. . . . . . . . . [url=http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php[/url

Look, it just [isounds[/i good,OK?

"Saints Fan" - what did I tell you? Even wakner Long would not have bothered to bet on the racing certainty of you getting 'Varked after your comment.

Translation? I only speak English.

I haven't a fecking clue what you're on about but I'm glad you're enjoying yourselves. However, the fact that it's all gone right over my head may just spoil it for you?

What is 'varked'?

Like the TV ad used to say . . . .. . "You know when you've been [iVarked[/i" .. . . . or [url=http://www.visit4info.com/advert/You-Know-When-Youve-Not-Been-Tangod-Tango-Range/10310something[/url like that

I'm sure you'll let me know if you think I'm been nieve but I really don't see how anyone at Bradford could have been involved in this or indeed how they would have been able to "get wind" of any dodgy goings on.

Remember, the rules on announcing teams prior to gameday were brought in by the RFL as a result of this scandal.

(IIRC) At the time of the game in question coaches were required to release their respective team details only an hour before kick off. With that in mind how could anyone at Bradford have known and be sure that Stains would field a weakend team?

Even if they had been a tip off or rumour, surley it would have only been looked at as some sort of sports psychology going on in order to unsettle the team and if they had been sure, why wouldnt they have taken the opportunity to rest a couple of our own players.
Answer - It never happened and therefore they just prepared to play the strongest team that could have been put in front of them.

By the time Bradford would have had any clue, they would have been out on the pitch warming up across from their opponants, by which time I think their minds would be firmly on the game about to happen.

For me this is just a case of Long making some controversial hype up in a sordid attempt to sell his book! Quite frankly, What a tit!

But surely there can only be a scandal if you bet on your own team to lose. This means that you deliberately play below your normal standard and thereby give your opponents an advantage.

I made a similar point, but only in context of it being infinitely better thah backing yourselves to lose. The problem though is that if it is known that players are betting on the outcome of matches, whether for or against their team, then obviously suggestions of collusion and match FIXING would be rife.

For instance, sport offers myriad examples where a patched-up scratch side has beaten a giant, and there's no particular reason why Saints couldn't have done it to us. (Indeed anyone remember just that at VP?)

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ng_claims/

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/s ... ng_claims/

Few days late mate ?

He was just hedging his bets.