Ashley Klein is a corrupt dud

BroncosFever said:
Unfortunately, that's the mindset of an addict. "Just one is ok, I can do 1 right?"

You can't do any, your brain is wired.
Click to expand...
I could do 1. The fact is the taste and smell of them sickens me these days. I’d probably throw it out half way through.
 
Kinda like I love the smell of petrol but I’ve never huffed it.
 
JayPee said:
You didnt answer the questions lol

You said in isnt in their interests? That makes no sense whatsoever. A gambling company absolutely would want an investigation if a official was rigging games and dudding them.

I dont even know what hill I am dying on. You are just saying stuff that makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

You haven't answered the question about the FIFA World Cup ref having a history of gambling addiction and debt and the organisation (yeah they are corrupt) and fans being totally ok with this.

Answer my questions and then I will answer yours, which by the way isn't the point of my post at all but you know that.
 
Sproj said:
You haven't answered the question about the FIFA World Cup ref having a history of gambling addiction and debt and the organisation (yeah they are corrupt) and fans being totally ok with this.

Answer my questions and then I will answer yours, which by the way isn't the point of my post at all but you know that.
Click to expand...
I replied to your tweet about you saying the NRL have a terrible record with these situations and asked the question what terrible record do they have on those situations and now you change it to about soccer??? Are you serious? You don't just get to move the goalposts when you want. Not one ****ing person said anything about the world cup.

"Giving the NRL is bankrolled by gambling it is not in their best interests to"

If they are bankrolled by them it is actually in their best interests to investigate and it is in the best interest of those gambling companies for them to investigate and they would have if you think they have so much pull. Your logic is flawed but yeah Im dying on the hill.
 
Sproj said:
Whether he has influenced games or not, the naive person in this conversation is anyone suggesting the NRL would have looked into it professionally and objectively. They have a terrible record of this kind of thing.

Given the NRL is bankrolled by gambling companies, it is not in their interests to do so.
Click to expand...
This is what my questions were referencing if there is any misunderstanding
 
tommy said:
All I’m saying “once an addict always an addict” is a bullshit description. We all have vices. Every single one of us, some worse than others doesn’t mean you can’t beat them.
Click to expand...
100%. I was as bad as anyone - haven't placed a bet or gambled in 14 years now.

Broncosgirl said:
You wouldn't give an ex-addict nurse the key to the anaesthetic cupboard. Not a smart move.
Click to expand...
My biggest things was sports (especially the NRL) - and I did some bad things to fund it. And while I can never let myself gamble again (because I know I won't be able to control it), I still watch sports (with all their gambling ads), deal with money, and live my life like any other person.

In reality, people who have overcome addiction often have a better understanding of the risks, warning signs, and harms than those who have never experienced it.

The question shouldn't be "Were they once addicted?" It should be "Are they currently capable of performing the role ethically and responsibly?"

If someone has demonstrated recovery, accountability, and years of responsible behaviour, their past addiction may be evidence of resilience and insight, not a reason for permanent exclusion.
 
JayPee said:
This is what my questions were referencing if there is any misunderstanding
Click to expand...

Let's say the NRL does a deep dive into everything Klein. And then they find he or someone related to him / friend has been getting winnings from an any time try scorer here / sin binning there, injury withdrawal here / any time try scorer there. Now consider that there have been a LOT of questionnable tries given over the years and in more recent times, six agains that have no review process.

Now I stress again, I am not saying this has occurred, I'm using a hypothetical. If the lead, most celebrated ref of the last 10-20 years was found to have been involved in these sorts of things, how is it in the NRL's interests to do a deep dive into his / his associates gambling dealings / patterns? They would have done the bare minimum checking if at all.

Remember, this is the same organisation that expects people to believe Cronulla was cheating the year either side of their premiership and have no problem with a gambling company giving shares to a very specific team off the cap. The same organisation that has got in bed with politics and allowed one club to have a significantly larger salary cap than anyone else for political reasons. The same competition that wouldn't have picked up the Storm's systematic cheating if not for a whistle blower.

Yeah, this is not an organisation with a stellar record of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So as I said, not in their interests (or perhaps more accurately, capability) to do the necessary deep dive to completely clear Klein.
 
