Dr Wendy Chapman, the doctor at the centre of the Harlequins bloodgate scandal has been acquitted and has been given the General Medical Council's permission to continue practicing medicine.

Chapman, who originally concealed her involvement, which included deliberately cutting Tom Williams lip to cover up the fact that the Harlequins had cheated by using a blood capsule to allow a replacement in last April's Anglo-European Cup quarter final loss against Leinster, was initially suspended, but after facing a potential life ban has been 'freed' to earn a living in the medical profession.

Chapman, who testified that she had been battling with a severe bout of depression following a masectomy since the incident, originally lied in the hearing by saying the whole injury was real and that there had been no wrong doing.

This incident throws yet another light on the current cheats in professional sport and the verdict to exonerate her clearly has to be questioned. Admittedly, she was acting under orders, but she purposefully and unlawfully cut a patient's body part, causing injury and undue harm.

I feel that this verdict puts both Rugby Union and the Medical Profession in a bad light, and believe, mitigation or not, that Dr Chapman should have been banned for at least 4 - 5 years as a result of her actions.

This is not a blight on English rugby, and this could have been used to send a message out to all professional rugby teams that behaviour like this will not be tolerated.

After all, what is the difference between this incident and the now much publicised Pakistan spot fixing scandal ? It's cheating - no matter how you look at it.

10 years has passed since the Hansie Cronje scandal, and match rigging allegations have resurrected themselves - this time, brazenly, at the home of cricket.

It is important to note from the outset, that match fixing and match rigging carry with them 2 entirely different tags. Match 'fixing' is an attempt to influence the entire outcome of a specific event while it's less recognised 'rigging' relation, is an attempt to manipulate a specific event at a known time. This could be as blatant as ensuring a certain batsmen scores less than an agreed number of runs, or as inconspicuous as has been widely publicised, bowling a no-ball at a predecided stage of a match. Either way - these practices often result in large amounts of money being changed hands and sometimes without the opposition team even knowing.

There is also one more extremely important distinction to be made, and that is the fallacy that these match manipulations are actually orchestrated by bookmakers. Following the media debacle this week surrounding the illegalities of online betting, it became very clear that a parallel between licenced, regulated bookmakers cannot, and should not be drawn with so called 'bookies', as these individuals are widely recognised as illegal operators who are neither qualified nor lawfully entitled to take money in exchange for betting activities.

The majority of these illegal bookmakers originate in India ( which has a highly regulated industry and is only allowed to offer Horseracing betting, but is estimated to have an annual $ 30 billion dollar sports betting industry  ) and Pakistan ( where all forms of betting, gambling and lotteries are outlawed. The betting turnover in the Muslim country is said to be anywhere from 60 - 100 billion US dollars per year ).

The IPL, since inception, has been rife with allegations of wrong doings and, because the tournament is hosted in one of the world's den of cricketing inequities, it seems highly unlikely that any real evidence or serious investiigations will be forthcoming.  It does point a lot of blaming fingers at not just the players and sport governing bodies in those particular countries, but also squarely at the feet of said governments. The cover-ups are majestic and the incidents laughed off with disdain, but the sad truth is, however, that behind every rampant corruption ring is a rotten core that stems all the way up to the political leaders. Pakistan, however, with their ban on home matches following the attack on the Sri Lankan team, have been forced to take their show on the road, and this, I believe, is the solitary reason for the exposure and publication of these latest activities, because once away from residential isolation, it becomes a lot more difficult to keep these things quiet.

Coming back to the issue at hand and the recent revelations of the Pakistan test - and quite plainly put .... what a joke. Does News of the World and all other media related businesses really believe that they have just uncovered a rough diamond by flashing this story across tabloid front pages everywhere ? Make no mistake, NoW's infiltration of the betting ring was, as always, quite brilliant, but let's be realistic - the evil of cricket match fixing never died with Hansie, it just evolved itself into a new form.  The ' scandal that will rock '. Please !! It wasn't so long ago that 2 players playing for Essex in England were arrested for the same thing so it is quite evident that where there's betting, anywhere in the world, there is corruption.

But really - are 1 or 2 bowler oversteps really going to influence the result of a 5 day match anyway ? Like I said earlier, that is the lure of match rigging - spectators are oblivious, the opposition team is oblivious, and if the only victims are individuals who earn their ( substantial ) living by operating illegally, then, as a person who works in a highly regulated, watch-dogged industry - I'm all for it ! As far as I'm concerned, if you derive illegal profits with no tax nor legal repercussions, you must pay. So as much as I'm not entirely inamid with the 7 alleged Pakistan players receiving the benefits of possible manipulation, and the predicted hysteria behind the cleanliness of the sport, I care less about those who are forced to settle the bets.

