This is the bit I don't understand. The domestic violence aspect of what they were doing and the fact there were two of them rather than Reardon on his own is very disturbing.

I was not impressed by what Feka did, but we are talking here about degrees of misbehaviour and frankly any reasonable person (i.e. anyone other than people connected with Saints) would view what these two have admitted to doing as being far more serious.

It wasn't the same offense, as Long didn't play in the game they had a bet on.

Strangely enough, Gleeson scored the first try of that game if I remember correctly!

I meant if the Wigan club have such high morals why sign Gleeson? Also his position was worse because he played in the game in question.

Anyone with high morals, like Jesus, always forgives. Hence the signing.

According to some on this thread it seems premeditated assault is the same as having a bet... well I never.

exactly, the reasonable force argument is what the courts look at. end of, if i remember rightly there was an element of a premeditated attack on his previous incident, and the fact you go to someones house and assault them again suggest premeditation. no ones saying hes killed anyone but a short stint inside will maybe make him realise that you cant do what the f u c k you like cos your a professional sportsman

Unsurprisingly, you miss the point.

All the faux moral outrage at the self servicing devil worshippers over the hill is frankly cringeworthy when compared to reactions to other players who find themselves in trouble with the police.

He's pleaded guilty, he'll get sentenced later this month and Saints will take it from there.

Out of interest (and this is a genuine question) did Wigan take any additional action against Feka after his sentencing?

Oh dear, that's clutching at straws a bit! Do you really think it matters whether he played or not when betting against his own team? That's like insider trading but using 'I wasn't the one handling the contract' as your excuse. Still if you think that makes a difference morally, then that tells me all I need to know about your defence of Pryce.

As for the second poster citing Wigan's signing of a player who has already been punished by the club for whom he was playing at the time of the offence as somehow morally bereft..are you for real?

No you miss the point, I dont believe it was a Saints fan who mentioned the betting was it?? All I was trying to say is that the offences are completely different and should be treated completely differently. In a sport that bans players 2 years for smoking cannabis (for example) I think players like Cockayne, Pryce and feka for that matter should be punished harshly by the RFL on a case by case basis. I don't believe there was an argument with you in there was there?

Unsurprisingly you miss the point.

Feka was reacting to being accosted by a thug. Leon Pryce is the thug. Maybe you can see no difference. Neither was right but to compare the two is showing your ignorance. Feka was supported (rightly or wrongly) by the club because of several points. Firstly he wasn't the instigator of the trouble. Secondly the other party withdrew his complaint and admitted he had provoked the attack and thirdly it was the first, and only, time he had been in trouble. Compare and contrast to Leon Pryce please..

For what it's worth I think self interest will almost always come frst in these instances regardless of which club we re talking about. Doesn't neccessarily make it right in all cases though.