On 19/06/2019 at 04:43, Diamond_Jim said:

match fixing is a long way off having a bet on your team

He was betting on himself, the following is a list of declared bets (may not be a complete list)

— Collingwood to win;

— Collingwood winning margin;

— Stephenson to kick a goal;

— Stephenson to kick three or more winning goals;

— Collingwood teammate to kick a goal;

— Collingwood teammate to kick two or more goals;

— Collingwood teammates to have in excess of a number of disposals.

He could easily manipulate outcomes in all of the above.

 

  On 19/06/2019 at 04:29, Diamond_Jim said:

Never thought I'd say it but the AFL have set the penalty too high this time.

Cannot hep but think that it is an inverse reaction to their reliance on the gambling dollar.

Match fixing in cricket and tennis which is a million shades worse only gets you one to two years.

I consider Betting to be a form of Match Fixing, if the Player is Betting on his own Teams (or opposition) Team

3 Seperate Bets....

  On 19/06/2019 at 04:53, ManDee said:

He was betting on himself, the following is a list of declared bets (may not be a complete list)

— Collingwood to win;

— Collingwood winning margin;

— Stephenson to kick a goal;

— Stephenson to kick three or more winning goals;

— Collingwood teammate to kick a goal;

— Collingwood teammate to kick two or more goals;

— Collingwood teammates to have in excess of a number of disposals.

He could easily manipulate outcomes in all of the above.

 

And he is eligible to Play in September FMD!!!

Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed!

And another thing.

A suspended sentence is not a penalty. He has been suspended for 10 weeks not 22.

More AFL spin to make it look harsh. Any fool knows that if you recommit you will get a harsher penalty.

I do not believe that the list supplied is every bet he has placed on AFL matches. Stephenson runs fast and loose with the truth, for example today he said he does not do any other form of gambling, then almost in panic says" oh other than the odd flutter in the spring carnival"

  On 19/06/2019 at 04:59, Nelo said:

Clearly not the sharpest tool in the shed!

Yep. Bike in the shed without any back wheels.

10 weeks out of 22 is strange. U could say half suspended which would b 11/11. But it’s like they balked at suspending a pie fr the finals. The pies  have so much clout in the AFL it’s ridiculous... and made more painful by the fact that we have precisely none. 

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:27, Wells 11 said:

10 weeks out of 22 is strange. U could say half suspended which would b 11/11. But it’s like they balked at suspending a pie fr the finals. The pies  have so much clout in the AFL it’s ridiculous... and made more painful by the fact that we have precisely none. 

On this point I disagree. I think the soft penalty would have been handed out to a player of any team considered likely to be playing finals. 

It just so happens when Heath Shaw was suspended, he, too, was miraculously only suspended up until the finals. (Yes, I know he was at Collingwood then, too.) 

 

Edited June 19, 20195 yr by La Dee-vina Comedia

  On 19/06/2019 at 03:04, Lucifer's Hero said:

More info:  AFL Statement

Quite a rap sheet:

The multi-bets included legs on:

• Collingwood to win,
• Collingwood winning margin,
• Stephenson to kick a goal,
• Stephenson to kick three or more goals,
• Collingwood teammates to kick a goal,
• Collingwood teammates to kick two or more goals, and
• Collingwood teammates to have in excess of a number of disposals.

For the grand total of $36 across 3 games!

Unbelievable that he bet on himself!!  That alone warrants the book thrown at him.  Those bets are very open to match-fixing.  Yet the  22 week ban was reduced to 10.   Eddie has been busy to get Stephenson back for finals as @ArtificialWisdompredicted. 

Also gets a $20,000 fine.  Along with losing match payments $36 will cost him $100,000+.

Very silly lad.

?

 

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:43, Demonland said:

?

 

Well outside 50... wonder if the team rule is to put it to the top of the square or to have a ping..?

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:43, Demonland said:

?

 

But the AFL 'official' word is that no bets were successful...???

They must realise that someone would research his games and match them to his bets. 

AFL never cease to amaze on how gullible they assume people to be.

