Dont bet on the AFL to stop Bock

Andyc, you have heard of the internet haven't you. You didn't send this silly post of yours in by carrier pidgeon did you? Pehaps beat it out in morse on some jungle drums? Anyone, anywhere in the world can get a bet on with any one of 100's of well known bookmakers (who can also be anywhere in the world) in a matter of minutes, quicker if they already have an account setup. And now, with the prevelance of smartphones they don't even need a computer to do it, it is on tap, anywhere, anytime. To think that they won't bet on it just because the TAB doesn't offer it is just plain stupidity.

The AFL's 'limp' drug policy? Oh lord, not another ridiculously ignorant comment! As Cat said, the AFL was for quite a while the only competition in the world to have it, but also, the players did not have to sign up to it.

He told a couple of mates he was playing up forward. Who cares - it's not like he threw the game. Since when has sporting information become subject to confidentiality restraints? I've not heard of any laws prohibiting players talking about their job. And, so what if if his mates used that extra information to place a bet and, maybe, gain an advantage over the bookies? In the Racing industry, don't bookies actively seek out inside information from trainers, jockeys, owners, etc? If the gambling industry is so concerned about the loose lips of sportsmen impacting their exotic bets, then, perhaps, they should stop marketing products that may be influenced by idle chatter. Furthermore, don't bookies make their money when the outsider wins? So, the bookies should have been more than happy to pay out on the long-priced Bock result; rather than have to pay out on the short priced favorites.

Understandably so - with 42 players capable of taking the field, at least 30 of them have some chance of being the first goal kicker - more than run in the Melbourne Cup.

First goal markets are framed at around 180% and are aimed at punting novices and mugs! The hold on this type of bet is a small fraction of what is bet on AFL and the bookies scream blue murder when they get done over for 40,000 because they aren't supposed to lose on novelty bets. The type of punter that gambles on first goalkicker isn't going to bet with an online bookie or underground operator so the sensible thing for the AFL is not to sanction this type of gambling on its sport. Sure some corporates will offer the bet type but the big players won't and it will make it virtually unacessible for the 'mums and dads' punters.

That's right, that's precisely where we are at, and it's a big ask to expect a young player to not to talk to his family about the position he is likely to be playing in on the weekend. Already, mobile phones are being confiscated in team meetings as a precaution. I should add, this whole business of not taling about what position you're playing in, especially in the context of betting, is really only an issue where it involves a defender or ruckman lining up in the forward line - it has to be a situation where the odds are likely to drop a long way if the information was known. But the interesting thing is that five minutes before a game, absolutely anything is possible as to who is starting and where, including situations where there is no forward line to speak of (in an ultra flood) - so I do wonder whether we are exaggerating the present danger here.

cos which limp drug policy are you referring to? The one that for years the AFL was the only sport in the world to have?

No I wouldn't see that opinion as being over-the-top. Put it this way, the AFL reaps huge financial benefit from both betting agencies and the liquor industry at a time when gambling and alcohol addiction are among the most destructive social issues in this country. They always seek to position themselves as leaders in the community, but you can't have your cake and eat it too, surely? Given the enviable position of wealth and support that the AFL finds itself in, I don't think anyone could make the argument that they wouldn't find those advertising dollars elsewhere. Is it hypocritical for the AFL to publicly moralise Brendan Fevola for his drinking problems when receiving huge sponsorship bucks from CUB? Yep. Is it hypocritical to turn Heath Shaw, Nick Maxwell and Bock into pariahs for these infringements while lining their pockets with gambling industry dollars? I think so. And stepping into different territory altogether, is it offensive to put Dane Swan forward as a spokesman for an anti-violence campaign with the Vic Dep't of Justice despite his criminal history? To many victims of crime (including the one he committed) I'd say so. The AFL clearly doesn't realise how transparent some of their PR activity is. All of this information is in the public domain but a lot of fans (and media sadly) take these "stances" at face value. Bock said he applauded the AFL's "stance on gambling." What is that stance exactly? I agree with Cattery's point (re: working with legitimate betting firms) to a degree, but it is one thing to control the way that AFL football is bet on, and another thing entirely to actively promote and strategically align your brand with that of betting agencies.

Russell, A bit over the top dont you think?

That may be in keeping with the AFLs limp drug policy, but not international standards. Sports betting is the same. This is not a light issue, there was a meeting in Canberra last week highlighting the seriousness of match fixing and spot betting. The AFL and every other sporting body simply can't ignore the issue any more. It will be a good thing if Ryan Tandy ends up in jail.

