While the obvious elements of how officials or participants might be able to influence the outcome of a contest were covered, the draft policies also included an all-encompassing prohibition.

The theory was that those engaged in just about any sport should not be able to wager on their own or any other because the circles in which they moved made them more likely to be in possession of certain information than the ordinary punter.

In other words the intention was that wagering off the field should be on as even a playing field as the contest on it.

And the proponents of this idea were dead serious.

It has since been watered down a fraction and so in most national sporting organisation policies the prohibition is on "providing inside information that is considered to be information not available publicly".

This is considered to be very broad and includes such things as individual fitness or form, team composition and configuration or tactics. The only exemption covers bona fide media commitments.

But the core principles remain on preventing participants betting on outcomes which they can influence.

This means no betting on any event connected with the participant's own sport.

Then there's deliberately under-performing to affect the outcome - better known as tanking - or deliberately fixing or influencing any occurrence during the event which might have implications on a wager.

There are others including ensuring that a particular incident that is the subject of a bet actually occurs - even of course if that might be helpful to the athlete or their team in winning.

There's a lot of words, prohibitions, process and sanctions but in the end it basically comes down to one thing - if you are involved in any way don't bet!

That there was a part or parts of all that Jaidyn Stephenson did not comprehend during his player induction into the AFL or during the regular player education sessions our elite players are required to undertake under their contractual obligations is stunning.

In his case he is a full time footballer - clearly with enough time on his hands to be engaging in multi-betting on sport.

He and his cohort are well-paid to do one thing - train for and play AFL football.

There are obligations that go with that - and some of them go to the very integrity of the game they play. So too for their coaches.

It is simply unacceptable for an influencer like Nathan Buckley to come out and say that his player is some sort of hero or role model. Or that the penalty seems a bit harsh.

The boy did the wrong thing, copped a whack and everyone around him should simply accept that. Buckley probably thinks his words send a good message to others who might in future transgress - that if they fess up then something can be forgiven.

Both to his own players and every other man or woman in the country playing sport, Buckley's message should unequivocally have been that Stephenson's behaviour was wrong - no ifs, buts or silver linings.

If he couldn't do that he should have said nothing at all.

Because as a few observers have commented over the past couple of weeks - if indeed there is an increase in crowd anger then maybe a part of that could be due to the amount of betting on matches. That's only going to get worse if there's any perception at all that players could be inappropriately influencing the outcome.

And that applies not only to the overall match results but on any single occurrence in the game on which we are now able to bet.

Gambling on football and other sports is not going to go away.

What must be eliminated is any thought or action on behalf of any participant that they can be part of it.