A FOOTBALL INQUIRY

Evening Star, Issue 15914, 21 September 1915, Page 7

A FOOTBALL INQUIRY

■ SOUTHERN-UNIVERSITY > •- MATCH. • GRAHAM AND DOUGLAS EX. FELLED FROM RUGBY. THE COMMITTEE’S WASHING- ' HP. ' The hands ■'of the clock were nearly round to midnight when the Otago Rugby Union Committee last night concluded a very exhaustive' inquiry, resumed from last Thursday Mght,- and lasting oloae on seven hours altogether, into eeriou’s allegations made against certain Southern players of not being “ triers ” -in . the Southern-University match of recent date. There was a full meeting of the committee, presided over, by Mr H. Harris, and the result of the inquiry was that two fixominent Otago and Now Zealand rep. or wards were expelled, from Rugby football, and motions were passed respecting the evidence of some of the witnesses at the inquiry. —Farther Evidence.— Si Casey was the first witness called last night. The Chairman said that a charge had been made by Eckhold against a Southern ■player, in winch he alleged that the playeriiad offered him a bribe to sell the match. He asked Casey if he could’ throw any light on the matter. , Casey : I don’t think I can. I have only hearsay evidence. The Chairman; You saw the match. What opinion did you form? Casey: I.don’t think or (the other player described by Eckhold in his letter as a “stoomer”) played up to their Usual form. The Chairman : Did anyone give you information that they were not “ triers”? Casey : Yes; a gentleman called me out of the room before the team went out and Ibid me was “dead.” Mr Irvine said he Lad heard the same remark, and told me to keep my eyes open, so I informed Mr Cavanagh. The Chairman; Have you any idea where the gentleman got Iris information ’ from ?

Casey : He .told mo ho got it from a raan_who works with The Chairman : Is that gentleman prepared to como before the committee? Casey : No. He.told mo not to give his name.

The Chairman i Do you know if he' had any reason tor making a statement like that if he did not think it was true? Casey ; I cannot say he had. Ho would not have given it to me unless he got it tiimself. He is a thorough gentleman. The Chairman; Did you Jiear any tumors prior to that ? . Casey: No ; I only heard it in the dressing room before the game started. , Tn answer to questions, witness said the player, whoso name had been mentioned by Lltkinson at the last meeting did not play Ms usual game. He was always a flash in the pan. Ho did not think the other two were trying to play their-usual game. ‘ “ C. Williams said all he could sav was .that Eckhold told him that he was offered a fiver. .He had a conversation with At—kin son on tho Sunday evening after the match. Atkinson told him that when hj" was going on to the field that one of the players said to him that if it was going to be a hard “go ’ let it go to ’Varsity, that there would be a couple of “quid” for him. He did not tell him the plaver’s same. . The Chairman: Did you take it that Atkinson took it that tho player ■was in earnest in. saying Avhat he did ? Williams; Yes. He said he would beMeve anything he was told in the way of betting on the match. -'U 1 ® Chairman: If Atkinson savs now that he did not take it in earnest, was that the impression he gave yon when he made the statement to you ? Williams: No. J ' . In answer to questions, witness said that foe was told before the teams went out that there was sometMng curious about the match. After witnessing the match, he thought there was lacking about it. ■ - ■■ ■- ■■•■■■■ ° 3 , player mentioned by Atkinson here etat-ed that -when in Christchurch there was an argument with Atkinson on amateur football. Knowing Atkinson’s views on the game, was it likely that he would offer Mm £2 to sell the match ? He knew t-tifli 11 strong yie WS on amateur football, and it was not likely that he would make an offer to him in earnest In answer to this player, Williams said it was hard to say if he played his usual S 3 !?®- He was erratic at times. _ J. Wootton said he heard a week before the match that something was gointr on but he heard no names mentioned’ Dedgerwoodr a vice-president, told Mm omthe Sunday before the match that he had heard sometMng He said a chap named (who was afterwards stated to be a referee) told him, and' that he was going to mig -Mm up later and let him into the joke. Ledger-wood said he would not have anything to do with it. On the following Friday night he heard a chap ask one of the players implicated if he was going to play on the following dav The player said ho did not know Vhether he could get off, and the chap said it did not matter whether he plaved or not Witness saw Brown on tho Saturday morning, and told him. what he had heard and to keep his eyes open. From this remark, and from what he had heard before he thought there was some funny business going on. ’ " V' 'The Chairman: You took it that it did not matter whether this player played or not, because Southern were not supposed to win?