The betting involvement sadly sullies the key issues of the past. in the past, if player X get's told he'll open the batting for Australia on Boxing day, but, the opposition needs to be kept in the dark - - then, you just gotta hold your tongue no matter how excited you are. But, everyone would love to believe that their closest circle of friends/family would retain the confidence if told - and probably would. However, throw in the opportunity to just quitely log on and put a bet on and it's gone way beyond the closest circle of friends. The sad reality then probably is to create a virtual bubble around sports stars - such that they won't talk to anyone for fear of betting implications!!

The general philosophy of all major sports is that it is preferable to work with legitimate betting firms, rather than risk such an activity going underground (and that's the big problem faced by sports right acros Asia). Once you take that stance, then you have every right to get a cut of the action - why should others profit from you putting on the show and not the sport itself? That's a very strange logic you wish to apply there.

Jaceman I was once involved in this field generally (not in actually undertaking insider trading!), it's going back a while now, but at that point, there had been precisely zero successful prosecutions after 25+ years of that particular law, and since that time I have knowledge of one case being successful - if there are others - there ain't many more. I'm talking about criminal prosecutions, in the last 15 or so years, there has been more of a move towards getting civil remedies, with the lesser burden of proof, so it's possible that some of those have been successful - but successful criminal prosectuions in this area are notoriously difficult, to the point where many investigations are dropped before they even begin.

One successful insider trading case - surely theres been more (or there should have bee) Wasnt the Gunns boss fined the other day??

It remains very hard for fans to take the AFL seriously on this issue while they continue to rake in vast sums of advertising dollars from betting agencies. Demetriou and Anderson continue to apply the philosophy of "all care and no responsibility" on the gambling issue, and it's hard for them to deny the hypocritical position they are taking. Are sponsorship and advertising dollars so highly prized in the current economic climate that the AFL sanctions force-fed gambling ads and constantly appearing odds from a number of betting agencies during games? In what other sports can players actually look up on the scoreboard during a game they are playing in and see their odds of winning the game? The AFL are always keen to promote the "integrity" of the brand, but like their "respect for women" mantra, it's becoming a harder pill for the public to swallow when these indiscretions keep stacking up. Are they in or out on gambling?

Brett - I feel it's a bit to early in the sportsman/gambling education program, which is still really just being rolled out, to equate Bock's actions with insider trading.

yeah, all fair points Catters, and no doubt it's the gambling machine that has muddied the waters in this regard..

Brett on one level, very little difference, except in the corporate cases, in 40 years of the insider trading law existing, I believe there has been one successful prosecution, i.e. Bock will be punished for talking too much far, far more than the thousands who have pocketed millions of dollars from insider trading over the decades. On another level, it's completely different. Once upon a time, a young footballer would go home Thursday night, and round the family dinner table, tell his family where his coach is going to play him, on Friday morning, he'd mention it to his workmates in passing - just footy talk, nothing more, nothing less. We all have the same natural instinct to engage in footy talk, and if yo have an interesting snippet (like the coach is going to switch me from centre-half back to centre-half forward), you are even more keen to engage in footy talk. It's that natural instinct to talk footy that we are trying to curb in these cases - and it's pretty hard to judge a footballer harshly for telling his closest mates and/or family that he might be doing something different on the weekend, because that type of talk has being going on since the year dot. It's now become significant because of the gambling issue, so the AFL has come down heavily to curb any perception that there is anything more to it - it's protecting its reputation more than curbing an actual problem. For instance, if you had told me that Bock was going to start at Centre-half forward, my instant reaction would have been: meh, good luck to him - plonking a bet on him to be the first goal kicker, especially agaisnt Collingwood, would not even enter my thinking, not in the least - the odds would remain overwhelmingly against him being the first goal kicker - and if you see the replay of that goal, he has roosted it from 60m on the run - meaning he had a few seconds to watch the ball's flight and think to himself, oh oh, I'm in trouble here. The other complication is that the Collingwood coaching staff would have known Bock was going to go forward even before Bock knew it - that's the nature of the game these days, all clubs are spying on each other - how that gets factored in I don't know. But I have said up front, it's the equivalent of getting a juicy snippet of info on a horse, by observing it early morning on the training track, it's not fair on other punters, but it's not a hanging offence either.

Cos789, Theres a couple of hundred years of criminology research that shows small, certain punishments work far better to deter than large, infrequent ones.

Catters, how much different is what Bock did, tipping off his mates who had a bet on him, to a company director tipping off a stockmarket-playing mate that they're about to bought out by a big competitor?? Insider trading is illegal, so why isn't what Bock did considered the same way?