Jeff Farmer Guilty - Again

The Dockers' Jeff Farmer is found guilty by the courts for yet another booze-fuelled rampage. His frequent trips to court are so blatant that he's attracting criticism from fellow footballers for sullying their reputations! Sadly, his employer remains locked in excuse-mode with carefully managed messages setting the stage for his return.

Jeff Farmer was ejected from Perth's Burswood Casino last Wednesday (18th of July). There are no allegations he was involved in anything unpleasant inside, but he was visibly drunk when given the boot. (Perhaps the casino - aware of Farmer's form when on the turps - decided an ounce of prevention was better than a discreet cash settlement.) Enraged by this, Farmer inexplicably smashed the left wing mirror of a car in the car park.

He was duly charged and pleaded guilty in the Perth Magistrates Court, where he was fined $750 plus another $58 in court costs. The piddling fine is typical of those reserved for "footballer justice", representing around 15 minutes of his playing time. The unusually low court costs may be due to the special prices negotiated by AFL clubs at the start of each year, where they buy court time in bulk to save money.

In addition, Farmer has his own "Frequent Flyer" loyalty program with the Perth Magistrates Court and his next appearance will be free, following various prior matters, including a conviction just two months ago for bashing up a bouncer at a Perth nightclub.

Despite previous convictions for alcohol-related violence, the magistrate Michael Wheeler was moved by these mitigating circumstances:

• Farmer's "acceptance that he had an alcohol problem".


• Farmer being "upset at the news that Chris Connolly had resigned as coach of the Dockers".


• Farmer being "disappointed at being ruled unfit to play against Adelaide last weekend."


• Farmer getting "glowing reference from now-sacked Dockers coach Chris Connolly".


• Farmer "had suffered financially from of his 'spontaneous act of stupidity', because two of the player’s sponsors had dropped him".


• Farmer being "'humiliated' by media coverage of the indiscretion".
(The West Australian, 25/7/2007)

As a result of judicial sympathy for these torments, Farmer "escaped being placed on a community-based order". I would point out that Farmer has been harried in the media so often for his drunken crimes that it beggars belief that he is still capable of feeling humiliation.

In a desperate bid to maintain his position with the club - he's 30 and, as Magistrate Wheelan warned, entirely lacking in any skills or qualifications - Farmer played the "rehab" card. Pioneered by others but perfected recently by Ben Cousins, this is now an all-purpose method for ensuring players can keep on doing what they want - on and off the field. As Peter Everitt (from the Sydney Swans) explains the racket:

"This is where players now probably hold a trump card as in 'I'll come out now and say I've got an alcohol problem, a drug problem, a sexual problem', whatever it is so their contracts don't get ripped up," Everitt said on Fox Sports News. "We've seen it a couple of times. I don't know if we'll see it at all clubs."

Everitt said clubs were now obliged to look after players who admitted addictions and not punish them and this was a stand backed by the AFL.

"The 'Wiz' (Farmer), you would definitely think, would be close to his last chance, but now he's got a whole new lease of life," Everitt said.

"He could probably play even this weekend, if he's up from his (groin) injury, by coming out and admitting something."

...

"It's a sad time for the individual, there's no doubt about that, and there's a hard road ahead. We've seen that with Ben," Everitt said. "But at the same time, is the AFL in a predicament? Can they ever sack someone?" Asked if players now had a 'get out of jail free' card, Everitt replied: "No doubt."

"This is the sad thing now. We are not afraid that we're going to get sacked and we won't get sacked because we'll sit there and blame it on (the addiction)," he said. "I'm not a hundred per cent sure on the issues surrounding depression, alcoholism and all the drugs.

"But if you're smart and put your hand up and rely on certain things you won't be thrown out on to the scrap heap in flames.

"There is a problem there (with Cousins and Farmer). I'm not doubting that.

"But what I'm saying is that you can do it (misbehave) until the club says 'I'm ripping up your contract' and the player can say 'I've got a problem'. (FoxSports, 25/7/2007)

If "Spida" Everitt can see through the scam - and is willing to point it out in public - then you know it is both obvious and widespread. This is just another example of clubs putting their immediate short-term interests ahead of the longer-term interests of the game and their obligations to the rest of our community.

