Australia news February 4, 2016

WA women's cricketer banned for betting on day-night Test


Piepa Cleary placed six bets totalling $ 15.50 on the day-night Test between Australia and New Zealand last November © Cricket Australia/Getty Images

A second Australian women's cricketer has been caught out betting on the game this summer, with Western Australia's Piepa Cleary suspended for six months by Cricket Australia for placing bets on the day-night Test in Adelaide last November.

Cleary, 19, placed six bets totalling $15.50 on various elements of the match between Australia and New Zealand, and like the previous transgressor, Angela Reakes, has been handed a suspended two-year ban.

However, in this case, the CA head of integrity Iain Roy chose to activate the first six months of that ban due to several "aggravating circumstances" including the fact that Cleary had made the bets two months after being present at a face-to-face anti-corruption training session from CA head of security Sean Carroll.

"We continue to remind all elite cricketers and officials that betting on any form of cricket is strictly prohibited," Roy said. "It is outlined in the anti-corruption education that we deliver annually, and is written into our anti-corruption code.

"Piepa has heard this message many times through the anti-corruption education sessions that we deliver and accepts that in placing the bets she exercised poor judgement. Bets totalling $15.50 might seem small but it doesn't matter.

"We take a zero-tolerance approach to any form of gambling on cricket by players in order to protect the integrity of the game. It has been made very clear that if Piepa breaches the code in any way again, she will receive a significantly lengthier suspension."

Christina Matthews, chief executive of the Western Australian Cricket Association (WACA), expressed her disappointment at Cleary's actions. "We are naturally disappointed that one of our players has been involved in an incident such as this," she said. "Cricket in this country is held in high regard for its integrity and it is important for the future of the sport that remains the case. The WACA understands and supports the sanctions that have been handed down in this instance.

"Piepa will have to work hard to regain some respect from this incident, but she remains an important member of WA cricket and has taken responsibility for her actions."

CA has 16 official betting partners, all of which have signed up to "assist CA in its ongoing management of the integrity of CA competitions, by agreeing to information sharing and other integrity requirements specified by CA".

Like Reakes, Cleary will now be compelled to form part of CA's anti-corruption player education programmes in the future, as an example of how not to behave.

Daniel Brettig is an assistant editor at ESPNcricinfo. @danbrettig

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • SR on February 5, 2016, 18:10 GMT

    So she bet on a match that she was NOT participating in, had NO say in the play and had ZERO control over and was punished? She bet on the men's match, correct?

  • David on February 5, 2016, 7:32 GMT

    I believe the incessant advertising of sports betting is detracting from the general public's enjoyment of sport in Australia. Administrators of all sports reap the benefits of this marketing (nothing less than attempted brain washing). Now they slap a young player with a suspension over a $15 bet and claim the moral high ground!!! Yes, the girl was stupid, yes she has been educated and has no excuse but who amongst the administrators is going to stand up and sort out this mess that is sports betting?

  • Muddy on February 5, 2016, 0:43 GMT

    So, we have a teenage player who's current best is to make the Aust A team for some OD games. She places six bets for a total of $15.50 on a MENS Test game and suddenly all sorts of corruption alarms are going off at Cricket Australia?

    Seriously what was she going to do? Fly to the ground, slip into the player's area because hey, all cricketers look the same to ground security, slide up to one of the test players when no one else is looking and say 'You know, I stand to will $8.25 if you take the most wickets in this test, so can you please try and get some reverse swing in the third innings'?

    Yes CA, the game is in safe hands with you guys.

  • Daniel on February 4, 2016, 23:36 GMT

    Women's cricket and men's cricket are essentially two different games. Unless women are expected to feature in the match, I don't see the difference between women betting on a men's match and betting on a soccer game.

  • Chris on February 4, 2016, 20:20 GMT

    $15.50. She wasn't going to get rich on that. More stupidity than anything. But yeah, rules are rules and 6 months is reasonable.

  • Edwin on February 4, 2016, 19:09 GMT

    Absolute lunacy. For those labeling her as a criminal, er it's perfectly legal to bet. The administrators should have had a clause that you cannot bet on a game where you have a direct, or indirect influence - but instead of using common sense which would expose their incompetence in not having clear guidelines, they uphold their bureacratic nonsense.

  • Satish on February 4, 2016, 13:52 GMT

    Maybe this was a test to see if she could get away with it. She probably thought nothing might happen even if caught due to low amount involved.

  •   Peter Lewis on February 4, 2016, 12:36 GMT

    What a joke. This shouldn't even be an offence and will hardly deter corruption. And as for the penalty - 6 months suspension for a$15.50 bet on a game she has less influence over than a male club cricketer. Consider some of the penalties handed to players for disgraceful on field behaviour.

  • Danish on February 4, 2016, 11:41 GMT

    This is justice. A crime is a crime, and I believe this does send out signals to other players and prevents these things to increase."Today $16; tomorrow $100,000"

  • Jim on February 4, 2016, 11:26 GMT

    This is a perfect example of enforcing a rule because it is there. The gains? Well, none. The losses? Derision from the public, resentment from the players involved, costs of administering the penalty, and so on and so on.

  • No featured comments at the moment.