On Talksport that Sean Long has claimed that Bradford players were also involved in the Saints Bradford betting scandal.Apparently claimed in his autobiography.

Did they stand to gain financially if they were playing in the game they bet on and lost?

[url=http://www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/story_get.cgi?STORY_NAME=rleague/09/10/02/RUGBYL_Long.htmlClicky[/url

Anything to make copies of a book shift i guess?

What's the story? I know players aren't supposed to bet on games they are involved in but if I were a Bulls player and got wind we were playing a reserve team at the weekend, and could get a decent bet on myself for my team to win, then I would and can't actually see much problem at all with players backing themselves to beat their opponents.

Players betting on their own team to LOSE is of course an entirely different kettle of fish, and even if the Bulls did put money on themselves to WIN, to me that's not even remotely comparable as an offence.

(And yes I know it's not on, due to match-fixing allegations etc but I'm just commenting on that particular match; if the Bulls players got wind of something before the bookies, then tough luck bookies.)

I do hope Mr Long can prove his allegations. If not, I think he might be on his way to court

thats the point though and why they aren't allowed to do it. it could be deemed to be a form of insider trading

As a Saints fan, I don't particularly like revisiting the betting scandal:

A) Because I attended the match which was a farce
B) Because IO naively delcined to cash in on my betting account
C) Because the side Millward put out on the day was a ty thing to do. I understand he had IMO a big point about the stupid scheduling, but the bigger picture was that it let down all the species who turned up and the game itself.

IMO when Millward was sacked this episode did'nt help his cause although Saints have never been explicit in saying so. The club was being dragged through the mud and alienating people left, right and centre and fortunately Daniel Anderson brought muc needed integrity to things.

I thought that betting on your team to win was ok? I can't see what is wrong with that.

This sickens me to the pit of my stomach. Serialising it in the Scum.

[iMore revelations are expected in the book, which is officially published on Monday, and a spokesman for the RFL said the governing body were waiting for an opportunity to read a copy before making any comment.[/i

Even if it's a fixed match of which you already know the outcome?

They all seem to have been gambling on a specific margin of victory e.g. more than 9 points in Long's case; so could be seen to adversely affect the "natural" result of the game - even if they are on the winning team and the outcome is no different.

its the same as insider trading.

The Bulls players concerned are all at other clubs now.

A bit less straightforward if spread betting's involved though.

Ahh well that changes things.

Ditto

In the sun today , a few extracts -

" Extra-careful ones got mates to stick the money on. Even bradford got wind of the c**p side and loads of them were on"

" the following afternoon, a very excited glees rang to say he'd got the bet on the saints to lose be at least nine points "

"the odds were 10-11 and glees stuck a grand on to win £1909, including the stake"

"if we'd had any brains ,we'd have put it on a spread bet where you punt per point and we'd have made more money.
If we had any brains we wouldnt have opened telephone accounts to place bets against our own team"

He hasn't named anyone except Gleeson, who was duly charged and banned for a while, so there is no case to answer.

I very much doubt they'd bother with it, as we all know he's just selling his book even if it is in a rather unsavoury way, but of course there is technically a "case to answer", as the Bulls club is potentially being defamed, and it has every right to sue for defamation quite apart from what any individuals might want to do, if the board thinks its reputation is being damaged.

A trading company with a trading reputation in England can win libel damages without the need to show that it has suffered any particualr damage, if the libel tends to damage it in the way of its business.

[i

"We refute all such allegations," Bradford's football manager Stuart Duffy said. "We certainly weren't aware of any at the time and we've no proof that any of our lads were involved."

[urlhttp://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12196_5600823,00.html[/url

He isn't suggesting the club did anything. I don't see how the club could even potentially be defamed. Longy refers to players, not the club. All the club needs to do is deny all knowledge.

If you don't see how alleging "loads of" its senior players gamble on the club's results potentially damages the good name and reputation of the club, then that's your problem. I reckon you're just being dumb.

That's slanderous. =whiteIf it weren't true.

On radio Manchester last night Long said the R.F.L requested and were given a copy of the book two weeks ago!

It might still be in the 'to read' queue next to the RFL toilet.