To get a sense of the scale of hypocrisy and selfishness involved, consider these carefully spun words from Farmer's employer, Docker's CEO Cameron Schwab:

"The first point is everyone recognises and understands what an important player and an important person he is for our club," Schwab told Channel Nine.

"But for Jeff to actually realise the next stage of his career he has to come to terms with what he is doing from a behavioural point of view.

"He is letting down the club, letting down himself, he is letting down his teammates.

"We need to get some very strong assurances from Jeff that this will be the last time we go down this track.

"But I think there is a possibility he will continue his career with the club, without wanting to pre-empt where we are at."

...

"You just don't like to deprive people and supporters of their best players.

"Jeff has got a court case on Wednesday, we will wait for that outcome, and assess things after that.

"But we certainly went the other way with Jeff last time, suspending him for six weeks, and that appeared to not help him. So we may look at a different way to approach that." (The Age, 24/7/2007)

Schwab's starting point for analysing this is that Farmer is a good player for the club and his ending point is not wanting to hurt the club. He explains that suspending him for drunken criminal violence didn't work last time, so they won't try it again. His strategy seems to be to put his energy into managing the negative publicity, rather than improving the standards of his players or ensuring discipline.

This might help them win on the weekend, but what future is there for footy? How long before we see a team take to the field composed entirely of convicted child rapists and terrorists, cheered on by morally-bankrupt fans? When the last remains of decency and honour are sacrificed at the altar of winning, will anyone even care?

Citations: The West Australian, 25/7/2007; FoxSports, 25/7/2007; The Age, 24/7/2007

Word Count: 1187

Tags: footy, court, booze, gambling

Spread Your Bets - Footballers Caught Out

It's all so ... tawdry. A betting scandal has engulfed the ranks of the Australian Football League, with four players being named for wagering on matches. While the details are slowly emerging, a carefully choreographed piece of theatre unfolds to ensure damage is contained.

First announced five weeks ago, the AFL has been investigating the use of betting accounts in the players' own names with Betfair and Tabcorp. It's expected the inquiry - headed by AFL investigators Allan Roberts and Bill Kneebone - will expand to include other betting agencies, taking two weeks to conclude.

As pointed out by various bookies, the players can easily use the accounts of their friends and families. The fact that they overlooked this basic precaution speaks volumes of the players' stupidity, arrogance and confidence in getting away with it. Further, it suggests that a larger group of players who did have the nous to hide their dodgy wagering behind false names remain undetected.

For the record, here are the greedy idiots named so far:

Adelaide Crows midfielder Simon Goodwin, Melbourne's Daniel Ward, Swans youngster Keiren Jack and Kangaroos ruckman David Hale have been named as the four players being investigated by the AFL for betting on senior matches in the 2006 season. (ABC Online, 17/2/2007)

(Regulars might remember Simon Goodwin as the mulitple-award winning footballer who assaulted a photographer and made threats to kill after being photographed wild-eyed and out of control at 11am. Don't worry though, this won't affect his leadership potential.)

The problem with footballers punting on footy matches is obvious. Equally clear is the temptation: like bourbon and coke, jet skis and bleached blonde grid girls, gambling is one of the great bogan indulgences. Giving way too much cash to bored and listless footballers while expecting them not to wager is foolhardy in the extreme.

Hence, the AFL has a very clear policy on gambling, which it rams home with a blistering series of player seminars, online statements, monitoring of wagering activities, various kinds of "tut-tut" noises and legally-binding contracts. All of which counts for nowt. (Makes you wonder about the kind of traction other policies - like those around drug abuse, racism and misogyny - are getting with players.)

There is a Gambling Workshop at the induction camp for the newly drafted players and players are warned at annual visits to clubs by AFLPA staff.

The AFL players code of conduct states footballers are prohibited from betting "on any aspect of an AFL match".

