...

Normally, I woulld agree that in normal circumstances it is difficult for a player to influence 120 minutes of football. But in reality players are generally involved in the play far less than that. A marguee player (I am talking a Judd, Lockett, Ablett Snr quality) could just fake their efforts in a big game and sure they cope a day of critricism in the press but hey they are financially rewarded for tanking. On other hand a team like Carlton could tank a season and no one would be the wiser!

The disturbing issue with Cronje is the corrosive influence of malignant leadership. He was always going to be caught eventually but it was unbelievable how many others he pulled in with him. If you have a team with a poor team culture then it can thrive. Pakistan as a cricket team is a prime example of this.

An umpire is a definite source of actual /perceived conflict of interest nothwithstading the allegations of poor decision on a day. I think it is something that could only be measured over a period of time to detect a clear bias as opposed to percevied or actual incompetence

So what would happen if it were exposed a marquee player for example a Goodes or Judd was actively betting considerable sums of money on their own and other games? How would you know where the rot started or stopped?

But which ones? Pre-season or H&A? And how many? Fines?

To be honest I'm fairly sure I'd advocate a missed match, maybe two depending on the severity of the cases. That would definitely go a long way to stopping this garbage from happening again, and certainly stop it from growing. But I can say that more easily when Ward isn't part of my 22, or if he is he's only juuuust in there. If I was a crows supporter I reckon I'd have plenty to say about it if Goodwin was suspended. There's also the possibility of being ineligible for the Brownlow. Or is that not the case? The offence was committed last year.

So what would happen if it were exposed a marquee player for example a Goodes or Judd was actively betting considerable sums of money on their own and other games? How would you know where the rot started or stopped?

Hmmm. I guess we'll never know until the day arrives. I reckon this whole gambling malarkey is the problem itself. I realise it's nannyism to outlaw it, but who exactly benefits from keeping it around? I'm not sure where to start with the background, but do the clubs/AFL get a cut of all the money the bookies are making? They should. And even if they do, once again is it worth it?

I have a sneaking suspiscion that we haven't seen the last of players having a bet on their own sport. I'd say that what we've seen with these four is only the tip of the iceberg. If we could somehow get the real numbers of how many players are having a flutter under pseudonims, or under family members' accounts I reckon we'd get a cruel shock as to how many of them are getting involved. Assuming that every few years a case like this crops up, you'd think eventually a Brendan Fevola-type peanut may make the mistake and then people will see that the act of placing the bet as a player is a symptom of a greater problem, and not the sickness itself. Is it solveable? It is, but money is money, and as always the right thing to do is put aside one's conscience for the big bucks.

I wonder. Would it be worth penalising or charging bookies somehow for accepting bets from players? Hard thing to police of course, and certainly a hard thing to make illegal in the first place. In this sense does the AFL have any control at all over what the bookies do and when? Do they have any bargaining/threatening power?

In amongst all of these comments let's also remember that gambling is an addiction and like alcoholism etc it is not so easy just to punish and expect all to move on. It is a real addiction that is not easy to control!

Listen to David Scwartz when he talks about how hard he has to work on avoiding putting himself in the situation.

I can tell you of a lifetime of gambling addiction problems my dad has and they are never completely under control. It is a serious problem that is not talked about very often but a life long issue. Daniel is going to have to work on it for ever.

In amongst all of these comments let's also remember that gambling is an addiction and like alcoholism etc it is not so easy just to punish and expect all to move on. It is a real addiction that is not easy to control!

Listen to David Scwartz when he talks about how hard he has to work on avoiding putting himself in the situation.

I can tell you of a lifetime of gambling addiction problems my dad has and they are never completely under control. It is a serious problem that is not talked about very often but a life long issue. Daniel is going to have to work on it for ever.

For sure Deeangel. 100% agree. But gambling and betting on yourself are 2 different things. One is an addiction, the second more a choice. I think we are being quite forgiving of the choice Wardy made to absolutely flaunt the rules, and as many here have now said, the line is not that far away from this being a real issue. That's why I think the club should be pro-active.

Listen to David Scwartz when he talks about how hard he has to work on avoiding putting himself in the situation.

Daniel is going to have to work on it for ever.

What Scwartz is doing is one of the first steps in trying to control an addiction, is to try to not to put yourself in a comprimsing situation. Generally if you do, you wont have the temptation to do what is wrong.

I am with u that Daniel is going to have to work on his problem for a very long time.

If I had an account with Betfair or Tabcorp and it's true that these agencies have divulged information about people's betting accounts, I'd be cancelling those accounts quick smart.

They should be respecting people's privacy and not giving out information to the AFL or anyone else - even if that person "authorises" it by virtue of having a contract with an AFL club.

This is another example of Big Brother at work in the 21st century!

SECOND Adelaide player has been dragged into the AFL betting scandal after being accused of having a small wager on last year's grand final.

The experienced Crows player - who has been identified to The Advertiser - is said to have had a bet on the result of the Norm Smith medal awarded to the best afield in the grand final.

The AFL last night would not say whether the allegations against the Crows player had prompted its independent investigation team to open a new file beyond the four players known to be under investigation.

Crows star Simon Goodwin, Melbourne defender Daniel Ward, Kangaroos ruckman David Hale and Sydney rookie Kieren Jack are the quartet already under ivestigation.

"The investigators do not comment during the course of their investigation," the AFL said.