JayPee said:
I replied to your tweet about you saying the NRL have a terrible record with these situations and asked the question what terrible record do they have on those situations and now you change it to about soccer??? Are you serious? You don't just get to move the goalposts when you want. Not one ****ing person said anything about the world cup.

"Giving the NRL is bankrolled by gambling it is not in their best interests to"

If they are bankrolled by them it is actually in their best interests to investigate and it is in the best interest of those gambling companies for them to investigate and they would have if you think they have so much pull. Your logic is flawed but yeah Im dying on the hill.
Click to expand...

How is it shifting goalposts? We are talking about the head ref of a professional sport adjudicating the biggest game in said code. This is Klein, how does the comparison not have relevance? Would FIFA and fans be ok with this situation?
 
Billy will be fuming this news has come out before Origin 2... Will Klown still one side the officiating to force a game 3... or will it look too obvious 🤔🤔
 
Sproj said:
How is it shifting goalposts? We are talking about the head ref of a professional sport adjudicating the biggest game in said code. This is Klein, how does the comparison not have relevance? Would FIFA and fans be ok with this situation?
Click to expand...
Because I didnt mention anything about a soccer ref in my query. I couldnt care less about what they do. I was interested what your reasoning was for the nrls dealings with these kind of matters and how you inferred they dont have a good track record.

You have answered it in the previous post. I don't agree with your view on it in relation to the whole "in their interests". It is imo because they don't want a shitstorm to come down and if that meant getting rid of a ref I think they would but thats fine you gave your view.
 
JayPee said:
Because I didnt mention anything about a soccer ref in my query. I couldnt care less about what they do. I was interested what your reasoning was for the nrls dealings with these kind of matters and how you inferred they dont have a good track record.

You have answered it in the previous post. I don't agree with your view on it in relation to the whole "in their interests". It is imo because they don't want a shitstorm to come down and if that meant getting rid of a ref I think they would but thats fine you gave your view.
Click to expand...
The game, the teams and the broadcasters are funded by wall-to-wall gambling ads. If it turned out the leading referee (or any referee) was doing something dodgy involving gambling, it makes those sponsorships look really bad.

Maybe I'm over thinking it, but I can see how it might be in their best interests to keep it quiet rather than take action.
 
Dash said:
The game, the teams and the broadcasters are funded by wall-to-wall gambling ads. If it turned out the leading referee (or any referee) was doing something dodgy involving gambling, it makes those sponsorships look really bad.

Maybe I'm over thinking it, but I can see how it might be in their best interests to keep it quiet rather than take action.
Click to expand...
But he would be ripping off said gambling companies? It doesnt make them look bad. They dont give a ****. They are about the money. And if he was going offshore or "underground" that would affect their turnover. There is a reason in other sports they are going hard. For instance the NBA. Feds involved etc.

They don't like losing out on money. They are parasites. Ban winning gamblers down to a few dollars but wont ever address problem gamblers. They have actually been caught out offering people incentives thatvhave tried to exclude themselves.

Needs more regulation on it.
 
If you win a few bucks at a casino they give you a free room at their establishment for a few days……make sure you put your winnings back into their coffers.
 
Renegade said:
hanlons razor
Click to expand...

Who da fck is hanlon ?

You sure you don`t mean .
Occam`s Razor ?

Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle credited to 14th-century philosopher William of Ockham, stating that among competing explanations with equal predictive power, the one requiring the fewest assumptions should be preferred. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony.
 
Big Del said:
Who da fck is hanlon ?

You sure you don`t mean .
Occam`s Razor ?

Occam's razor is a problem-solving principle credited to 14th-century philosopher William of Ockham, stating that among competing explanations with equal predictive power, the one requiring the fewest assumptions should be preferred. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony.
Click to expand...
Occams razor is referring to the fact that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Hanson’s razor is something completely different, so no.
 
tommy said:
Occams razor is referring to the fact that the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Hanson’s razor is something completely different, so no.
Click to expand...

Well Occam said the simplest explanation is usually the best .

And his wisdom is 300 + years old ....

Hanlon`s razor talks about human nature .
And is closer to 50 years old .

Hanlon's razor is an adage, or rule of thumb, that states: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 So yes very different Tommy .
 
New Posts

Unread

Back
Top