"The AFL regulations also prohibit the passing on of information that is not publicly available concerning teams playing in any match (including the actual or likely composition of the team, players injuries, the form of players and tactics) unless given in a bona fide media interview," it states. (News.com.au, 17/2/07)

Interestingly, under this policy, players are not allowed to participate in the AFL Misbehaviour Market (betting on AFL player court appearances), since this would entail informing on "the actual or likely composition of the team". Even though the criminal justice systems conspires to ensure that players are never ever inconvenienced, there's still a chance one will slip through the net and actually miss a game because of the latest bashing, rape, drink-driving, domestic violence etc incident.

This is, of course, publicity the AFL doesn't want. It has deals with the betting companies to get a slice of the wagering action. (Why? Surely the results of a footy match are public information? If you want proof-positive of the immense power wielded by footy officials in the country, just contemplate how they manage to screw hard-headed businesses into handing over money for free.) Naturally, the AFL doesn't want anything to jeopardise the flow of cash into their coffers. This is behind The Tisers speculation that "it is believed the AFL wanted the issue hushed up until they were in a position to announce the players' penalties, believed to be hefty fines." (The Adelaide Advertiser, 17/2/07).

There's also the mystery as to why the clubs came out and named their players so quickly once the story broke that "unnamed players" were punting. (Compare and contrast with the handling of drug abuser identities - which is actually a criminal matter as well as a violation of the toothless AFL Code of Conduct.) One theory is that a story about "unnamed players" at certain clubs would lead to speculation (and evidence!) flowing out in an uncontrolled fashion. You know, people phoning up the talk-back radio saying "I saw such-and-such at the TAB", nasty rumours published on footy hate-blogs. That kind of thing. No, better to put a firebreak around the issue, hang a couple of the more stupid players out to dry and let the rest slink off quietly.

More of footy's dirty secrets escape. More evidence of the lawless, arrogant and "special" nature of Aussie Rules' elite. More undermining of the League's ability to control its players. More spin, managed information release and big-money machinations from the chiefs. More reason to hold the entire AFL in contempt and disgust.

*** UPDATE ***
The players in question seem to have avoided any suspension or serious penalty at all. In fact, the only things suspended were half the value of the fines:

The league handed down fines of $55,000 to three players who bet on AFL matches, while a fourth received a reprimand.

Adelaide star Simon Goodwin received the harshest penalty, slugged $40,000, although half was suspended pending any future breach of the AFL's gambling laws.

...

But the AFL's bark could lack any investigative bite, with football operations manager Adrian Anderson admitting the league only has access to betting information from two companies - Tabcorp and Betfair.

...

Adelaide said Goodwin would remain in the club's leadership group and not be punished further.

...

While there were no bans this time, Anderson said any player caught from now on would be suspended, or in the most extreme case banned from playing AFL. (SMH, 1/3/2007)

So they nearly got it right: full fines plus suspensions from play plus demotion for those in "leadership" positions. The message seems to be that they'll get it right next time. Maybe. I have my doubts. Perhaps the message sent is "Guys, we don't want the grief and bad press so make sure you place bets through a friend at one of the dozens of other betting outlets." This betting is probably unstoppable: Cashed up bogans like a punt and footballers will not be told what to do.

Citations: ABC Online, 17/2/2007; News.com.au, 17/2/07; The Adelaide Advertiser, 17/2/07; SMH, 1/3/2007

Word Count: 1122

Tags: footy, swindle, gambling, scandals

Roundup: Gambling, Newman and Footy Chicks

As a prelude to tomorrow's Grand Final, I thought I'd do a quick round-up of a few outstanding matters. First, I heard back from Victorian Gaming Minister John Pandazopoulos about my proposal for betting on AFL player court appearances. There's also closure for Sam Newman's public indecency and a heads-up on an SBS documentary airing tonight (Friday, 29/9/06).

The Victorian gaming industry has a tireless champion in John "Panda" Pandazopoulos - no-one has done more to advance the interests of gaming shareholders than Mr Pokies. It's quite strange, therefore, that Panda wouldn't get behind my proposal to let people wager on the club that will next see a player appear in court. His stated reasons were:

The integrity of sporting competitions upon which wagers are made is vital for public confidence and is an issue which is taken very seriously by the Victorian Government. A betting competition such as the one suggested by you may be considered contrary to the public interest and may compromise the integrity of sports betting as the outcome is relatively easy to manipulate. (Ministerial Correspondence, 22/9/2006)

NB: My emphasis added. As I read this, Panda's saying that he regards it as too easy to manipulate the AFL players' appearances in court. This is profoundly disturbing for two reasons. Firstly, it suggests that lacks confidence in the integrity of people making decisions about whether or not players appear in court. As I understand it, this is the police sergeants who charge people (for most matters) and the government lawyers at the Department of Public Prosecutions (for very serious matters). What does he know about corruption in these organs of state that the rest of us don't?

