Of angels and pins . . .

We’re reminded of the mediaeval debates that occurred among theological scholars about the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin. Adrian Anderson’s assertion of Tyson Goldsack’s innocence of gambling-related malfeasance has the same ring of unreality.

 

It’s not enough that there’s “no evidence” — according to Anderson — that Goldsack provided inside information to family members. In this respect at least, the AFL must work to the nth degree to ensure that the game is beyond reproach. The fact that a bet was placed and the wager was won means there’s a prima facie smell of fish.

 

It matters not that Goldsack’s mates backed him to win the Norm Smith Medal. The point is that, however unlikely it might have seemed, Goldsack did come off the bench, went forward, and kicked the first goal. Had there been no wager, Goldsack is merely an answer in footy trivia. But there was a wager, and a very, very specific one.

 

It would have been a more acceptable approach for the AFL to levy even a token fine — perhaps amounting to the $400 won on the bet — whilst expressing confidence in Goldsack’s innocence.

 

It’s not stretching credulity too far to imagine that the only difference between Heath “Weet Bix” Shaw, Nick Maxwell and Tyson Goldsack is that the former came clean.