Thursday, September 08, 2011

Wallis defence beggars belief

Quite how Essendon assistant coach Dean Wallis could claim to have been only “vaguely aware” of rules against players and officials betting on AFL matches beggars belief.

 

Having placed bets in June, July and August, according to the reports, and the Heath Shaw/Nick Maxwell issues having been dealt with by the AFL in mid-July, Wallis’ August bet, at the very least, must have been made with full knowledge of the potential consequences. It’s simply not credible that someone working in an AFL club through that time would not have been aware of the Shaw-Maxwell reporting.

 

To make matters worse, Wallis reportedly initially denied making the bets, then denied they were his bets, and one of the bets involved the club he is employed by. In AussieRulesBlog’s view, the bets being quadrella-type and thus not specific to the Bombers’ on-field performance other than, presumably, winning doesn’t diminish the stupidity involved. Wallis’ initial denials eloquently scotch his defence that he was only vaguely aware of the AFL’s betting rules.

 

So, in that context, Wallis can consider himself extremely fortunate thus far. We’re not at all sure that there’s any consistency between Shaw’s $20k, eight-week penalty and Wallis’ $7.5k, fourteen-week penalty, notwithstanding that one is a player and the other a minor assistant coach. Had AussieRulesBlog been deciding the penalty, we would have thrown the equivalent of the large-print edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica at Wallis.

 

It remains to be seen how his club will view the issue and whether he will continue to be considered appropriate for involvement in the development of young players on the Bombers’ list.

 

The AFL would be naive to believe that this is the totality of the problem amongst players and officials. If there were never another incident, there has already been sufficient cause for substantial action to reduce the amount of gambling on AFL matches, whether by legislation or by the AFL withdrawing its approval for any contact between the AFL and related organisations and people and betting agencies.

No comments:

Wallis defence beggars belief

Quite how Essendon assistant coach Dean Wallis could claim to have been only “vaguely aware” of rules against players and officials betting on AFL matches beggars belief.

 

Having placed bets in June, July and August, according to the reports, and the Heath Shaw/Nick Maxwell issues having been dealt with by the AFL in mid-July, Wallis’ August bet, at the very least, must have been made with full knowledge of the potential consequences. It’s simply not credible that someone working in an AFL club through that time would not have been aware of the Shaw-Maxwell reporting.

 

To make matters worse, Wallis reportedly initially denied making the bets, then denied they were his bets, and one of the bets involved the club he is employed by. In AussieRulesBlog’s view, the bets being quadrella-type and thus not specific to the Bombers’ on-field performance other than, presumably, winning doesn’t diminish the stupidity involved. Wallis’ initial denials eloquently scotch his defence that he was only vaguely aware of the AFL’s betting rules.

 

So, in that context, Wallis can consider himself extremely fortunate thus far. We’re not at all sure that there’s any consistency between Shaw’s $20k, eight-week penalty and Wallis’ $7.5k, fourteen-week penalty, notwithstanding that one is a player and the other a minor assistant coach. Had AussieRulesBlog been deciding the penalty, we would have thrown the equivalent of the large-print edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica at Wallis.

 

It remains to be seen how his club will view the issue and whether he will continue to be considered appropriate for involvement in the development of young players on the Bombers’ list.

 

The AFL would be naive to believe that this is the totality of the problem amongst players and officials. If there were never another incident, there has already been sufficient cause for substantial action to reduce the amount of gambling on AFL matches, whether by legislation or by the AFL withdrawing its approval for any contact between the AFL and related organisations and people and betting agencies.

0 comments: