Possibly the biggest overreaction ever on this board and that's saying something.
All we know do far is that the Doncaster player bet that his team would lose in a game that he wasn't playing in versus a team 2 divisions higher.
Does that really constitute a life ban? Really? When compared with such things like drug cheats, salary cap breaches by clubs and off-field player issues like the Pryce & Reardon situation I'd say the kind of bet this lad did isn't as serious as those issues, isn't as serious as the Gleeson & Long scandal and shouldn't be exaggerated simply because the Sun journalist is a pillock.
If it's later proved he has tried to throw games then that is a separate matter that might well require a lifetime ban, but for the betting incident I would have thought a year ban would be appropriate.

I assume you think that Gareth Hock, Terry Newton & Ryan Hudson should have been banned for life?

Agree with Gleeson and Long case, but not this guy. The circumstances of the Siants Bradford game were alot different, in that they knew the teams would be weakened.

Although he should be banned, i dont think it should be for life in this case.

The RFL FAILED to put off players betting against their own clubs with their lackluster punishments for Martin Gleeson and Sean Long whose actions were utterly disgraceful. We've since had ex-Oldham assistant coach who only received a 12-month ban for betting against his own club. We've now had a captain, club stalwart, the very fulcrum of the Doncaster RL side bet against his own team to lose whilst also slagging off his team mates with hints that other players in the sport do it and even to go as far as claiming match officials are also involved. Where does this end? Can you not see how damaging this is for the credibility of the competition? Look at the Rovers forum - they're fans are absolutely devastated. What does this say for the Championship One competition? What does this say to potential sponsors of RL? How does the RFL stand a chance in gaining a bumper TV deal when the integrity of the sport is questioned throughout the national press? So you think a 12-month ban and a slap on the wrist is good enough? Would you be happy to see this bloke play RL again?

The RFL need to draw a line - plain and simple. If you put the integrity of the game into doubt then you should be banned from the game for life. Simple as that.

Gareth Hock was stupid. He took cocaine. He was not the captain of his team willing them to lose by a certain amount in a challenge cup game to win a bet. He did not cheat. He was just idiotic.

Terry Newton took performance enhancing drugs. This also questions the integrity of the game. He cheated. His two-year ban was effectively like a life ban. I would however like to see anyone who takes such drugs given a life ban also - so in that respect, yes, I do think he should have received a life ban. There's absolutely no place for it in our game.

It's the RFL's job to protect the credibility of the game. Anyone who questions that breaks the rules and should be given a severe ban and/or a whopping fine.

What would you do as an alternative and do you think it would act as a good enough deterrent for any future potential offenders?

If you gamble on getting caught, you gamble on your career - wouldn't happen again then.

Ah, I see so Wigan players who break the rules shouldn't be given a lifetime ban but players at other clubs should.

Hock not only broke RFL and international doping rules he also broke the law, surely discrediting the game more. Yet he should be allowed a 2nd chance for his stupid actions but the Doncaster player shouldn't?

Drugs cheats discredit and tarnish the integrity of the game just as much if not more than betting. Who's on drugs and who's not? We have no idea.

I'm happy for the Doncaster player to receive a harsh ban. A year, 2 years, whatever. But it shouldn't be a life ban. He might find it difficult to convince a club to sign him but that's his problem.

How many incidents of betting has there been since the Long & Gleeson affair? It's hardly a recurring issue. There have certainly been more incidents of drug taking, violence off the pitch and salary cap issues in the same time period which cause equal if not more damage to the credibility of the sport yet you aren't advocating life bans or the equivalent in these cases? Why not?

In the end if Gareth Hock and Ruan Hudson are allowed a second chance despite discrediting the sport, if Saints, Bradford, Wigan etc arent given huge penalties despite cheating the league then why should this player be given the maximum punishment possible in the sport. Is this really the worst thing a player could do?

Whatever you do there are always going to be people who will break the rules. Regardless of deterent. Thats why this happened, and Hock took drugs, and Gleeson and long did it etc etc

This is without knowing if he is indeed guilty.

Being honest, Ben Cockayne would have probably done it in the next few months anyway ... It must have been on his to do list

But hey i guess assaults and racial slurs are ok for credibility of the game.

Another person who wants to blame the RFL for everything.

If the RFL had given out life-bans to those that did it, and this plonker still put on a bet, whose fault would it be then? Would the RFL have failed then? No, because there is only so much they can do. It is the player's responsibility in this case.

If sine die bans were the ultimate deterrent, you'd only need to give one out. Not the case.

The writer of the story is a close associate of Dave 'Nosey' Parker. Geoff Sweet has written RL stories before.
Two questions I had for my first RLFans post were;
Is Leaf so bereft of any common sense and has simply been bubbled and set up because he's a serial and blatant offender? Is it that Leaf is happy to be part of the undercover 'investigation' and was paid a few quid to play a role in order to expose an RFL official? To be so complicit in a piece does seem very strange.
Why wasn't the RFL official named? Were they part of the set up on Leaf or is it being held as leverage?
Either way, coverage of the wrong sort.

The guy got set up my a team mate, it will all come out in the wash!

Apart from the comments of one idiot, where's the proof that is happening?

The article is precisely the sort of gutter "journalism" you expect from the Sun and in normal circumstances the RFL would have 2 options.

1 Mount a vigorous defence against the more outrageous claims through the courts and the PCC.

2 Ignore as it will become tomorrows fish and chip wrappers.

However isn't it strange that the TV contract is up and Sky (prop R Murdoch) will be bidding for it? An article in the Sun (prop R Murdoch) designed to devalue RL just happens to come now. Classic good cop, bad cop from Murdoch no doubt designed to drive down the price of the next TV contract.

Remember Murdoch heads an organisation that has conducted extensive illegal phone hacking and has consistently proven that no depth is too low for it to sink to.

Food for thought.

And on the betting angle, I would love to see the RFL taking strong steps to eliminate the availability of betting on the game, there is simply too much trouble when sport and gambling get together as the number of scandals in all kinds of sports have shown.

Perhaps they could start by removing betting organisations as sponsors in RL- I can think of at least one club the accepts this grubby money.

Does News really need to use a barely known lower league player as part of it's valuing of the next deal? I'd have thought the latest Gleeson episode, the Hock drug ban, the late Terry Newton etc would be sufficient if such an agenda were being followed!!

How does that work then? Whether it's football, cricket, snooker or whatever, the 'corruption' and 'scandals' involve by far the minority involved within. And on cricket, it's not the betting with the big firms where the 'fix' comes in. And, again, there is no match fixing proved by this story at all, just a bloke having an opinion on his team.

They are yesterdays news, "news" need fresh manure.

All I am saying is that bookmakers are made unwelcome. They bring nothing positive as this very story shows - that bet itself was legal as regards UK law. The ongoing Tandy case in Aus involves legal bookmakers.

You won't of course stop determined individuals from betting, but at least make it hard for them and certainly don't advertise them.

Then again as I write this a banner ad for a bookie is flashing next to me