SCOTTISH sport is in danger of toppling from its place atop the moral high ground.

For years, while we lamented our inadequacies and grew increasingly disheartened with our inexorable slide down the rankings there was always the consolation that what we were watching was at least kosher, honourable and decent.

We may not have been the best but at least we were honest. Events of the past week, however, have now called that integrity into question. On Saturday a trio of judges made a decision so unexpected that it stunned an entire crowd of previously raucous boxing fans into near silence.

Ricky Burns may have performed heroically to continue fighting for 12 rounds after breaking his jaw but there was barely a soul inside the SECC or watching on television who didn't think the Scot had lost his belt to Raymundo Beltran following the conclusion of a fairly one-sided fight.

That the judges combined to score it a draw - one even awarding the fight to Burns by three rounds - did not sit easily with many and did little to diminish the view that boxing is a sport often influenced by "business and politics" as Beltran succinctly put it afterwards. Then came yesterday's announcement from Hampden.

The admission from Rangers' Ian Black that he had placed bets on his team not to win was another blow to the perhaps unrealistic notion that for whatever Scottish sport lacks in excellence it makes up for with decency.

Black effectively pled guilty to having breached Scottish Football Association regulations by betting on 160 matches, three of which were for his then-registered club not to win. Reports last night suggested Black had played in one of those matches for Rangers having placed a bet on his team to only draw. Regardless of the sums of money involved or whether Black did anything to directly influence the outcome of the match, here was a player taking to the field for a competitive game who stood to gain financially from his team not winning.

In those circumstances how could any player, consciously or not, be expected to perform to their best? In football, great play is made of the collective, of everyone pulling in the same direction. How could any manager or player trust a team-mate if there was a chance his motivation stretched beyond simply trying to win the match? Rangers last night offered very little by way of response to the verdict and the sanctions imposed.

Black's club manager, Ally McCoist, will address the media at lunchtime and may prove more expansive on the matter. There is little doubt, however, that Black's admission of guilt places the club in a difficult position. Could they stand by a player who admitted betting on them to not win a game having only last season sacked Francisco Sandaza for being duped in a hoax call?

The Spaniard could well feel aggrieved if Black was afforded a supportive arm by the club when he had not been offered similar backing. The speed and dexterity with which Black evaded a raft of reporters and cameramen as he exited Hampden yesterday afternoon - head down, not uttering a word - gave the initial impression that he had been severely punished for his actions. The verdict delivered minutes later, then, came somewhat as a surprise.

An effective three-game ban is the same as the punishment Dundee United's Gavin Gunning received recently for aiming a kick at Celtic's Virgil van Dijk, while a fine of £7500 is not thought to be much more than a week's wages for the former Hearts player.

If this case was, as had been suggested beforehand, going to form a precedent for any future breaches of gambling protocol, then the stance taken by the SFA's three-man panel could hardly be described as hardline or viewed as a deterrent. Last month Stoke City's Cameron Jerome was fined £50,000 by the Football Association for breaching betting regulations, while in June Andros Townsend of Tottenham Hotspur was fined £18,000 and banned for four months, three suspended, on similar charges.

Unlike Black, neither player had bet on matches they were involved in. The decision to only censure Black for betting on games he was involved in must surely now lead to a softening of the rules. There is a blanket ban on those players, management and other club officials who fall under the SFA's jurisdiction from betting on any games anywhere in the world, and PFA Scotland will likely now push for that to be changed to become competition-specific.

There seems little logic in depriving players the opportunity to bet on, for example, matches in the Barclays Premier League or Serie A when there is little possibility of them having any influence on proceedings.

"This gives us the opportunity, all the legislators in the game, to have an open, frank and adult conversation about the current regulations," said Fraser Wishart, chief executive of PFA Scotland. "I think the question needs to be asked; is it appropriate, can it be policed, should it be reviewed and what should the outcome be.

"This is not just about players. I look after players but I've also got the good of the game at heart and that's got to be paramount in any discussions going forward. But let's have an adult discussion about it."

There was an acknowledgment also from Wishart, however, that pushing for players to be allowed to bet - when some in the game are battling addiction problems - could send out the wrong message.

"We've obviously got to balance that against the potential of gambling becoming a problem for players because it has been an issue for some of our members over the last few years."

The Black case will also likely cast the mechanics of the SFA's disciplinary system, and the role of compliance officer Vincent Lunny, back into the spotlight. When so many players admit to placing bets, and often putting pictures of their fixed odds coupons on Twitter, why was the Rangers player singled out? A system where anyone with a grievance can blow the whistle may require further tinkering. Black, though, has admitted his guilt. It can be considered another dark day for Scottish sport.