Crows chief executive Steven Trigg was asked last night how far the AFL betting scandal bored into the Adelaide club.

"There will be much speculation until the investigation is settled," Trigg said.

"And experience tells me there will be much silly speculation as the investigation progresses."

This speculation yesterday centred around an Adelaide player betting on the Norm Smith medal won by West Coast's Andrew Embley.

Trigg responded that no player had informed the club of betting on the Norm Smith medal, and no player beyond Goodwin had declared to the club betting on Australian football.

The accused player's agent denied that his client was a gambler.

But he could not rule out the player having made a minor bet on the Norm Smith medal while being ignorant of the AFL anti-gambling policy.

You sign a contract saying you understand.

You go and place a bet.

You must accept the penalty.

Stupid fools.

If I had an account with Betfair or Tabcorp and it's true that these agencies have divulged information about people's betting accounts, I'd be cancelling those accounts quick smart.

They should be respecting people's privacy and not giving out information to the AFL or anyone else - even if that person "authorises" it by virtue of having a contract with an AFL club.

This is another example of Big Brother at work in the 21st century!

Check their Privacy Policy. If required under law to divulge information to authorities then they have no choice but to comply.

You sign a contract saying you understand.

You go and place a bet.

You must accept the penalty.

Stupid fools.

I think thats really immiture. Gambeling is an addiction which does consume someones life. I have never had a gambeling addiction as i have never placed a bet: not with the TAB or with any of my mates (even for a couple of dollars) because i dont wanna be an addict. I dont know how hard gambeling would be to control...but i can emagain its hard (due to being a serious smoker till late last year). To call them fools is insensitive. Yes they have done the wrong thing...and yes they should be penalised but gambeling is a serious issue and i stand by wardy. He has made a mistake and we must wait for the concerquences but 'stupid fools'...well i guess you will never know how hard gambeling is to give up till u become a drug, tobacco or gambeling adict.

Check their Privacy Policy. If required under law to divulge information to authorities then they have no choice but to comply.

The AFL is an "authority"?

I think thats really immiture. Gambeling is an addiction which does consume someones life. I have never had a gambeling addiction as i have never placed a bet: not with the TAB or with any of my mates (even for a couple of dollars) because i dont wanna be an addict. I dont know how hard gambeling would be to control...but i can emagain its hard (due to being a serious smoker till late last year). To call them fools is insensitive. Yes they have done the wrong thing...and yes they should be penalised but gambeling is a serious issue and i stand by wardy. He has made a mistake and we must wait for the concerquences but 'stupid fools'...well i guess you will never know how hard gambeling is to give up till u become a drug, tobacco or gambeling adict.

The question is, would you have lit up a cigarette in the middle of your workplace? Cause thats what Wardy did. No one is saying that he can't gamble. There are plenty of things to gamble on, just not footy.

The AFL is an "authority"?

If it is the AFL rules that it can seek such information about a player and it is a condition of their contract with a Club then it is as good as.

I think thats really immiture. Gambeling is an addiction which does consume someones life. I have never had a gambeling addiction as i have never placed a bet: not with the TAB or with any of my mates (even for a couple of dollars) because i dont wanna be an addict. I dont know how hard gambeling would be to control...but i can emagain its hard (due to being a serious smoker till late last year). To call them fools is insensitive. Yes they have done the wrong thing...and yes they should be penalised but gambeling is a serious issue and i stand by wardy. He has made a mistake and we must wait for the concerquences but 'stupid fools'...well i guess you will never know how hard gambeling is to give up till u become a drug, tobacco or gambeling adict.

My suggestion to you Occo:

Before having the gumption to suggestion someone is "Immiture", look up how to correctly spell the word.

I am aware that "Gambeling" can be addictive but I am also aware that that a contract is a binding legal obligation between parties.

As for being an "adict", I am acutely aware of how difficult it is to give up a habit, however, I am now 21 months into my smoking rehabilitation, all it takes is a little will power and actually wanting to quit.

I won't be a complete and utter anal git about the rest but take this away you: This is a forum where many people are encouraged to voice an opinion, remember those words champ.

If it is the AFL rules that it can seek such information about a player and it is a condition of their contract with a Club then it is as good as.

That may be so but you said ... "If required under law to divulge information to authorities."

In that context the AFL doesn't have any basis under law to obtain the information in the way the police or tax authorities might. As I see it, the only way it can access Betfair and Tabcorp's information is with the prior consent in writing of the players and that most probably would be by way of a standard clause in the player's contract giving such consent. The problem the AFL has set for itself is that there are so many other betting agencies that won't allow information to be given over so they really have to review their processes because the likelihood is that these blokes are stiff (and stupid) enough to have placed their bets with the wrong people.

That may be so but you said ... "If required under law to divulge information to authorities."

In that context the AFL doesn't have any basis under law to obtain the information in the way the police or tax authorities might. As I see it, the only way it can access Betfair and Tabcorp's information is with the prior consent in writing of the players and that most probably would be by way of a standard clause in the player's contract giving such consent. The problem the AFL has set for itself is that there are so many other betting agencies that won't allow information to be given over so they really have to review their processes because the likelihood is that these blokes are stiff (and stupid) enough to have placed their bets with the wrong people.

Naturally Jack there is the issue of prior consent and I would have thought it iwould be a standard part of a player's contract with an AFL Club.

You are right the AFL has little chance of catching a player who gambles under an alias or nominee.