Every week, I provide terrible advice to punters across the globe regarding the upcoming AFL round. I do so knowing that where I live – the United States – such gambling is borderline illegal, depending on where I try to place my wagers.
The truth is that I’ve never bet a dime on any sport in my life, but it’s a convenient means of describing my predictions regarding upcoming games – “the oddsmakers say Team B will win by 20 points, which seems too high for me, so take Team A and the points”.
Even if you do bet on the game, I never suggest you should take my advice. First, in this season in particular, I’ve been terrible.
But for a player involved in the games themselves, betting on the sport in which you’re a participant is an absolute no-no.
In stock trading, if you have inside information and you or someone you communicate with acts on that info, there’s severe jail time hanging over your head. Why? It’s the concept of a free market economy with a fair playing field.
On the professional sports front, we demand the same flat playing field, and we hope and believe that we have even more control over the parameters than in the stock market.
In the AFL, we regulate injury reports so that punters have fair and accurate information regarding the true status of each team’s health going into a game.
We regulate the officiating of the rules – and the rules themselves – to emphasise fairness on the playing fields. Fans boo vociferously when they feel their team received fewer free kicks than the other club did.
Fairness matters.
So when Jaidyn Stephenson places wagers on the game – even small ones, even on matters that on the surface don’t affect his desire to help his own team win – it plays into the idea that there are motivations below the surface that will affect things like point spreads, over/unders, and all the same categories Stephenson bet on, such as how many disposals or goals he or a team-mate might get.
(Photo by Quinn Rooney/Getty Images)
In the US major leagues of baseball, the all-time leader in hits is a man named Pete Rose. He played the majority of his career for the Cincinnati Reds, and after his retirement he was hired to manage that club.
But in 1989, he was permanently banned from taking any role in professional baseball because he had been gambling on baseball games. There was no evidence that he bet on Cincinnati games, and no accusation that he bet against his team in any manner.
However, the idea that a manager could affect other teams down the road to aid his own gambling wagers – for example, by going easy on Milwaukee’s pitching staff when they play in Cincinnati, he could set them up to an advantage in their next series in, say, Chicago – was so horrific to the baseball public that despite Rose’s constant pleas for reinstatement, no real public interest exists to provide it to him over the last 30 years.
Pete Rose can’t even enter Cincinnati’s baseball stadium, ironically located on Pete Rose Way.
To my American sensibilities, for a young man like Jaidyn Stephenson to have made such an egregious mistake and put his gambling habits above the interests of the team he plays for puts his entire body of work in question, both before and after these three games already declared.
And somehow it seems so much worse that it was only for a total of $36! It implies that money wasn’t the motivation – he was willing to gamble a tiny stake to risk what turned out to be half-a-season’s salary. It must just have been for the thrill, or the control.
Every time I watch him play from now on, I’ll be wondering what his motivations are. Is he simply trying to do what’s best for Collingwood, or is there a side bet he has in mind that’s slanting his decisions?
I loved watching him play. What I’ve heard of his interviews makes him seem very likable. But I’m astounded that he’ll ever be allowed on the field again, let alone for this year’s finals series. And if I were Collingwood, I’d be worried every time I put him in the line-up.
I’ve already forgiven him for his actions. But that doesn’t require me to trust him. Even we chain our dogs up when they’ve demonstrated a propensity to bite.
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
AFL honest? There's an oxymoron! And I read yesterday that he was 65m out when shooting for that third goal... clearly he would have been trying a fair bit harder, which means people who bet on the margin were affected. Without that bet he prob would have just had a go at it for giggles.
Munro Mike
Roar Rookie
#RichieTiger I'm reasonably comfortable that this ban was longer than any previous......that gives an indication that any subsequent ban for another player would be longer again. The thing I find odd is the 12 weeks suspended - that's window dressing. Presumably if Stephenson were done subsequently then he'd get a life ban and the extra 12 weeks being triggered would be irrelevant. So the 12 weeks is more indicative of what he would have got for this without the early pleas - thus setting a benchmark and no more than that.
RT
Roar Rookie
I've also commented on similar lines on another article, though not in regards to other people's bets. I was asking what if he was going for that third goal from a tough angle and ignored a player in a better position? That is not in the best interest of his club and could cost a game. The fact that they have reviewed footage and decided there was nothing untoward (if the AFL is being honest) is very lucky for him.
Doctor Rotcod
Roar Rookie
My problem is not that he stood to win $36,but who else had skin in the game? From now on,when I see him kick a goal, I'll be asking,"Did he want to kick that goal or did he have to kick that goal
RT
Roar Rookie
Yeah like 25 years for murder is considered life. Are you trying to make me angry? Regardless of what you think of the suspension, it is a disgrace that any President should be negotiating on a suspensipn. What has Gil got to lose? Not credibility. He is on his last days anyway, should have gone or with a bang.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
He kind of did Richie, 10 games plus 12 suspended, Ed brokered the 12 game "suspension" part of the deal to allow him to play finals. I'm glad Ed is on our side.
