ALLEGATION OF BETTING.

Shannon News, 14 July 1922, Page 4

ALLEGATION OF BETTING.

AGAINST MEMBER OF RUGBY UNION. , ABSOLUTE DENIAL GIVEN. Something in the nature of a bombshell was dropped at the meeting of the Horowhenua Rugby Union last week when Mr F. Whibley, the Foxton delegate, made a charge against a fellow member, Mr W. Bevan, of Manakau, of betting on a recent match that was being played under the jurisdiction of the Union. The Union decided that the charge should be thoroughly investigated, and for that purpose a special meeting was called for Tuesday evening. Mr W. Thomson presided in the absence of the president, and other members present were Messrs M. Winiata, L. S. Carmichael, R. W. Percy, Father Vibaud, and the two members concerned Messrs Whibley and Bevan. The Chairman briefly explained that the meeting was a special one called to hear the charge of betting made by Mr Whibley against Mr Bevan. The proper procedure was for Mr Whibley to make the charge and substantiate it.

Mr Whibley said in making the chai;ge he had no personal feeling in the matter. Had it been against any other member he would have acted just the same. As a matter of fact until the last annual meeting of the Union he did not know Mr Bevan, and he had brought the charge simply with the view of keeping the game clean. In the past there was no doubt about the betting there had been on matches, and the Union should do all it could to stop it, whether the offenders were in the Union or not. The betting evil was rife last year, and it was the same this year. Mr Whibley said no one lmd come to him in connection with the present matter. He had heard about, it casually in Foxton, and he went to see the man concerned and the latter had told him all about it. “He did not tell- me as a member of the Management Committee,” said the speaker, “and as it was impossible for him to get here to-night, I have his signed statement of what occurred..''

“Could Set £6.” The statement was road as follows: — “I was present at the Hui Mai-Foxton match played at Manakau on 3rd instant. ‘ I saw Mr Sinclair, of Levin, there and told him I had some money to back Foxton if I could _ get three points in. Sinclair immediately approached Mr Bevan, who was standing near by, and then came back and said he could set £6 on the above basis. I looked at Bevan for confirmation of the bet and he nodded. I took it from what Sinclair did and the nod from Bevan that the bet was made by Sinclair on behalf of Bevan. At the conclusion of the game, which Hui Mai won by five points to nil, I approached Bevan who was in the company of Messrs Desmond and Wehipeihana, and paid over to him the amount of the bet, £(j. Bevan hesitated when I first offered it to him, and I then said 'that is for the bet made with Sinclair.' Bevan then took the money, and crumpled it up and put it in his pocket. (Signed) V. E. Bryant. Witness, S. W. Dudson. Foxton, July 11, 1922.'' Continuing, Mr Whibley said the question whether Mr Bevan would deny receiving the money in the presence of Mr Desmond would determine whether or not he would call Mr Desmond. The Chairman: It is awkward that Bryant is not here so that we could cross-examine him. In the statement Bryant says he approached Sinclair to get the bet on. Mr Whibley: Exactly. The Chairman: Possibly the man did not have the money to make the bet himself. Mr Whibley: Mr Bevan accepted the money afterwards. The Chairman asked if Mr Whibley had anything further to say. Mr Whibley: Except whether Mr Bevan will deny Bryant’s statement. “Produce the Witness.” Mr Bevan said he was not going to make a statement at all. He wanted the man there who said he made the bet. He did not know Bryant, and he told Mr Whibley that at the last meeting; Mr Whibley said he would bring the man here, but he wasn’t here. Mr Bevan said he was not satisfied with the way the matter was going at all. Mr Whibley .had ..laid a charge, and it was for him to produce his witness. It was not a question of what he (the speaker) was going to do. Mr Whibley: I will call Mr Desmond. Mr Desmond was called, and said lie saw Mr Bryant hand Mr Bevan some money.

