AFL and gambling? Don't bet on it

......does this include bike helmets, seat belts, speeding, drink driving.........?

........anything goes when you espouse a culture of $'s i.e,. this. Is it any wonder match fixing is on the rise? I am vehemently opposed to a sanctioned gambling that is presented and promoted so overtly, that very young people are exposed to it as a matter of course. Having a punt is now synonymous with being a supporter or player and as such, insidiously entrenched at the GR. The AFL are unfit to be custodians of our indigenous code in their support of what is only a cynical revenue source that is perpetuated by an inflated unsustainable business. The double standard in our society is breathtaking when you consider the recent public outcry in respect of the filthy Greyhound industry. This is a 'sport' that exists exclusively on the back of having a punt - as does the 'Sport' of Kings so is our code that far removed from the proverbial 'mugs game'? I think not.

Haha, no problem. I do enjoy a chat!

My apologies, Don. I genuinely believed you'd made a typo. I didn't mean any harm. You do make a good point, though. :)

Freo is paying something like 20 to 1 for the flag. Not saying its likely but they have been a top 4 side for a few years and have players like Fyfe,Sandilands(with no 3rd man up in the ruck),Bennell plus Mcarthy all coming into the side. That is some juicy odds. But always gamble responsibly.....

AD People call me a Eurosnob over on the football tab when I take the @#@$ out of the A-League — yes yes, juvenile I know. It would be wrong of me to say I'm interested in AFLW just to be politically correct, so I won't. Enjoy the game though & thanks for the chat today — it's been most enjoyable having a distraction from my boring letters and notes.

I'm loving how admirable you two are. Much better resolution than I expected. Now how about you guys enjoy some AFLW footy? There's a good game on tonight!

No, AD, I did not mean that. Taboos are not things Aussies respect...I didn't write, "taboo". I mean what I write, you needn't translate. Compulsive gambling is an insidious thing and leaves a permanent mark on sociocultural relationships. We don't need to encourage it. A tattoo is MOST often regretted when maturity kicks in. You chat to a young fella who has had many doors opened by the rewards of football but then sees those doors and many others close because gambling took control of their lives before they became socially and financially literate.

It's been a good discussion, despite our differences. Thanks for the chat today.

Alls well that ends well Rick. Thanks.

Apology accepted Aransan. What ever has happened in the past week with you, Cat & whomever else was involved in bullying; you'll have to excuse my naivety to the situation. Despite getting quite involved in most discussions I engage in (as apparent from this one :) ), I don't actually read or comment on that many articles here. I'd like to think I come across as a no BS person, so the identify of a person makes FA difference to me...just their argument and the way they conduct themselves. I think many contributors do attempt to identify other particular people that they can have robust discussions with, isn’t that better than just taking all comments at face value? As a general rule I don't. Go look at my profile and read through many of my comments. For the better part, people pass judgement on my comments. I rarely comment on other peoples opinion, especially ones I don't respect — some of which you mentioned in your list of robust Roarers. Some of us are very clever at pushing things to the absolute limit without appearing to go over the line. Don't mistake this for return 'fire'; especially in response to inappropriate comments directed at me or other fellow Roarers. I'm very much an eye for an eye person. Despite this, I try to be fair & open minded for the better part. Does this mean I sometimes come across as a wan@er or say the occasional stu!id thing? Absolutely!

Advertising is proven to affect people. Children are people. Children are affected. Betting odds are expressed in terms of dollars and cents. Dollars and cents are very attractive to children. Betting odds are attractive to children. Harmful things should not be advertised to children. Betting is harmful to many people and will be too many children if they take it up. The writer's suggestion that odds be expressed as neutral mathematical relationships is a step in the right direction. Somehow, don't think the gambling industry would bother in that case.

Rick, I think the difficult thing in some of these discussions is to know when to stop. I accept that you do take bullying seriously, I took your use of "he" for Cat to be an attempt by yet another contributor to flush out Cat's identity -- if I have misread that I certainly do apologise. I think many contributors do attempt to identify other particular people that they can have robust discussions with, isn't that better than just taking all comments at face value? You don't have to be a clinical psychologist to take some care in responding to other contributors on this forum. You tend to judge things in black and white, do you really believe that there is a certain definition of bullying? Some of us are very clever at pushing things to the absolute limit without appearing to go over the line.

I thought it might have been, but I just wanted Don to clarify. For something to become taboo, it must be an act condemned, restricted or prohibited by social custom. Considering a fast majority of Australians have at least partaken in some form of gambling, I'd suggest it's an act a majority are comfortable with. The suggestion of excessive gambling — by the minority — leading to a social taboo therefore becomes somewhat of a paradoxical conundrum; especially here in Australia. Gambling addicts could of course be seen as a burden upon society, but this is very different to a taboo. Perhaps Don meant a different word and could clarify further.

Rick, Thank you for your reply. Cheers

I think he's saying that the article is talking about something that can lead to social TABOO (the gambling) not something which harms physical health (fast food). But Don, you do realise that they go hand in hand? Gambling could hypothetically lead to stuff that harms physical health (extensive gambling = lack of money = bad stuff which harms health). Alternatively, lots of fast food = obesity which equals a social TABOO.

I really have no idea what you mean by that comment Don?

@CS It's a pretty complex topic; one I've given my 2 cents on as you can probably imagine. :) For me it's very simple: both parties were found guilty; one party begrudgingly admitted to their mistake...the other did not. WADA was not happy with the 'dog ate my homework' excuse and put their case forward to CAS; finding the EFC guilty. We see this in all walks of life; if you cut a deal, you'll probably get less time or the penalty decreased. No different here. As far as Demetriou? No idea, I'd purely be speculating on what he did or didn't know. One things for certain though: I certainly don't believe Hird or anyone else at the EFC regarding their claimed innocence. Has justice been served? I believe so.

I wanted to reply to all of the discussion on this article but I think the best place for my comment moght be a new, slightly less confusing thread. I find myself largely agreeing with Rick. Where do we draw the line? Do we ban everything that is bad for us? Prohibition has never worked. Surely young people are far more vulnerable to their parents/friends values and ideas than they are vulnerable to advertising in sport. We should take all of the money we waste on policing our morality and spend it on educating people why drugs/alcohol/gambling/maccas are not smart choices.

I think we should just agree to move on Cat. Thanks for the chat today.