Edited June 19, 20195 yr by Lucifer's Hero

What a dope

Should have made him play for the MFC for the rest of the year

Total humiliation

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:46, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Well outside 50... wonder if the team rule is to put it to the top of the square or to have a ping..?

Even though they're 50 points up I bet, pardon the pun, that the team rule isn't to have a ping from that distance. I'm sure Bucks wouldn't have been happy had he missed despite the score and time left.

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:47, Lucifer's Hero said:

But the AFL 'official' word is that no bets were successful...???

Not surprising. If they were, then maybe the Pies could be accused of match fixing. That could affect their gaming licence.

One of the reasons we were found guilty of not tanking not guilty of tanking was that we could then have our gaming licence taken away, and possibly liquor licence too.

AFL is going to do everything to protect its clubs, and itself, from that.

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:53, Mazer Rackham said:

Not surprising. If they were, then maybe the Pies could be accused of match fixing. That could affect their gaming licence.

One of the reasons we were found guilty of not tanking not guilty of tanking was that we could then have our gaming licence taken away, and possibly liquor licence too.

AFL is going to do everything to protect its clubs, and itself, from that.

The AFL are dragging the mighty game of Aussie Rules into a cesspit!

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:47, Lucifer's Hero said:

But the AFL 'official' word is that no bets were successful...???

They must realise that someone would research his games and match them to his bets. 

AFL never cease to amaze on how gullible they assume people to be.

'cos it was just one leg of a multi bet

I remember back around 2008. A friend of mine knew Shane Crawford, he told him that Stuart Dew was named on the bench but starting forward. All the Hawks players piled onto Dew for first goal and of course he kicked the first goal, I remember at the time thinking “gees their carrying on for the first goal of a game” later that weekend found about it all, paid for their footy trip. 

Edited June 19, 20195 yr by JV7

 

Should we start watching Maggot suspicious decisions too.....now that would/wouldn't be funny.

Maybe even relatives of players getting work permits....hmm

  On 19/06/2019 at 06:18, JV7 said:

I remember back around 2008. A friend of mine knew Shane Crawford, he told him that Stuart Dew was named on the bench but starting forward. All the Hawks players piled onto Dew for first goal and of course he kicked the first goal, I remember at the time thinking “gees their carrying on for the first goal of a game” later that weekend found about it all, paid for their footy trip. 

Goes to explain some of the over the top wild celebrations to a first goal kicked seen in many matches. I am sure we all have seen plenty.

Edited June 19, 20195 yr by america de cali

  On 19/06/2019 at 08:43, america de cali said:

Goes to explain some of the over the top wild celebrations to a first goal kicked seen in many matches. I am sure we all have seen plenty.

And if Pendlebury  or Moore or someone runs in and delivers a no ball then we'll really know something is up!

  On 19/06/2019 at 04:56, Sir Why You Little said:

And he is eligible to Play in September FMD!!!

 

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:27, Wells 11 said:

10 weeks out of 22 is strange. U could say half suspended which would b 11/11. But it’s like they balked at suspending a pie fr the finals. The pies  have so much clout in the AFL it’s ridiculous... and made more painful by the fact that we have precisely none. 

The strangely (and perhaps inappropriately) named AFL Integrity Office deemed that this was to be the case.

I wonder if anyone at AFL HQ has ever done an enquiry into the integrity of the Integrity Office.

  On 19/06/2019 at 05:46, TeamPlayedFine39 said:

Well outside 50... wonder if the team rule is to put it to the top of the square or to have a ping..?

I am not a gambling person, but I would be willing to bet $50 that he broke the standard team rules.  Where can I place that bet?

  On 19/06/2019 at 08:58, monoccular said:

The strangely (and perhaps inappropriately) named AFL Integrity Office deemed that this was to be the case.

The Integrity Office is like the Homicide Squad or the Vice Squad. They're to ensure there isn't any, or at least to find and punish those who commit the heinous act.

 

Betting advertising is certainly overdone, but let’s not use that to shield Stephenson from what was an act of unbelievable stupidity.