The AFL says North Melbourne president James Brayshaw showed a lack of understanding by accusing the league of double standards in its handling of betting cases.
Brayshaw questioned why Collingwood skipper Nick Maxwell was penalised, but not young team-mate Tyson Goldsack, over separate episodes in which the players’ family members laid bets on them.
Collingwood president Eddie McGuire, while backing the AFL’s call in both cases, also said the league hierarchy is “hair-splitting” and the distinction between the two is “ambiguous”.
But AFL football operations manager Adrian Anderson maintained on Monday there is a clear-cut difference between the incidents.
Maxwell was last week fined $5000, after family members – acting on inside information – bet on the Magpies’ captain to kick the first goal in a match earlier this season.
Goldsack’s mum made the same bet on her son for last year’s grand final replay and, unlike Maxwell’s relatives, her punt paid off.
North Melbourne president James Brayshaw has argued the two cases were “exactly the same” and, if anything, Goldsack’s was more significant, because it involved a grand final and the bet succeeded.
But Anderson disagrees.
“I can only assume that James doesn’t understand what happened in the Nick Maxwell situation, where there were bets totalling $85 as a result of the disclosure of inside information, that’s the key issue,” Anderson told Melbourne’s 3AW radio on Monday.
“Inside information, we know, in sports around the world has been the gateway to serious forms of corruption. We’re trying to cut it off at the pass.
“In Tyson Goldsack’s situation, his mum had a bet on him and I’ve spoken to investigators and there is no evidence of any disclosure of inside information.”
McGuire backs Anderson’s view, saying it is significant that Goldsack’s advice to his mother to lay the bet was made jokingly, but he acknowledges the differences in the cases are subtle.
“It is a bit ambiguous, if you like, but at the same time, I think it is quite clear,” McGuire said on his Triple-M radio show.
“In Maxy’s case, he spoke to his family. They then took that inside information. He was going to be starting forward with the clear intention of sneaking a goal early.
“… Now Tyson Goldsack’s situation, he started on the bench.”
McGuire said Maxwell paid the price for family members becoming a “little bit greedy”, whereas in Goldsack’s case, it was just “good fun”.
But he said players’ relatives or friends should avoid football betting completely in future.
“If you’re a footballer and you bet on any situation in a game of football, you deserve to be slaughtered,” he said.
“But here’s the other point. If you are genuinely a friend or a family member who loves somebody in your family, do not bet on the football – just don’t do it.”
Anton
Guest
Horatio - apologies for any offence. I wasn't calling you a fish monger. It was a veiled reference to Adrian Anderson.
Horatio
Guest
I have been a fish monger but I agree the Goldsack case is odd. My point was that Collingwood had been thru this before and the players should have been on notice that any further breaches in this regard would mean automatic dismissal. So Eddie where are you??
Anton
Guest
The fish monger is serving up another red herring. The Goldsack case doesn't hinge on whether or not he disclosed inside information. He went on record last year and said he encouraged his mum and his mates to back him to kick the first goal. As The Australian pointed out in today's paper, that's a completely different rule. The AFL needs to explain why Goldsack's conduct didn't breach this rule. Given he gave the encouragement to at least two different sets of people, who acted on it to their benefit, there surely must have been a case to answer. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Horatio
Guest
Tom, You need a few facts and significant help. We are still waiting for the outcome of the Ryan tandy case where it is inconceivable big money was waged and only one player was involved. Would they be betting big $$$if it relied on one player. Similarly the Easts Cowboys game from 2 years ago (where tall Easts Australian goalkicking second rower whose name escapes me retired) when there was a big plunge on the Cowboys to come back from well behind to win. Nothing Or the day one Walker brother gave away an obvious penalty for Souths for his manly brother to kick the first goal after another big plunge. Or the matter of steroids when Newcastles Robbie O'Davis was caught on a random test and after the outcry they introduced wider testing but only to start 2 months later when users had a chance to get it out of their system. BTW the AIS and Olympic Committee have praised the AFL system for "recreational" drugs - 3 strikes and have copied it. Performance enhancing drugs have the same penalties for both codes. Having said that, Shaw should have got the rest of the year for being an idiot but the $$ were small which doesnt excuse it.....
Tom
Guest
In the nrl you would be banned for life. In afl you are given a slap on the wrist. Same with use of drugs. Afl has a three strike rule, nrl it is a 2 year ban from the sport. Afl needs to raise the bar. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.