RLFANS has bread paranoia in regard to 'libel' and now on this forum every time someone mentions someone else without a truck load of photo's, witness statements and photographs then then it is usual "locked, potentially libel etc etc"
In the real world it's very different and the comments made by Sweet were not libellous, dangerous, or un-thought. It was a well researched and planned piece of journalism and is probably the most interesting story on rugby league I've read in a while.

Too many people on here are jumping down the throat of the journalist when all he has done is highlight an inherent arrogance and problem within our sport. There are problems in all sports, and it is up to the governing bodies involved to protect the sport. The RFL are completely spineless and inconsistent in the way they handle problems within the game and all that has been done here is highlight yet again another of their failings.

Well researched? It amounts to nothing more than "a bloke in a pub told me...". Casual pub conversations are neither evidence nor solid research. He's produced a damning article condemning the whole of RL based on one player's unproven boasts. Ok, so he placed a bet and spoke of another - that can be dealt with. But the rest is sensationalism, nothing more. The journalist mentions 'rugby league's cheats' - PLURAL. I assume he has solid evidence of this? He also seems to believe Shaun Leaf can tell if the opposition have also placed bets on the outcome - based on their tackling!

And to blame the RFL for this is pathetic. They have strict rules in place designed to prevent illicit gambling in the sport, but in a sport involving thousands of people there will always be a bad egg. What exactly do you propose the RFL could have done to prevent Shaun Leaf placing bets and talking to an undercover journalist like this? Come on, you're full of accusations, where's your solution?

Speaking as a Dons fan i would be shocked if any of this turned out to be true. I have never seen Leafy ever give less than 100% for the team....

You mean:

"A senior rugby league official (The Sun knows his name) took a more-than-usual interest in a fixture where Toulouse carried a 48-point handicap."
?
I assume they've got nothing, as they neither name anyone, nor actually make any allegation whatsoever. Define what 'usual' level of interest such an official would have in such a game, then tell me how you judge the anonymous official's interest to be 'more than usual', and if it was, what is wrong with that? Maybe his dad is from Donny, or his granny is French?

Plus, we are told that none of the playing players knew anything about any betting, so what did the official achieve from his more-than-usual interest?

Who gives two hoots what that rag says ?

In the Sun???

The story seems to consist entirely of "I (Sun journalist) met this bloke down the pub who's a rugby league player for Doncaster. I said to to him: "fancy a bet on Doncaster losing to Wakefield". He said: "yeah. I've bet on our games before"

All of which makes Leaf a very silly, and very naught boy, who deserves whatever is coming to him and casts doubt on the journalist's claim in his Twitter profile to be "an all-round good bloke" but doesn't revel max fixing, as the rag claims it does.

Shaun Leaf is scarcely Hansie Cronje

What's his Twitter?

The Sun = Andrex

£200.

Lol.

What a joke. The back 3 pages of The Sun this took up, even in the southern edition. Fantastic.

Not really, the article says nothing at all really.

The great thing about this is, it shows rugby league fans value fairplay and honesty, but can also see though nothing stories in crap papers.