rollin x 10
She actually sat down in front of me last friday night.( inside the boundary fence)
She runs the water, surprisingly she wasnt too puffed, LOL
-
It's a runner ffs - rules r rules but! - seen the tiges fat chick runner? On a warm day she has finished the drinks by the time she gets to the playas :rollin x 10
apparently the players lollies went missing at the end of the game. :help
-
Deafening silence from AFL over breach
Mike Sheahan
Herald Sun
June 09, 2010
THE AFL's official response to football's latest betting episode seems to be far from satisfactory, bordering on embarrassing. Actually it was hardly a response at all.
The central administration is seen to have washed its hands of any part in the handling of Richmond runner Justin Quill's admission he had breached the AFL's stringent rules relating to club officials betting on football.
It did nothing more than accept Richmond's decision to suspend Quill for six matches after he owned up to three bets totalling $35.
Five weeks ago, the AFL suspended three officials for the rest of the season, another for five weeks, an assistant coach - Port Adelaide's Matthew Primus - for two weeks, while a club director - the Western Bulldogs' Geoff Walsh - was fined $7500.
They invested amounts ranging from $1 to $20.
In the words of AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson in a media release at the time, "all accept they have made a grave mistake".
Quill, whose bets involved $5, $10 and $20, went to Richmond immediately after reading the Herald Sun front-page story of the AFL crackdown, headlined "Footy Bets Shame".
Quill is a principal of a city law firm. He is an expert in media, with clients including the Herald Sun.
He made a poor decision.
Perception is reality in life, and there's a perception of rules for one (or five) and rules for another.
Quill is known to be a close friend of the aforementioned Anderson and is known to the AFL's manager of Integrity Services Brett Clothier, also a lawyer, who investigated the matter for the AFL.
Anderson had a responsibility to handle the announcement of penalty just as he did the five offenders of five weeks ago. An even greater responsibility, given his personal circumstances.
It was incumbent upon him to issue the statement on Quill, with comment of a similar nature.
None of the interchange stewards, goal umpire, timekeeper, assistant coach and club director was attempting to profit from knowledge available to them in their various roles, yet there was a principle at stake.
Anderson said at the time: "We never want to see our game affected by betting-related corruption."
Theoretically, everyone of those named had the capacity to make a decision that could impact on a result. Primus investing $20 on behalf of a punters' club was a million miles from corruption, but, we were told, it was the principle.
Western Bulldogs director Walsh, apparently oblivious to the ban on club officials betting on football, placed five bets totalling $50 and they cost him a fine of $7500.
Anderson last night said he was at ease with the way the matter had been handled.
"I'm very confident with the way we dealt with the matter in terms of integrity.
"I told Brett I was an associate of Justin's and to deal with it exactly the way he would deal with anyone else.
"I don't think it could possibly be seen as a cover up in any way. I just wouldn't sacrifice my integrity. It's exactly the same as Port Adelaide (and Primus), except we were satisfied with the sanction Richmond imposed; we weren't satisfied with their (Port) proposed sanction.
"Our general policy on misconduct is we like to let the clubs deal with it."
Yet, the AFL ultimately ruled on Primus, and on Walsh.
Anderson said he had not spoken to Quill at any time during the investigation.
"I've been very conscious of dealing with the matter appropriately."
What would have been appropriate was a statement, with comment, emanating from AFL House, and due exposure in the newspapers.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/deafening-silence-from-afl-over-breach/story-e6frf9ox-1225877666566
-
Actually agree with Mike (pains me to say it)
They've stood down a goal umpire for the season for placing a couple of bets and on this incident they've done nothing.
Little Adrian A said they the other week that they'd come down hard on anyone caught breaking the betting rules this time he hasn't surfaced from under his desk.
Just like most other things they do down at Docklands; where is the consistency in their decisions?
The silence is deafening
-
Actually agree with Mike (pains me to say it)
They've stood down a goal umpire for the season for placing a couple of bets and on this incident they've done nothing.
Little Adrian A said they the other week that they'd come down hard on anyone caught breaking the betting rules this time he hasn't surfaced from under his desk.
Just like most other things they do down at Docklands; where is the consistency in their decisions?
The silence is deafening
Except that a goal umpire or timekeeper has the capacity to directly influence the outcome of a game - a runner doesn't, although Sheahan tries to draw everyone under the same umbrella by using the term "theoretically" - the reality is somewhat different. While I agree with some parts of the article, I disagree that Anderson needed to come out and say anything of note. The only comment he really needed to make was the one Sheehan mentions that we are happy with Richmond's sanctions, we weren't with Port's proposed sanctions. If Primus got 2 weeks (upgraded after the AFL intervened) then Quill's 6 weeks (imposed by the club) seems eminently fair.
-
It's a runner ffs - rules r rules but! - seen the tiges fat chick runner? On a warm day she has finished the drinks by the time she gets to the playas :rollin x 10
the blonde fat chic lol
-
Actually agree with Mike (pains me to say it)
They've stood down a goal umpire for the season for placing a couple of bets and on this incident they've done nothing.
Little Adrian A said they the other week that they'd come down hard on anyone caught breaking the betting rules this time he hasn't surfaced from under his desk.
Just like most other things they do down at Docklands; where is the consistency in their decisions?
The silence is deafening
Except that a goal umpire or timekeeper has the capacity to directly influence the outcome of a game - a runner doesn't, although Sheahan tries to draw everyone under the same umbrella by using the term "theoretically" - the reality is somewhat different. While I agree with some parts of the article, I disagree that Anderson needed to come out and say anything of note. The only comment he really needed to make was the one Sheehan mentions that we are happy with Richmond's sanctions, we weren't with Port's proposed sanctions. If Primus got 2 weeks (upgraded after the AFL intervened) then Quill's 6 weeks (imposed by the club) seems eminently fair.
have to disagree here ol smokey, runners can influence games. by giving away free kicks for infringing on the play & direct shots on goal.
Happened many times already in games this season :thumbsup
-
have to disagree here ol smokey, runners can influence games. by giving away free kicks for infringing on the play & direct shots on goal.
Happened many times already in games this season :thumbsup
Yep, fair enough TM, I hadn't thought of it that way. More unlikely than likely but you are right and I stand corrected. :thumbsup
-
Except that a goal umpire or timekeeper has the capacity to directly influence the outcome of a game
Agree in principle smokey
But in the case of the goal umpire who was stood down - he bet on a game that he wasn't standing in so how could he influence the game he bet $5-$10 on? He couldn't but the ALF came down hard on him anyway
Just seems like a lack of consistency to me
-
Except that a goal umpire or timekeeper has the capacity to directly influence the outcome of a game
Agree in principle smokey
But in the case of the goal umpire who was stood down - he bet on a game that he wasn't standing in so how could he influence the game he bet $5-$10 on? He couldn't but the ALF came down hard on him anyway
Just seems like a lack of consistency to me
I'm sure we agree with most of this WP. Maybe they (the AFL) looked at it that officials in 'match-controlling' positions were more susceptible to the temptation of an unsavory action than peripheral officials like assistant coaches or club directors and needed to make an initial statement accordingly.