This is, however, a totally different sentiment expressed with the art of actually fixing, or throwing, an entire match for financial gain. To say that this particular form of cheating has totally left the sport for the odd dropped catch or misfield would be entirely naive, and any attempt to alter the course of a match, no matter the role-players or victims, must be dealt with accordingly. But sometimes it does pay to be naive - and it makes things around here a lot more entertaining to argue how your team's captain is an idiot because he butchered that easy run-out instead of debating the amount he got paid to miss the wickets from 2 metres.

The Pakistan revelations have done little to alleviate the perennial fears that top tier cricket is, to some degree, merely a stageshow where the only real winners are those who know the future, but, as always - there is a life lesson to be taken out of this negativity. 

And so the next time your teacher, boss or parents tell you that you'll never get anywhere in life with no balls - just think of this guy ....

EDIT : Among all the finger pointing and accusations, it has been revealed that the series will continue and all scheduled matches will be played. So tell me - if the English think Pakistan are cheats, why have they consented to play the rest of the matches ? TV rights and gate receipts - that's why.

In other words - you're a bunch of cheats but we will entertain you for monetary gain.

Which means only 2 things ... either the actions are not as severe as the world is trying to make out or the English Cricket Board are a bunch of materialistic hypocrites.

Don't be misled by the heading - this is actually a sporting post.

Once again, our journo friends on Financial 24 have printed a mis-informed article about the legalities of sport betting in SA. They do state that they originally got the article from Business Day, but the time has come to stop and consider the truth before publishing stories of this nature.

Here's part of what they printed .... ' Internet operators who offer online gambling to South African residents for gain and a player or punter who takes part in online gambling would both be guilty of breaking the law. '

Here's the link http://www.fin24.com/Business/Court-bans-online-gambling-20100824, which, as the heading quite plainly says, publicly proclaims that online gambling is illegal.

Feed free to read the following article, however, that I wrote for the Sport24 team and was published the day before WC 2010 kicked off.

You may also want to check this National Gambling Board link sometime too.

Here's a brief summary so that you can get back to your Dow Jones indices.

• Is online betting illegal in South Africa if you place your bets with a licenced bookmaker ? NO
• Did the court, on August 20, hand down an order precluding all online gambling jurisdictions ? NO
• Will you be fined R 10 million or spend 10 years in jail if you place bets with licenced South African operators ? NO
• Will those entities that advertise or facilitate the advertisement of all online gambling - including radio and television stations, print media and outdoor advertising agencies also face the law.? NO

The article should have alluded to the fact that it is actually casinos that have been made unlawful and not licenced bookmakers that have undergone extremely stringent investigation procedures before receiving a licence to trade. If you bet with a South African bookmaker, you are doing so entirely within the boundaries of SA law.

It is quite disheartening and frustrating to be on the receiving end of untruths and it does do a lot of damage to an industry that has worked extremely hard to shake off negative stigma.

All I ask is that articles of this nature are properly researched and the relevant industry-players approached for official comment before being published.

It is very likely that we all might learn something new.

Instead of publishing a new post - I thought it better to edit this original one with the news that ' England's Graeme Swann was added to the long list for the International Cricket Council (ICC) Cricketer of the Year award on Thursday after his original omission sparked a furious reaction in Britain. '

Swann was overlooked by a panel consisting of, amongst others - an Englishman and a former England coach. Whether his inclusion is deserved or not is irrelevant - the plain fact of the matter is that his own countrymen didn't see fit to warrant his inclusion and it was only after a little tantrum and foot stamping episode - led by former England captain, Mike Atherton that the selectors breathed a collective sarcastic sigh, rolled their eyes and placed him on the list.

The full list of nominees is quite impressive with the Player of the Year comprising of :

5 x South Africans

6 x Australians

3 x Indians

1 x New Zealand and Sri Lankan ...

and one tearfully hysterical Englishman.

The ODI Player of the year is comprised of mainly South Africans, Indians and Australians - with no Englishmen being deemed worthy a place amongst the world's elite, but the good news is though, that 2 women will be fighting it out for Englishman for the award of Women Cricketer of the Year.

Well done Graeme and may a humble, modest, pragmatic gentleman like yourself get all you deserve.

Fingers crossed that you don't have to leave the ceremony early to save  a cat Old Chap.

