This really is a very simple case. Leaf broke the rules of betting on a match on the club he was employed for, morally wrong and against the rules of the game, he's been caught and convicted and is now serving a punishment, I have little problem with this.

Of course what's amazing about Rugby League is the unreal inconsistensy of how they operate, everything from fines to this offense, to lengths of bans for high takles, dangerous play and illegal substance misuse gets a seemingly different length of ban every time, many on this thread deem the 18 month ban fair, perhaps it is, but then surely you must admit Gleeson and Long got away with proverbial murder...one could argue Leaf (and im not defending him) was simply betting on what he though would happen, where Long and Gleeson knew Saints were playing a week side in that Sanits Bulls game which i'd argue is worse if anything. Also people are quoting different cases over the years...the one constant is all the fines and bans are different lenghts...crazy!...for me its also very funny this made the front page of the Scum 'newspaper' and its one of the lengthy banes every given out by the RFL....if indeed they even had any say in it seen as the Scum knew it would be 18 months before the case concluded

Any accusations that he has 'not tried' or 'thrown matches' before are not true and Leaf has always giv 100% in the best part of a decade I have watched him playing for the Dons.

Silly boy yes...but to receive 'everything he deserves' Is to be ignorant about the case and the wider picture in general

i can only assume it was part of a treble...read my post below on my opinon

just to eleberate slightly and put a different spin on things, he bet on 3 challenge cup games that weekend....were they all single bets? or was in an acca? if it were the latter Leaf may have just thrown it in....and I can only assume it was as the other 2 games were brought into the conclusions of the case. For me that is just naive (bet the whole bet actually came in)...and although wrong and against the rules, nowhere near as cynical as Gleeson and Long who had inside information about Saints playing a weak side and cheating the bookies...Leaf a) didnt cheat in a game...b) didn't cheat the bookies...c) yes broke the law...but his punishment doenst fit

Hope long is doing well for us? This isn't Hull FC v Doncaster. This is right v wrong. I would be saying the same thing if he played for Hull. I think Gleeson should have been banned from the sport.

Good old David Bates

What utter tosh. What do you think "odds" are, then? FYI, "odds" are what the bookie will offer you BASED ON THE INFORMATION HE HAS ABOUT THE EVENT. (Or do you think they just make them up?). In many cases, the bookie has better information than you, so you lose.

Secondly, how would Long, or anyone, [iknow[/i whether or to what extent the same information was known to the bookies? The answer to that does not matter, as he has no duty to check.

In any event, if it turns out that for once a punter is better informed than his bookie, what is wrong with that?

Next, the main bit you miss is that the bookie does not have to TAKE the bet. If Long, or indeed any punter, comes in with a sizeable bet on something at long odds, this is unusual activity and someone should phone head office and ask for permission to accept the bet. If that is given then bookie's risk. If permission is not sought, then that is a staff issue for the bookie. No betting office HAS to take any bet.

If a punter has broken the rules, the bookie does not have to pay him out. The bets were placed not on Long's or Leaf's terms, no bet is ever placed on a punter's terms, every bet is placed ON THE BOOKIE'S TERMS. If these exclude such activity / knowledge then the bet is void and won't be paid. If they do not, then the bookie has only himself to blame.

So when a punter comes in to the shop to collect his winnings, are you seriously suggesting that, at that stage, the bookie does not KNOW that (for example) Team B fielded a much weakened team? And therefore that the bet - which the bookie chose to accept - was likely based on information the punter had obtained? Of course the bookie knows! If the bookie thinks an attempt to "cheat" him has occurred and is in breach of his T&Cs then he has no need to pay and will not pay.

I must say though that I did have a good laugh imagining how, prior to placing a bet, punters should submit a sheet listing all the info they may have, just to check that indeed the bookie knew it too, because otherwise it's "not fair".

Quote ="Goochie"Weren't Long and Gleesons bans shorter because Long wasn't playing and Gleeson scored in the game, so there was proof they were still trying to win. 18 months seems about fair to me tbh.'" Quote On June 17, we had our hearing. We thought we'd either get a hefty fine or, more likely, a ban. Judge Peter Charlesworth ? who tries murderers when he's not on the RFL panel ? fined us both £7,500 plus £2,205 costs. He banned me from playing for three months and Glees for an extra month because he'd played in the game. We had to pay the fines, court costs, our solicitors' fees and do without our wages for the length of the bans. The bet cost me close to 50 grand. '" www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -lose.html

Quote ="Goochie"Weren't Long and Gleesons bans shorter because Long wasn't playing and Gleeson scored in the game, so there was proof they were still trying to win. 18 months seems about fair to me tbh.'" Quote On June 17, we had our hearing. We thought we'd either get a hefty fine or, more likely, a ban. Judge Peter Charlesworth ? who tries murderers when he's not on the RFL panel ? fined us both £7,500 plus £2,205 costs. He banned me from playing for three months and Glees for an extra month because he'd played in the game. We had to pay the fines, court costs, our solicitors' fees and do without our wages for the length of the bans. The bet cost me close to 50 grand. '" www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... -lose.html