Faced with an apparent lack of faith in the people deciding whether to charge AFL players, you'd think he might talk to his Cabinet colleagues about some sort of inquiry. Maybe even referring specific instances to the Office of Police Integrity. But no - and here's my second concern - he's instead worried about how this might impact on the "integrity of sports betting"! Get that? His reaction to the easy "manipulation" of the decision-making processes underpinning our law is to fret about the impact on gamblers. What about the rest of us? If police or prosecutors are easily manipulated in who they present to the courts, surely there are wider issues than a few betting agencies. Jeez, talk about a captured minister ...

---

Elderly footy commentator Sam Newman was slapped with a piece of wet paper by the toothless Australian Communications and Media Authority:

On May 6 on Triple M's Saturday Football program, the 60-year-old responded to criticism by asking an unidentified caller if they were at the game that day. "Yes I was," the caller said, to which Newman responded: "You're a f---wit."

[ACMA] found the program "did not meet contemporary standards of decency". Triple M suspended Newman from the program and has made the former Geelong star undergo retraining ... no further action will be taken. (The Age, 29/9/2006)

Just last year Triple M tried to rein in The Coot - apparently without success. What form does the retraining take, I wonder? Whatever they used last time obviously didn't take. Maybe the AFL has the right idea in lambasting the standards of footy commentary after all.

While the onset of Newman's "grumpy old man disorder" undermines respect for elders, it certainly helps promote early retirement. Not to mention legalised euthanasia.

---

Tonight sees the first free-to-air broadcasting of the controversial documentary Footy Chicks. With a limited theatrical release earlier in the year, this will be the first chance for many of us to see this harrowing account of what happens in the bars, toilets and hotel rooms after the match. From the seedy to the depressing, it's sure to be an eye-opener. Set your VCRs (or DVRs) to SBS, 10pm tonight (Friday 29th of September). My write-up to follow shortly.

Word Count: 668

Tags: footy, gambling, media, rape, sleaze

Aussie Rules Misbehaviour Market - An Introduction

As part of The Speccy's campaign for a commercial online betting service for AFL players' court appearances, we started a proof-of-concept prediction market, where anyone can play for free. This post introduces the Aussie Rules Misbehaviour Market (ARM) to help you get started.

First off, why are we doing this? The short answer is that prediction markets like this help people make informed choices. By providing a simple mechanism to share and aggregate information about likely future player misbehaviour, the community benefits in getting the best possible tip-offs. For example, if the odds dramatically shorten for one particular club, you may want to avoid their favoured drinking establishments. In effect, we're using the "wisdom of crowds" to provide a more specific and reliable AFL Footballer Threat Indicator.

The benefits for the individual punter come in bragging rights and the self-satisfaction that comes from out-punting everyone else. Of course, it's also good practice for when commercial wagering on AFL players in court starts up - and people are betting with real money.

The market itself is pretty straightforward to understand and operate, thanks to our partners at CrowdIQ. Each club has 1000 contracts (for a total of 16,000). Each contract will "pay out" $100 to the holder if and when that club is the first to have a player in court. All the rest pay out zero. All contracts are freely-traded in the interim at what ever price and volume participants wish. The price of a contract goes up and down over its lifetime, driven by buyers and sellers. The price is determined by how likely it is to pay out ie for that club to be the first with a player in court.

If the price of a contract on Collingwood is presently $20, that means that the market estimates the chances of Collingwood being the first club in court is 20%. If you reckon it's actually more - say 50% - then you should bid $21 and buy up as many as you can. If you think the chances are really much lower - say 5% - then you should sell any Collingwood contracts you own. (You could also try short selling, laying a Dutch Book or related strategies.)

