One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: one-eyed on December 15, 2011, 05:25:14 AM
-
Nathan Bock banned two games, fined $10,000 for leaking inside information
by: Michael Warner
From: Herald Sun
December 15, 2011
GOLD Coast Suns defender Nathan Bock was slapped with a two-match ban for a leak that helped a mate and two family members share in a $40,000 punting bonanza.
A three-month AFL investigation found Bock told two people that he would play as a forward in the Suns' Round 24 clash against Hawthorn at Metricon Stadium on September 3.
A flurry of money the day before the game saw Bock backed from $101 to $21, raising suspicions with bookmakers.
Friends and family connected to the leak collected $40,000 when Bock slotted the game's first goal from 55m. It was one of only two goals he would kick for the year.
The bets were made just weeks after Collingwood's Heath Shaw and Nick Maxwell were caught out in an almost identical scandal.
Bock was fined $10,000 and suspended for the first two weeks of the 2012 premiership season.
The former Adelaide Crows star, who made admissions to club officials 15 minutes after the Hawthorn match, admitted to feeling concerned as soon as the goal was kicked.
"It definitely crossed my mind," Bock said.
"I know how seriously the AFL takes inside information ... it was just a careless conversation with a mate and a family member. I'm deeply remorseful."
Asked how much his mate has won, Bock said: "I'm not sure."
AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson said the league was satisfied Bock did not intentionally pass on the information for the purpose of gambling.
"An investigation found Bock broke the rules recklessly, but, importantly, he did not intend the information to be used for betting," Anderson said.
"We are satisfied Nathan was reckless and did not intentionally breach gambling rules as a result of extensive investigation that included interviews ... examining telephone records and betting records including CCTV footage.
"It's important also to note Nathan Bock came forward immediately after the match and did admit breaching the AFL rules even if it was not intentional.
"A very important plank of our policy is inside information cannot be disclosed if it can be used for betting purposes ... (this information) has historically been the gateway to more serious forms of corruption."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/bock-banned-for-leaking-information-that-led-to-successful-40000-bet/story-e6frf9jf-1226222227281
-
I don't understand the AFL
They preach about being tough on things and then hadn out a weak suspension like this because it wasnt "intentional" it was "reckless"
How about giving out some whacks for plan stupidity
-
perhaps the fact that the player himself was the one that bought it to attention in the first place plays a part WP?
-
perhaps the fact that the player himself was the one that bought it to attention in the first place plays a part WP?
Perhaps al, but this is similar to the Maxwell case. Maxwell basically got off (a $5K fine to him is nothing) and now this is slightly harsher.
They keep saying they wont tolerate it but don't do much detterent wise when the acid is put on them
-
I agree with WP. Reckless, stupidity or intended whatever the reason for the person it needs to be harshly dealt so no other player would give it a thought about doing. Otherwise it can keep building up to the level of corruption in cricket.
-
I hear what you are saying, but you don't crucify people who come forward and say I've made a mistake, otherwise you encourage people to stay silent when they do make mistakes
-
think its a disgrace
He knew what he was doing.
problem is the bookies squealed to the AFL as large bets were placed.at big odds, and they lost a fortune.
if the same wager was laid at 2-1 , who would know, who would care
All players are very aware of whats happens.
If the odds were 2-1 would the bookies have squealed ?? :nope
-
if the odds were 2-1 their bets wouldn't have affected the books so much so they would not have had anything to be suspicious about. ;)
,
-
if the odds were 2-1 their bets wouldn't have affected the books so much so they would not have had anything to be suspicious about. ;)
,
Thats my point.
the only reason this came out is because the Coporate Bookies got stung
-
Am I Nathan Bock?
-
Am I Nathan Bock?
Yes........Yes you are....
-
Don't tell me the bookies don't have inside info.
stuffing joke.
-
Don't tell me the bookies don't have inside info.
stuffing joke.
Exactly.
Anything that hurts bookies should be encouraged.