Boo Hoo - I'm not coming out until I get my nomination

I'm not going to go too much into the history for the second part of this post , but those persecuted Yarpies who have constantly been the whipping post for the English can take solace in the fact that there is indeed a sporting God.

This image has not been manipulated in any way and yes - there is actually a sporting team that carries this exact logo and name.

Not only that but it seems these poor chaps share a common win record as the founder member's rugby countrymen.

I'm still waiting for someone to pinch me ....

Disclaimer : This is not an MBET marketing initiative - but a survey to see many people still believe in the World Champions

Just a quick one, and would appreciate some honest feedback without provincialism even though I know that is not always a viable request to a majority of Bulls supporters, but I find the inclusion of Francois Hougaard as starting number 9 extremely risky this weekend.

Granted, he is certainly one of the country's brightest talents, and that he may well be the natural replacement for soon-to-be-departed Fourie du Preez, but how can we take a player with one cap against Italy, a 1/4 cap against Australia and throw him in to face the world's best team ?

There are times to experiment and tinker with starting line-ups, that's why we had Wales and Italy, and also times where one should focus on damage limitation as opposed to completely diverse game plans, so I fear these choices are both short-sighted and desperate.

And as for JP Pietersen being drafted back into the fold - what has Bjorn Basson done wrong to warrant an exclusion or, seeing that we are choosing this game to launch careers, how about Lwazi Mvovu ?

Graeme Henry's strike rate looks set to increase.

As Kitchener discussed in his post this morning, South African bosses, and in particular, Oregan Hoskins has publicly stated that SARU will be looking for new avenues of competition come 2015 when the SANZAR contract comes to an end.

Hoskins, and SARU Chairman Dr Jan Marais have cited the troublesome relationship between New Zealand, Australia and South Africa as the primary reason to explore other alternatives. Now, whether the Super 10 / 12 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 19 / 24 or the Tri Nations has run it's spectatorship course or not is beyond and irrelevant to this particular issue - it is the general attitude of Hoskins, specifically, which raises the questions.

For those of you who may have forgotten, here's a quick history lesson. Hoskins is the self same person who was responsible and behind the multiple failed High Court applications to have the Southern Spears excluded from Super Rugby - the costs of which have been conservatively estimated around the R 25 Million mark. In 2006, he also came out and accused Australian and NZ refs are blatant bias - and for those of you believe that SA Rugby's continued moaning has ultimately led to this treatment, then Hoskins is the Genesis of this particular evolution.

And then there was Luke Watson controversy, in which Hoskins included Watson's name in the 2007 World Cup squad without either the approval, not in fact even the knowledge of Jake White ( Springbok manager at the time Zola Yeye was also part of that ' conspiracy ' so it seems the apples fall not far from the yellow bellied tree ). The relationship between Hoskins and Jake White has been widely publicised, which prompted the SARU member to accuse the World Cup winning coach of not being forthright in his motives after telling White that he would need to re-apply for his Springbok coaching position, and also accused him of immorally garnering public support to have his position extended. Not forthright is something that I wouldn't label an individual who had previosuly released a tell all book.

The audacity of this man even went so far that Hoskins refused to celebrate on the field with Thabo Mbeki and the players after the final whistle or even welcome home the World Cup winning Boks in 2007.

And then there was Sunday's press conference where he accused SANZAR of bias - again - and said that Peter de Villiers summons to appear for the judicial committee made him extremely angry. Just by the way, Jannie Lubbe, the judicial officer of SANZAR is not Australian, nor is he a New Zealander - he is indeed ... a South African.

So what's the point of this post ? It's quite simple really - and as pointed out by a fellow colleague of mine - South African Rugby has weak leaders, those that are continually out- negotiated, out-thought and out-witted by more intelligent and savvy counterparts and then accuse the organisation of ill-treatment.
They have yet to learn the 'art of complaining', and would prefer to squeal, whine and moan and only after receiving what looks like unfavourable treatment, do they then take a step back and admit that they should have dealt with the situations differently. Unfortunately - as this week's announcement proves, the chances of them maturing in their ways looks as slim as ever and the sport once again, finds itself precariously balanced on the whims of idiots.

As this colleague also pointed out, we often say and believe that the cream always rises to the top, but on careful inspection, so do other not so tasty objects.

EDIT and UPDATE : I almost forget to mention the SASOL sponsorship pull out ... so where is Oregon going to get that 25 Million from now ? Oh yes - of course ... let's just make this week's Test tickets in Soweto R 500 each and with 60 000 people expected to pay for those - voila, there's 30 Million.