There are many factors that will influence the price of a particular club's contract:

• Adding/dropping notorious players from the list


• "Free weekends" due to injuries or split rounds


• Lack of availability of cocaine


• Elimination in the finals


• Emotionally tough matches (drubbings and nail-biters)


• New batch of particularly strong crystal meth in town


• Team bonding sessions


• Schoolies week


• Sharp price movements in other clubs

This last one occurs because - in theory - all the probabilities should add to one. That means that if price increases for one club (ie odds shorten), then they must come down (ie odds lengthen) for the others. Savvy punters will take advantage of that fact in fine-tuning their portfolio.

Of course, there's a wealth of private information that influences prices too. This is where the punters' ability to sniff out rumours, anticipate crises and generally keep in touch with events comes to the fore. This is where it pays to keep an ear to the ground. So, if you're a door bitch, drug dealer, footy slut, trainer, barman, journo, hooker, bouncer, priest or police officer - you get an unfair advantage over the rest of us.

Most of the time, the contract prices will reflect the general assessment of the lawlessness of each club. As such, they reflect a kind of broad-based reputation. Things get volatile when a scandal or criminal incident breaks. It could play out in a number of different ways. Suppose the matter is kept under wraps for a few days; only insiders will know and will have an opportunity to make a few judicious trades before it goes public. Once a player has been charged, it's almost certain they'll be in court. The price for that club will get close to $100, while all others tend to $0.

On other occasions, there may be a delay between an incident going public and the laying of charges - think Dean Brogan or Tarrant/Johnson - and there will be much speculation and volatility in the prices. Other times, it will be a dead cert that the player will be in court once it breaks (like Michael Gardiner) and the market acts like a raffle.

A couple of other matters about the structuring of the market.

The initial prices for the contracts are set by IPO (Initial Public Offering) via a Dutch auction. This means that people can bid silently up until this weekend ie Sunday, 13th of August on how many contracts they wish to buy. The system will automatically allocate them to punters, based on this auction. After this period, all contracts will be in flux and will be traded in the usual fashion.

So if you reckon each club is as bad as the next, then the "fair price" is $6.25 ($100/16) per contract. You may wish to set each club at a discount or premium to that "base rate" based on your assessments of their general lawlessness. Note: past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour, but it is no guarantee.

Contracts are "resolved" once a player appears (either in person or by a representative) in an Australian court facing criminal charges. To avoid contempt of court issues, this market does not allow speculation on any decisions or findings of the courts. It only pertains to new matters about incidents that have (allegedly) occurred prior to the start of the market. Therefore, re-appearances about older matters - such as sentencing, appeals etc - do not count.

The Speccy, as market manager, is responsible for deeming when a contract is resolved. We take all care in monitoring the media for this, but we are not infallible. Therefore, we're happy to take any tip-offs or leads about court events that we may have missed.

Once a contract is resolved, the market is closed, contracts "pay out" (winners are grinners) and a new market is established for the next round of speculation.

Ready? OK, check out the prices ... and happy punting!

Word Count: 1051

Tags: footy, court, scandals, gambling

Betting On AFL Players In Court

The constant stream of court appearances by our much-lauded AFL heroes seems to have no end in sight. Coaches admit they're powerless to control the players. Senior police are skeptical of efforts to bring them to justice. Magistrates, well, they just keep letting them back on the streets. There's only one thing a true-blue Aussie can do when confronted with this inevitable wave of assaults, traffic offences and general lawlessness: start a book on the bastards.

That's right - it's time that Australians can stand up, look these nongs in the eye and say "$50 says he'll be in court by the end of the year". In order to fire up a betting market, I submitted the idea to three leading online sports wagering firms:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have an idea for a wagering market in the AFL that is of potentially great interest to the punting public: betting on which club will next see a player presented to an Australian court to answer charges.