The Chairman: You don’t know whether it was a bet or not? Mr Desmond:. No, I only saw Bryant hand over the money. The Chairman : It is unfortunate

.Bryant is not here. He asked Mi Whibley if he laid the charge on what Bryant told him. Mr Whibley: Yes.

The Chairman: Bryant ought to have been here. It puts the accused man in a false position, and he can’t crossexamine his accuser.

Mr Whibley said that Desmond was present and saw Bcvan receive some money from Bryant. The Chairman: That does not prove a_bot. He would like to sec Bryant and Sinclair brought, together.

Mr Bevan said he didn’t know Bryant “from a bar of soap.” Mr Whibley had brought the charge against him, and he was there to prove he was innocent. All Mr Whibley had was a letter. “As this man Bryant considers he made a bet with me, I want the Union to deal with the matter,” he said. “This is a serious charge, and for Mr Whibley to come along with a statement instead of producing his witness is only playing with the Union.” The Chairman said they could not do anything as Bryant was not there.

Mr Bcvan said he Avas prepared to deny the charge. He had been placed in a very awkAvard position. He had never met or spoken to Bryant. The Chairman did not see how they could go on.

Mr Whibley: The statement by Bry-

ant says Mr Bevan took the money and Mr Desmond saw it. Mr Bevan won’t admit Bryant paid Mm anything.

Mr Bevan: I am not here to answer that.

The Chairman: The charge does not prove anything. Mr Bevan may be able to answer that when the case goes on in Bryant’s presence. Mr Whiblcy: That is my case. Mr R. W. Percy said the statement was all right as far as it went, but it was not an affidavit. It should have been witnessed by a J.P. Mr WhiblcyThis is not a criminal offence. It is not criminal to bet, and there is no suggestion the referee was squared, or anything like that. The only thing wrong is that Mr Bevan made a bet when lie was a member of the Management Committee. Members of the Union should act in a way that the public should have no reason to think there was anything wrong with the management of the game. Father Vibaud did not agree that it was not criminal to bet on a football match.

The Chairman repeated that as Mr Whiblcy Brought the charge he should have had his witness there.

Father Vibaud said he agreed with Mr Whiblcy on the point that the game should be kept clean, but he maintained that betting should not be countenanced whoever made the bet —players or anyone else. On that point the Union’,s own rules dealt with betting, and he quoted Rule 24. This provided that a player must not bet on a match in which he was playing, but he did not agree that a player should bet on any match, much less an official. Mr Whiblcy said he did not suggest that the Union countenanced betting on a match, but whilst betting went on, the management committee-should not do it. The management committee should show the public that they did not countenance betting. “Not Going to Stop Here.”

Mr Bevan asked how was the Union to know -the statement was really Bryant’s. He did not know Bryant’s writing if he saw it. “I am not xrrepared to stop here and am going to sec the thing right out.”

Mr Carmichael: We can only deal with this from a football point of view. We are at liberty after reading rule 24. The Chairman stated they were the custodians of the game and must watch its interests, and when a charge was made such as that before them they must deal with it. Bryant should have been there. Mr Whibley: Mr Bevan took the money. The - Chairman: There is nothing to say what he took it for. It is not fair to the man accused.

Mr Winiata: Did Bryant make the charge ? The Chairman: He told Mr Whiblcy, who made the charge at last meeting. It is for the meeting to say what to do from what it has heard. Bryant Must Appear. Mr Carmichael moved that the enquiry be adjourned until Bryant appeared before the Union. Mr Whibley: I would not guarantee to get him at all. He explained that Bryant ? s business made it very difficult for him to get away at nights.

Mr Bevan said if the man made certain statements he should come and substantiate them.

Mr Percy seconded the motion, and said it was quite necessary that Bryant should be there; The Chairman asked that the motion be made more definite. Mr Carmichael altered his motion to an adjournment till next Tuesday night, Bryant to be warned to appear that evening. This was carried.