Depends what he was betting on. Interesting that a Wigan game was involved. Wonder how Tomkins is involved in all of this?

Probably getting Sam [size=85"has torn you apart again"[/size Tomkins at a good early price for MOS. Easy money made there.

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.

Seems to be a rule in most sports that you don't gamble on that sport. You'd be foolish to believe it doesn't happen, but obviously if you don't speak to undercover journos, nor brag about it, you'll get away with it.

So, the fact that his so called 'mate' stitched him up, has nothing to do with it. The same mate whose disciplinary proceedings on the same offence have disappeared from the RFL website.

Its more intriguing that the Sun 'predicted' the outcome of this, some 4 weeks before the tribunal decision was finalised.

Has someone been undertaking the Rebecca Brooks methods again?

Soccer players love a bet.

If that is correct then the poor guy has been done because he has been too honest for his own good.
Not like this country punishes the easy targets - 5 Crusaders players and the UK border Agency springs to mind.
He does seem to have offered a good deal of assistance to the RFL - far more than the Sun comic produced - and he seems to have been punished further for this.
It does seem to send out a certain signal - but not generally a good one for the sport moving forward,as they say.

There has never been a doubt over Shaun's commitment to Doncaster Rugby league club in every single match he has played in. He has been one of the hardest working servants the club has ever had and stayed with the club through at least 2 periods of turmoil despite having the chance to move on.

The ban to me seems disproportionate considering the assistance he has offered, and the roll the Sun seems to have played in this leaves a particularly bad taste.

To highlight the fact the Dons fans have all the faith in Shaun and his attitude to the games in which he has played, there was a collection at last weeks game, and there will be one at this weekends game too, to pay his fine

Very true, and I'm sure there are others in others sports who do too on their own sport. They manage to get away with it, or its swept under the carpet. Leaf shouldn't have done what he did, but was stitched up by a newspaper and is paying the price. The motivations of said newspaper need to be questioned here as well as those of the player. Exposing a semi-pro having a bet, while wrong, is hardly 'the darkest day in the sport' or whatever crap they published.

Player gives almost a decades excellent service to an unfashionable lower league rugby league club and then makes a foolish mistake ,and gets hammered by the RFL with a ban totally disproportionate to the 'crime'.
He was club captain and sponsered by the supporters trust. Once again the little man gets hammered with full force to be made an example of. If he had been a star of SL the outcome would have been different.
Is there any wonder people walk away from RL?
There will be another collection at the Keepmoat on Sunday to contribute to Shaun fine payment.
Come on you Dons!

Just don't let him be photographed in a Quins shirt again!

Workington player Weldon Saayman was banned for 12 months and fined £750 in 2006 for betting on games. He was out with a long term injury at the time and didn't play in any of them. On that basis I'd say Leaf's ban is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.

You won't be putting a pound in the bucket on sunday then?

Bit difficult, as I won't be there. But if I was then no I wouldn't because I think his ban is justified based on previous precedences. Mark Cass at Oldham got a 12 month ban from the game in 2010 for betting on games and he was not even a registered player anymore, just an assistant coach.

I see an ill thought out throw away comment to provoke a response-got it

Now if he'd been betting on Doncaster to win , it would have been time for the men in white coats !!

Booooo! Get off!

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

Leaf added: "You can do it different ways — a knock-on or not push yourself to get to that ball.

"There's the tackling side, too. You think on the face of it it's pretty easy but it all depends what the other team are like ... whether they've turned up with the right mentality.

"If you run at someone you can tell whether they're tackling, you can feel it. Look at a team and see if they've got old heads — experienced players or young kids. If they've got young kids they won't do it because they've got aspirations."


... So he bets against his own team and then mentions how to throw games... whats to say he hasn't done this? He should be banned for life.

those quotes imply he's been influencal in throwing games whilst playing for the Dons....that has never happened nor was he on trial for that....he was on trial for betting on Wakefield beating Doncaster by 38 points.....

I am not saying Leaf didnt say these things, but i personally think he was talking about how PLAUSABLE it is to throw a game...if he indeed said it, I have heard no recording of it myself and have to rely on the Sun...you mention 'whats to say he hasnt done it'...well thats just opinion, not fact and certainly wasnt part of the trial

Hope Long is doing well for you

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