Daft to appeal

Rob-ney.....what a plonker.

I can't believe what I have just read to be honest. Who on earth is advising him?

I can't remember when the initial ban was but I think I recall reading that he would serve his 6 months in advance of the play-offs? A fit and keen Rob would have been an asset at this time of the season, at worst to keep the other wingers on their toes.

Now that the appeal has been heard I wonder if Rob can break his silence? He is accused of betting against us 12 times. The tribunal say they have the device the bets were placed on. Rob denied it?

Rob is accused (and found guilty) of breaking rules that not only do the sport condemn, but I think most supporters would too. Now that the appeal is complete it would only seem fair that Rob is allowed to make his defence public.

What ever has happened I can't help thinking that Rob has been very silly. To what degree I don't know. I trust Rob and I like him both on and off the field but something just doesn't add up.

what an idiot hope we keep him though

I read the first article and was about to sat WTF how on earth can it be increased and thought he had good grounds to appeal. After reading the 2nd article and if its true he did bet against us then he should never play for the club again.

I like Rob and rate him as very good player. However, can he really play for Fax again. He has been found guilty of betting against his team. So straight away it will be asked did we lose those games he placed a bet on. Did he, while playing in those games, drop the ball, miss a tackle etc. if he did was it deliberate to give the out of the game he wanted.

I'm not berating Rob but you can see that these questions would be asked and if he played again and makes some mistakes, well?

Its the similar questions as the cricket players match fixing, not saying Rob was match fixing, but the seed of doubt has been sown.

I understand, however Rob should be allowed to make public his defence. Don't forget he has denied some of it. It's not clear which part he is denying as earlier in the year he admitted on twitter to a £15 windfall.

As we didn't lose 12 games in 2013, and Rob backed against us on 12 occasions (don't think I have to say 'allegedly' any more) with inside the camp knowledge, does that mean we over achieved last year?

So really poor judgement backing against yes on 12 occasions, did he think we were that bad?

Would have made mire money betting in the North Wales match this season.

It's like when I bet against Fax - it's a win win. If we lose I win and if we win, as a fan I win. So, psychologically I can understand why a fan would bet against a club. But a player betting against his club? What a dumbass. Years ago a Director of the club once told us he couldn't believe how thick some RL players were. Well, here's the proof.

Not only daft to bet in the first place, but, with weeks left on the ban, hadn't he already admitted he'd done wrong? it was hardly a miscarriage of justice.

This now brings into question a second very poor judgement. Whether he should play for us again, I don't know, Its a shame.

I don't think its a case of allowing him to make his defence public (that would be up to Rob). A player of a team sport has been found guilty of betting against his team. How does that make the other team/squad members feel. Would you want to play alongside a player who (for what ever reason) thinks you are not good enough to win a particular game or games.

For whatever reason Rob placed the bets he has caused himself his team mates and the club a lot of grief and unnecessary problems. He has a 9 month ban and now it will lay with the BOD to decide whether he will stay with us or not.

Like I said, I like Rob allot but this isn't about whether he is a good player or a nice bloke. It will come down to trust and that isn't something than can be built back overnight.

His ban has been increased by a measley 3 month, i'd assume from that his bets against Halifax were small trifling affairs, not enough to make him want Halifax to lose.

Don't forget most of the bets were probably handicap bets where he can oppose Halifax and win when we win if we don't win by too much.

To reiterate if he'd stood to make good money by opposing Halifax his ban would have been much more severe.

His ban was increased by 50%, and his earnings have been stopped for 3/4 of a year, quite significant to me.

Norman you aren't familiar with the Shaun Leaf case are you? Rob W's punishment is lenient in comparison and therefore it's fair to assume the scale of his betting was recreational as stated when he was first punished.

The extra three month's isn't really here nor there, most of it will be off season anyway. It's probably to make an example of him for not coming clean about all of his betting at the time of the first hearing.