Witness: That is how I took it.. J. Ledgerwood said that he went home with a certain gentleman on the Tuesday night. He thought it was before the match when the person remarked to him that he thought there was likely to bo Something doing in connection with the Southern-University match, and that lie world ring him up on the Thursday. Witness said he did not wish to have anything to do with it. He took it that there was going to bo a “joke” of some sort. He thought the conversation took place on the Tuesday night. It might have been on the previous week. In answer to questions, the witness said that ——• (a referee) was the name _of the gentleman who spoke to him. He had no conversation with him after that. He gave witness no names. Witness had heard so many . ruoh yarns going about Sojjth Dunedin that he never took the thing seriously. He bad a conversation .with Wootton either on the Sunday or the Wednesday. He informed him what he had heard. . The member of the Eofareea’ Association in mention who had the conversation with Ledgerwood said he heard, rumors about the match. He heard them first on the wharf at the beginning of the week. He ,did not take them, seriously, ' They were just jocular remarks, such, as “I don’t suppose Southern want to win on Saturday. It will make no difference to them.” He ’went out home with Ledgerwood on the Tuesday night, and he made a remark to him that he had heard rumors. Ledgerwood said that he had heard the same, adding'that surely there could be nothing in it. Knowing '.hat Ledgerwood wap a vice-president of the club, lie told him that if he heard anything he would let him know. The Chairman» Don’t you remember ■telling him that you would let him into th* joke? . . Witness: I never said it.

Mx Stuart: You don’t remember telling me that you told Ledgerwood on the Saturday night of the Canterbury match? Witness: No. In answer to further questions witness Bald that he heard no players’ names mentioned until' after-the rtatch. .A’tar seeing the- game he'thought it might hare been a more even one. In the second spell Southern went to pieces owiqy to the absence, of Eckhold. He could not give any information as to the names ox pemonS who had money on the match. Ho did not tell Ledgerwood that he would i fi b(vMBV.JSP at anj particular time.

W. .Rowlands, assistant secretory of the Southern, said, that he first heard rumors yhen going to the match He said hje 1 did believe'them. He knew of no reason * ny Eckhold should make his statement if it was not true. _ John Douglas said he knew nothing about the alleged selling of the match. He heard rumors after the match. The first player implicated by Eckhold bp. id he Lad no witnesses. He did not tnink any witnesses were wanted. His Wiord was as good as Eckhold’s any day in the week. He knew for a positive fact that Eckhold was offered money to play in the match to win. “He was offered the same as I was offered. I was offered a tenner to win—perhaps a. little more than Eckhold.” Tlie Chairman i You say you know it for a positive fad. The Player: Yes, from first-hand information. The Chairman; Can you give any information that will lead us to bring the facts out? • Ihe Player; The gentleman does not want Ins name brought into it, and I don’t want to bring It in. s ■ ■■ The Chairman: You say you were offered a tenner to win.

Tlie Player.: Yes, and in front of the i.outhern team, too. It was sung out from the rails.

The Chairman : When was it made? .The Player:'At half-time. Proceeding, the player asked why did not Mr Cavanagh or some of the others come to. him at half-time when they knew all about it. '

Thw Chairman said Mr Cavanagh asked at half-time if they were all playing the game, mad they said “Yes.” The player said the reason why Eckhold had come off was because.the crowd were tt Rating at ” him. Continuing, he eaid : I can seo it is no good. I reckon you am determined to take Eckhold’s statement against mine”

Ihe Chairman: Do you mean me or the committee?

The Player: You directly. • iho Chairman said h® took strong exception to this remark. Ho was there o conduct the inquiry in as impartial a manner as he' could. (Hear, hear.) It did not matter to him how the l inquiry went so long as it was fairly carried out. (Hear, hear.) The players retired. —The Findings*— the player first mentioned hy Eckhold as offering- him a bribe was considered first- 4

The Chairman said that the committee must either accept Eckhold’e statement or throw it out. Ho had given it in a straightforward manner. Though there might not have been any direct evidence implicating the first player mentioned, there was no doubt that thero had. been a lot of money on this match and a lot of suspicious circumstances. To a certain extent the evidence was circumstantial. iMr Sinclair; The question is: Had Eckhold any motive? .The .Chairman'said the committee had not discovered any. It appeared to him inconceivable that any player who had played with a man for years in both club and representative matches should make such a statement unless there was a reason for it. ' Mr S ancles said he considered Eckhold’s action in retiring at half-time substantiated his statement. The player had undoubtedly lied when he 'said he did not hear Eckhold accuse him on the ground. Brown (who was near to the player) had heard the accusation. Mr Stuart said he considered Mr Cavanagh’s statement was the strongest evidence they had. Mr Dunne said that it was a big thing, and they wanted to he very cai'eful in what they did, because he thought it was going to affect the positions of some of the men. The Chairman ; It is a big thing, whether it affects their positions or not. Wo have to come’ to what wo think is a correct decision. Mr Priest: I don’t see how wo can find a man guilty on merely another man’s word. VV q want some strong corroborative evidence.