So all the speculation has been ended and the All Blacks will start favourites in their big clash with the Springboks in Soweto on the 21st August.

There has been a lot of talk about who will kick off the more fancied team, with New Zealand, already almost assured of the Tri Nations, getting the nod ahead of their opponents and 88 000 expected supporters after 4 straight wins in the tournament at an average of 4 tries per game.

I personally feel that this match could be billed as South Africa's biggest test so far this season, and although it is always difficult - sometimes impossible - to travel over to New Zealand and win matches, it is always expected that the world's 2nd ranked team ( on official standings - not current performance ) should have the upperhand back on home soil.

But to put things into stark perspective - this time last year, the Springboks faced up against the All Blacks as 7 point favourites, eventually recording a 31-19 victory and followed the week after with the same margin victory over Australia, proving the tirelessly debated point that the current World Champions have entered a rapid decline in international rugby.

Whether a fanatical home crowd will be the necessary injection or whether the leaders will eventually lead and turn this current debacle around is anyone's guess, but it will be interesting to see if SA can overcome it's 4 point start.

Back to all things local and Western Province will start 8 points ahead of the Blue Bulls in this weekend's headline clash at Newlands on Saturday. Province, who have waltzed through their first 5 matches of the campaign rightfully top the log, while the defending champions Blue Bulls have stuttered through their respective openers, proving beyond a doubt that depth is a major problem at Loftus and that, without their International squad members, the Bulls are decidedly mediocre.

The Lions will be looking for their 2nd win of the tournament as they entertain the Cheetahs, although bookmakers are firmly in the belief that it will be the Free State based side that will take home the points and have thus given them an 8 point handicap.

In Friday's games, the Griquas are expected to resurrect their season following last week's home demolition at the hands of Western Province with a 15 point start against the visiting Pumas, while a lack of surprise sees the Sharks lumbered with more than a 3 try start against the Leopards on Friday.

... can anyone tell me why Tony Woodcock wasn't banned after his citing hearing after smashing Faingaa in the back ?

Apparently the citing commission also found no reason to bring the prop in for any belated sanction. I honestly believe that Jonathan Kaplan had a superb game and controlled it brilliantly, but surprising for a man who is renowned for no-nonsense refereeing to find just cause for a stern talking too for an offence that could have, and probably should have, been at least a yellow.

If I am wrong with my view, and doubt that I am, then maybe someone out there can explain the situation.

Just remember that it was a South African ref, so conspiracy theories go out the window.

Just a quick post regarding yesterday's Tri Nations match as I feel something needs to be said. Feel free to use it or lose it.

First off - as with most observers, I do feel that Craig Joubert had one of the better games of the series from a referreeing point of view, so well done to him.  Saying, that, however, he made a diabolical call, that, if gone against South Africa - the papers, forums and blogs would have been alive with yet further consipracy theories and that the Springboks are the only ones suffering at the hands of these 'cheating referees'.

Dan Carter's charge-down try, directly after Australia had scored under the same circumstances was a blatant offside call missed by Joubert. The kick from Berrick Barnes was partially charged down by Carter but then rebounded off Ma'a Nonu's leg and was then retrieved by the fly-half ( who at the time was way in front of Nonu ) and carried over the goal-line. That, in anybody's rule-book, is a penalty to the opposing side, and no matter which way you look at it, it was not a legitimate try. The AB's then fully capitalised on their good fortune and asserted their authority from that point.

Drew Mitchell's red-card, whether warranted or not, would have caused further outcry on these shores and a TV ref not awarding a perfectly good try - as in David Pocock's effort - would have just about ended up as proof of cheating.

What I am saying is simple - teams make their own luck and calls will go for, and against you - that's just the nature of the game. I have spent quite a bit of time going through Australian publications, and although some of them say that Mitchell's red card may have been a bit harsh, there is no mention of Pocock's disallowed try and even less about Carter's 5 pointer.

I'm not intimating for one second that the All Blacks weren't full value for their win - in fact, they were quite brilliant, as they were when they beat SA by 20 points and 14 points in consecutive weeks. But their opponents yesterday simply admit that they were outplayed and will move on to next week. 

Please don't all get all flustered and write me a letter - I'm just highlighting the fact that those events did happen yesterday, it cost Australia a chance for a bonus point, but South African refs are not being called cheats by the losers this morning.

Let's try it sometime.

And one more thing to add -  a yellow card is not necessarily a disaster. You can score if you play smart and have the right attitude.