In 2006 Workington player Weldon Saayman was banned for 12 months and fined £750 for betting on RL games. He did not play in any of the games he bet on, nor did they involve his own team. On the basis that Leaf has placed bets on games he played in and could influence then 18 months ban seems entirely reasonable in comparison to Saayman's ban.

Are you sure?

From memory, he was not placing large bets on specific single games but putting on fixed odds handicap coupons where he needed 3 or 4 results to go his way to win anything.

Derwent wrote:From memory, he was not placing large bets on specific single games but putting on fixed odds handicap coupons where he needed 3 or 4 results to go his way to win anything. Quote:Saayman is now back in action for Town after serving a ban for betting on one of the club’s games. The 12-month ban, later reduced to seven months, was imposed last September after he was being found guilty at a hearing of the Rugby Football League’s judiciary panel in Leeds. Also... http://www.cumbrialife.co.uk/banned-saa ... Path=2.927 Quote:"The player was advised of the hearing date but failed to attend. He was found to be in breach of rule D10 (c) which prohibits anybody covered by the operational rules of the game from betting on the outcome of Rugby League fixtures. "An investigation was carried out after complaints were received regarding the involvement of a Workington Town player in betting activity concerning the outcome of a rugby league game in which the Workington Town club was involved." So, one player fails to attend any hearing, and gets 12 months... Another one attends the hearing, offers every bit of help available, and gets 18...

Derwent wrote:From memory, he was not placing large bets on specific single games but putting on fixed odds handicap coupons where he needed 3 or 4 results to go his way to win anything. Quote:Saayman is now back in action for Town after serving a ban for betting on one of the club’s games. The 12-month ban, later reduced to seven months, was imposed last September after he was being found guilty at a hearing of the Rugby Football League’s judiciary panel in Leeds. Also... http://www.cumbrialife.co.uk/banned-saa ... Path=2.927 Quote:"The player was advised of the hearing date but failed to attend. He was found to be in breach of rule D10 (c) which prohibits anybody covered by the operational rules of the game from betting on the outcome of Rugby League fixtures. "An investigation was carried out after complaints were received regarding the involvement of a Workington Town player in betting activity concerning the outcome of a rugby league game in which the Workington Town club was involved." So, one player fails to attend any hearing, and gets 12 months... Another one attends the hearing, offers every bit of help available, and gets 18...

A Statement from Shaun Source: Dons Offical Website.

A Statement from Shaun Source: Dons Offical Website.

The difference being one did not play in any of the games he placed bets on and the other did. The loyalty of Donny fans to your player is commendable, but its straying into the boundaries of condoning his actions.

we are necessarily condoning what saun did but he stuck with us when most other players decamped and for that loyalty we as supporters want to thank him and remain loyal to him,we will forgive players most things so long as they give 100% as leafy always did,thanks saun,

It's not condoning Shaun Leaf's actions it's asking for a bit of consistency from the RFL. Was the Worky player hard done to also when taking into consideration the bans that Long and Gleeson received bearing in mind that their profiles as SLE players are/were a million times what Leaf's and the Worky players are? A 12 month ban would have been more than ample. Did the Worky player get a reduction to seven months even though he failed to appear at his own hearing?

I don't think anyone is condoning what Shaun has done but the vast majority of us believe that 18 months is harsh. However, if that is the ban handed down by the RFL then we'll probably all have to accept it and move on.

What you seem to be misconstruing as 'condoning his actions' is us showing some compassion and loyalty to a player who has stuck with our Club during some very hard times (including Administration) when there were offers which would have allowed him to move on.

We all make mistakes. In terms of Shaun's RL career this is a big one. But for us supporters, it will not be allowed to wipe out all the positive stuff which Shaun has done during his time with the Dons.

Shaun has over the years earned our loyalty ... now would not be the time to repay that by turning our backs on him.

A great statement from Shaun on the Dons' website.

We all know he did wrong; we perhaps feel the punishment doesn't fit the crime, but we're not condoning what he did.

Thanks for sticking by the club in the past Shaun. The fans will stick by you, and we'll look forward to seeing you in a Dons' shirt in the future.