The Chairman : First of all. you have to taka Eckhold’s letter. Why should he make a charge against another player if it was not true? Then you havq to take into consideration, the suspicious circumstances and the circumstantial evidence we have heard.

Mr Low said he knew tiro player in question, and lie did not feel convinced that the. man made the statement with the full idea of trying to get Eckhold over to him to lose "the match. He knew the player, and he knew his temperament. Every man must be judged by his temperament- in a matter like this. ' Mr Brown said that with regard to the player’s temperament Mr Low was quite right,' but in his (the sneaker’s) opinion Eckhold or any other player would not bring a _ charge like this if there was nothing in it. He was inclined to think there was a good deal in it. ’ Dr Evans said he had no doubt that the player was guilty. They had Eckhold’s statement and Mr Cavanagh’s explanation of his play. Ho moved—“ That the plaver (Graham) be found guilty of approaching Eckhold to accept a bribe to lose the match against University.””

Mr Sandes seconded the motion. He could not tee how the Committee could do otherwise than accept Eckhold’s statement, Graham denied it point blank, hut ho denied everything. He did not think that Eckhold was the kind of man to concoct such a charge without foundation. and especially without motive.

Mr White considered that the evidence all through was “fishy,” but he did not think it strong enough to convict any of the players. Mr Low was not in favor of taking a man’s character away on suspicion. . Mr Cavanagh said he did not wish to vote, seeing that he had given evidence. The motion was carried by 10 votes to 4, Messrs Nelson, M'Donald, Low, and Priest being the minority. In regard to the case against the next player the Chairman said that there was no charge against him so far as Eckhold was concerned. They had Atkinson’s statement about him oSering him £2 as they wont on the field. Mr Sandes said Atkinson made a statement, and then wanted to shuffle out of it. The player admitted the thing himself. It could not he taken as a joke. He told Atkinson if it was a tight game they were to let ’Varsity win and there would be £2 for him.

The Chairman: It is certainly a verv suspicions kind of joke, to say the least of it.

Mr Nelson and Mr Low both considered that the player had intended the offer to bo taken seriously. Mr Stuart " said that Atkinson’s statement was unsatisfactory until it was backed up by Williams that night. Dr Evans moved—“ That the player (Douglas) be found guilty of .approaching Atkinson to accept a bribe to lose the match.” \

.The motion was carried unanimously. The Chairman t We have not yet passed any sentences on the players. "They are automatically expelled under the rules of professionalism.

Mr Sandes said that nothing had come out in the evidence to substantiate a direct charge against the third player (mentioned as a “stoomer” in Ecfchold’e .letter). Ho, moved—“ That there is not sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge mad© against him.” Tho motion-was carried unanimously, —Ths Sentences.— Mr Sandes then moved—“ That Graham and Douglas he expelled from Rugby footba.l and warned off all grounds under the jm Miction of the union.” Dr Evans, seconded the motion, which was carried. —Some of the Witnesses.— Air Sandes said that the evidence given by one or two .ol the witnesses was not satisfactory. evidence given by - *n<l Ledgerwood was conflicting with regard to the conversation ‘the former had with the, latter. The formerly certainly told ~ Mr Stuart that he told Ledgerwood i the affair on the Saturday night of the Canterbury match, and now he denied it. Mr Stuart: came to mv office one day last week and distinctly said it was the Saturday he told Ledgerwood. Ho would point eut that WooTfcon said that

Ledgerwood told him of the affair on the Sunday, the day following. SLr Sandes moved—“ That the committee consider that the evidence given by -—— (the referee previously mentioned) isunsatisfactory, and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Referees’ Association.”—Carried. Mr Stuart moved and Mr Brown seconded—“ That the committee are of opinion that Ledgerwood, as a vice-president of the Southern Club, having information that the match was not to be genuine, should, have reported the same to the committee of his club.”—Carried unanimously. Dr Evans moved and Mr Dunne seconded—“ That W. Rowlands’s (assistant secretary of the Southern Club) attitude before the committee this evening 'bo viewed with disfavor.”—This was carried by 6 votes to 4. —Appreciation.— The final motion read—■“ That this committee express their appreciation of, the attitude taken up by Eckhold in connection with the case, and also to the Southern Club for the assistance given in the conduct of the inquiry.”—Carried unanimously..