WiganWarriorsFans.com

Super League rules state that you must not bet on your own team to lose or place a bet if you are party to information that is not public knowledge. e.g. we're picking 11 reserves tomorrow.

There was a case with 3 Sheffield Wednesday footballers 40 years ago, where they accepted £20 each to lose a game, where in reality, there was very little chance of them winning anyway. All 3 received life bans, including the player who was given man of the match by the paper who ended up exposing the story.

I wasn't aware of Gleeson playing DORKsey(didn't watch the game,working), but if the allegation is founded, then Gleeson should be signed high. It would be difficult for Long then too, if it were proven he put the bet on at the same time and place as Gleeson, then making him implicated. As i said previous, its a vey serious allegation and we're talking about 2 mens career living reguardless of them playing for the SAINTS and how stupid they could have been!

And your point is what exactly?

You appear to be saying that because they are professional rugby league players then they should be able to do as they please

Primrose and Blue. It doesn't matter anyway whether they were playing in the match or not. The RFL rules state that not player can bet on a game that he OR his club is involved in. Saints repeatedly bring our game into disrepute, they constantly ignore the rules and have to argue with every decision that RFL commitee make and if they don't get their way they threaten legal action until they get what they want.
I don't know what will happen to long and gleeson but I really think that Ian Millward should lose his job.
At the end of the day it is down to the coach to install discipline and proffessionalism into his players. You can see why the players have such disregard for the game when the coach obviously does.

nice to see saints putting the game into disrepute for the second time in four days, are they trying to spoil the sports repuatation as much as they are, if its true i hope they get banned for a pretty lengthy spell and i think saints will be a bit daft if they let them play again for them, who in their right mind would bet agains their own club.

I can understand Long betting against his own club because he wasn't playing and he loves himself, but Gleeson, that's bad.

They didn't feature last night so I was thinking perhaps Millward will call that a one match ban and suggest everything is forgotten!

In any other career anyone who is accused of gross misconduct would be immediatly suspended by their employer pending an investigation. I know if i did something seriously wrong my boss would have no option to do that. why then dont the powers that be on the other side of Billinge Hill see that and do the same. (mind you it seems that they all think they are above the laws of the game these days)

its a simple rule which says any one involved in the game (match officials linesmen water carriers ext ext)are not allowed to bet on the outcome of games. now even though sean long did not play in the game he is still a stains player so if nothing else had inside information about who was playing.gleeson did play and should be banned for a while.unfortunately this will not happen stains will find a way out of it and a slap on the wrist will be the punishment.

(dw) Too true :eusa2:

Its the same as a race horse owner legally betting his own horse to lose but not the jockey, who is in the position to effect the outcome of the race.

Just to let you know that it is actually illegal for a racehorse owner to bet on thier horse to lose (or lay it). Take it from a guy in the profession!