This would make for a great market for the following reasons:

* Potentially all clubs could "come up" (winning isn't the right term)
* It's not perfectly random, with some clubs featuring more often than others
* There is about one event per month
* It is very difficult - and probably illegal - for an individual (player, police officer, judicial figure etc) to influence the outcome
* There is significant public speculation both informally and in the media
* The outcome is official, publicised and verifiable by anyone

Some subtleties:

* "Australian court" would consist of all State and Federal courts (eg Magistrates, County, Federal and High) - though probably not parliaments
* It would need to be restricted to criminal matters - planning disputes, civil suits and carparking fines should be excluded.
* If the player's identity is suppressed (eg the player is a minor or involved in incest) then it shouldn't count
* If two players are presented simultaneously then it should go in order of appearance in court documents
* The wager does not require the player to be found guilty or even enter a plea; appearance at court in the dock is all
* The player should be on the list of the club at the time of the offence (or charge), not the hearing

Extensions could include (subject to legal and ethical approval) betting on:

* The nature of the offence (eg traffic, drugs, assault, sex)
* The plea (guilty, not guilty)
* The outcome (guilty, not guilty)
* Duration that a particular club can go without any court appearances

I think this would be an exciting betting market that would see a groundswell of public interest and support. I look forward to wagering on these events in the near future.

So far, Centrebet and BetFair have indicated they are looking into the idea while SportsBet are yet to respond.

*** Update ***
Centrebet have kindly got back to me and indicated that there is no chance at all that they will be taking this up. So it's going to be play money only at this stage.

Buoyed by the interest, I approached the relevant ministers in the Victorian State Government, seeking their support:

Dear Minister,

No one has done more to promote the popularity and success of gambling in Victoria than the Bracks Government, with over one billion dollars a year flowing into state coffers - and many times more to the prudent investors in the big three gambling firms. Similarly, your government has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the AFL, providing much needed financial support for infrastructure and marketing.

Victoria, as the spiritual home of Aussie Rules football, is best placed to capitalise on taking a punt on all aspects of the footy. Therefore, I have proposed to a number of online betting services that Victorians should be able to wager on which club will next see a listed player make an appearance in court.

This exciting new gambling opportunity combines our love of the punt, footy and celebrity culture, with our reverence for the justice system. It also has significant community benefits, since the public will be able to use the odds to help plan a safe night out.

Both CentreBet and BetFair tell me they are actively looking into this proposal.

Can I count on your support?

I'm still waiting to here what Gambling Minister John Pandazopoulos and (former AFL player) Sports Minister Justin Madden have to say about the idea.

*** Update ***
The Honorable Justin Madden's Chief of Staff Phil Martin wrote back to me, neatly handballing this "new gambling opportunity" to the Panda. "Gambling"? I thought that seedy vice was replaced by the wholesome past-time of "gaming"?

Finally, I thought I'd better seek the support of the AFL and the AFL Players' Association:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I know that footy in this country hasn't always seen eye-to-eye with some aspects of online betting. But you can't deny that there is certainly widespread demand and it's proven hugely popular. There's even more we can do stimulate interest in the best game in the world. I have proposed to a number of online betting services that football supporters should be able to wager on which club will next see a listed player make an appearance in court.

Both CentreBet and BetFair tell me they are actively looking into this proposal.

Of course, it wouldn't be possible without the efforts of the players themselves. Can I count on the support of the AFL Players' Association in this exciting new endeavour?

To be honest, I'm not overly-optimistic about support from the bookies, the politicians or the players' union on this one. After all, AFL players are a very wealthy and influential group: you take them on at your own peril. Feel free to contact any of the above to lend your support to the initiative! Every bit helps.

There are significant public benefits to setting up such a market. Regular readers will know that here at The Speccy we take great pride in offering high quality information about the dangers normal citizens face at the hands of footy thugs through our world first AFL Threat Level Indicator. We also offer a selection of the finest AFL footballer deterrence and mitigation products (ranging from stun guns and pepper spray to first aid kits and STD self-diagnosis kits).

Continuing in this spirit of public service, we're pleased to announce that you can participate in "fantasy betting" (no real cash) at CrowdIQ's Aussie Rules Misbehaviour Market (ARM). There you can buy and sell contracts on which club is going to be in the poo next. We've prepared an introduction to how the market works for your benefit.

Whether you've got inside information, an knack for analysing trends (check The Speccy archives) or are just a good judge of character, sign up and get set for bragging rights. And yes, there will be another scandal soon - you can bet on it!

Word Count: 1192

Tags: footy, court, scandals, gambling