RT
Roar Rookie
Should have still received 12 months.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Absolutely. I was a kid at 20 too. We all were. It's only with experience in working and bringing up your own kids you realise how immature all males are at 20. Girls are way faster to grow up. It's been proven in gender brain based learning and development studies. I'd be horrified having a chat with my own 20 year old self!
ChrisH
Roar Rookie
Here's a thought I haven't heard yet.... Stephenson's lining up for his third goal in the game he's bet he'll kick three goals. So, going thru his head is the thought "I have to kick this!". Sure he wants to kick every goal he gets the chance at, but this one is more important. In fact, the previous two were too. Did he try harder to get those two goals? And if he had an opportunity for a fourth, did he or would he put in the same effort? The outcome of the game is already ever so slightly affected. But what else is affected? Other people's bets. For example, those who wagered on him kicking one goal, or two goals. Or those who wagered on certain score lines or margins. Someone could be sitting there screaming "Miss you bastard, I got a multi with you only kicking two!" Or someone else might be rueing him kicking the goal (or not kicking more) because they missed out on a margin bet. So, betting on the game has been more affected than the result. It's not unreasonable for anyone who laid bets on the games Stephenson bet on, and who's bets could have been impacted by Stephenson's desired outcomes, to ask for a refund. His betting on games he played in not only raises questions about the result, but seriously raises questions about the integrity of the betting results in those matches. If I had bets on those matches, I'd be asking for a refund.
RT
Roar Rookie
Showing your age Peter!
User
Roar Rookie
Quite aware of Christian faiths hence my reasoning you are a crackpot who needs to introduce your faith to nearly all your arguments and not let them stand on their own two feet. If you don’t like the fact I find it distasteful you make comments on Australia and our moral attitudes as something you should be held accountable for, well I’m not repentant. There is nothing intellectually sound imo in believing that some omnipotent force or burning bush or possibly a ressurected son is setting our moral agenda no matter how much you command an hallelujah from your congregation. If you wish to break the chains of sickness I am here, if you don’t wish to have your blindness cured then I cannot help. You really need to try forgiveness without chaining it to something, it’s liberating.
Peter the Scribe
Roar Guru
Haven’t met a 20 year old who isn’t still a kid.
Gordon P Smith
Roar Guru
Ironically, I would disagree with the "conservative, hysterical attitude towards gambling" as descriptive of America. What the US has is a hypocritical, bipolar attitude towards gambling - to delve deeper into it would take a full article that would best be classified under "black comedy". The gambling industry is probably the second fastest growing industry in the States, behind pot dispensaries. (THERE'S a hypocritical topic - states can legalize pot, but it'll still be illegal under federal law. How cocked up is that?) But the one thing that is consistent among all the different types of gambling - lotteries, casinos, machines in grocery stores, sports betting, whatever - is the idea that those running the game have the appearance of legitimacy. (Emphasis on "appearance". Read the history of Las Vegas for details.) For anything that smacks of contamination of the "fairness" of the game, the punishment is going to be severe, at least in the sense of working within that business again. (And by the way, my personal aversion to gambling has nothing to do with my Christianity - the Bible is actually pro-gambling, especially in the OT - but rather with my background in mathematics and the subsequent knowledge that most gambling is simply a disguised tax on the mathematically uninformed. It's why I enjoy sports wagering - it's the one place to have a fair shot at winning over time.)
Gordon P Smith
Roar Guru
OK, this is the only comment I need to address. The sentences "America is more open minded when it comes to Christians" (ignoring the insult) and "Australia has a more forgiving soul" are contradictory. You seem not to have any idea what actual Christian faith is, or you'd have realized that. Maybe your only exposure to what you think of as Christianity is televangelism. If you have an actual interest in finding out, let me know. If not, nothing I can do for you.
Aransan
Roar Rookie
I would be happy to ban gambling advertising along with bans on cigarettes and alcohol, but understand there will be financial consequences for the AFL, the clubs and their players.
J.T.Delacroix
Guest
Yes of course. So obvious. The Victorians can have their puny no account league & everyone else can secede and start up the big important one. You’re off your rocker.
RT
Roar Rookie
Anon your opening paragraph is irrelevant and you miss the point. It is also not about whether these particular bets influenced the result or about how small they were, it is about where this could lead. You need a deterrent for all players. That is why a long penalty is appropriate and I think should have been longer. But not life.
RT
Roar Rookie
He's not a kid.
User
Roar Rookie
You went to his tac matches with Eddie I'm guessing
RT
Roar Rookie
Why don't we bring back cigarette advertising too? I'm sure they'd get even more money then