Caroline Wilson's descent into gutter journalism

[binman 43,170]

4. Why would theAFL allegedly leak this story? Why would they chose to leak it to Caro? Why did an AFL source allegedly leak the Misfud story and when it was proven baseless who looked stupid? Why have they chosen to leak the story now after four months of investigation at the same time that Adelaide is under investigation for serious issues and Israel has chosen to sneak out the back door? Why would the AFL compromise the 3rd-party perception that the investigation will be fair and honest by allegedly leaking small amounts of information or allegations?

I very much doubt the AFL has leaked info about this investigation, nothing to gain in my view. I suspect CW has got all her info from people who have been interviewed and/or from people close to people who have interviewed. She than has written in a way that makes it sounds as if she knows all about the investigation.

I guess the investigators would have warned those they were interviewing to keep quiet, but given the number of people interviewed (and the fact most were ex employees with axes to grind) there was a huge chance of info leaking out. Though it is strange that appear only to have leaked to CW - perhaps that indicates only a small number of people have leaked.

I would love for the AFL to interview CW, demand to now the source of her info and when she refused remove her AFL press accreditation. Not going to happen but it makes me chuckle to think of it.

The other interesting thing relates to proof. CW said that IT specialists had gone to MFC last month to check employee emails. Well that could have been the end of October or the beginning of October (and any where in between). Either way if there was something incriminating it would have been found by now (how long would it take to search through a few thousand emails).

If incriminating evidence has been found and the AFL was leaking CW would know about it and would report it. If they found something and there was no AFL leak they would, I assume, be very keen to get on with sanctioning us so as to not unduly muck around with the draft. I reckon if we have not heard something by the end of the week from either CW or the AFL about incriminating evidence they probably don't have any. Without it they will find it very hard to sanction us if all they have is testimony from disgruntled ex employees present at the so called secret vault meeting.

[Wilson7 2,681]

and that it was most likely a joke illuminates on whom the joke will resound !!

Why do people keep saying he said this as a joke ? None of us know if it was a throw away line trying to be humerous. I have a bad feeling more is yet to come.

[Redleg 40,994]

Perhaps Wilson should be charged for bringing the game into disrepute, for making it appear an AFL Investigation has leaked info to a journo.

[Deecisive 1,709]

The AFL has supposedly said that this investigation will end all speculation on tanking, yet this investigation only involves Melbourne.

Hawthorn, Collingwood, Westcoast and Carlton are 4 powerhouse clubs that rarely end up near the bottom of the ladder but each club did so for only the necessary 2 years winning 4 games or less so they gained priority draft picks that have paid off for all of them handsomely. Strange how the priority pick system seems to have benefited/ been milked by the rich and powerful more so than the weaker clubs. The idea that other clubs excuses such as we are having a poor season so lets send guys for surgery early is acceptable is rubbish. How many times have clubs done this in the past when there were no priority draft picks up for grabs. The Kruizer cup was clearly a tank job that the AFL sanctioned, as was allowing Juddy to go to Carlton, and allowed his salary at Visy not to be included in their salary cap. Again the AFL looking after the rich.

The only way I can reconcile the AFL closing off the tanking debate once and for all is to not charge Melbourne with tanking but some other offense. Therefore if melbourne did not tank other clubs did not tank, so the tanking saga can be closed. I would see the justification for this would be that the players did not tank, but there was evidence that the coaches were not trying as hard as they could have. Having said that there is no proof that Melbourne would have won even if they did try.

[Wilson7 2,681]

That's my take on it. And is my assertion not more logical than the proposition that he actually meant what he said ? Who really thinks that Connolly would say if we win games you'll lose your job and believe he meant it ? It's no doubt the type of joke that comes back to haunt you if you've got disgruntled ex-employees plotting your demise.

Im hoping you are right mate

[machine11 142]

Perhaps sour carro knows the evidence can never really proove tanking therefore wants to get her little puff of spluff out beforehand.

[Wilson7 2,681]

[media=]

James Brayshaw v Caroline Wilson

Check this video out from Brayshaw v Wilson, go to 2:00.....Wilson has a history of reporting stories as fact when she has no evidence. She makes me sick.

Edited November 4, 2012 by DavidNeitz9

[diesel 420]

Why do people keep saying he said this as a joke ? None of us know if it was a throw away line trying to be humerous. I have a bad feeling more is yet to come.

Why does Wilson believe this is rock solid evidence of trying to loose games? Of course the answer is it suits her agenda. But you could not possibly hang or excuse him either way without context. It is true that Connolly injects a fair amount of humour into a lot of what he says.I actually laughed about the reference to the Cavalry coming to get them if they won more than 4 games because we were in the gun from half way through the season from all quarters that we would be viewed as having failed if we DIDN'T get the priority pick.

[Wilson7 2,681]

Why does Wilson believe this is rock solid evidence of trying to loose games?

I see it the same way as you Diesel, am just hoping there is not more to it than a simple throw away line otherwise we are screwed.

[Sir Why You Little 37,053]

[media=]

James Brayshaw v Caroline Wilson

Check this video out from Brayshaw v Wilson, go to 2:00.....Wilson has a history of reporting stories as fact when she has no evidence. She makes me sick.

it will be interesting to see if G Lyon can work next to Wilson next year regardless of any outcome.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,235]

BH, as you'd appreciate, this investigation was kicked off by a bogan making spurious comments on a chat show...not some formal complaint.

When libba made comments that were much more serious (for their clarity and given his position) that investigation was a comparative sham. Not sure where the "rules" were then; not sure why there is such a disparity of effort. I'd also understand that, if the process of this investigation is fundamentally different (in terms of resources or time for example) that this fact alone would be biting in to question the 'independence' and nature of the processes enacted against Melbourne.

This needs to 'go legal', our best chance to get the afl to think of an alternative solution.

Two things to mention;

• The current investigation was kicked off while Demetriou was overseas at the Olympics
  
• This is the only investigation into tanking to date undertaken by the AFL's new/expanded integrity department - the prior investigations were low level compared to this one so you'd think they should be re-opened and investigated just as vigorously as this one has been
  

[Sir Why You Little 37,053]

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/terry-wallace-admits-not-trying-in-afl-game-to-secure-trent-cotchin/story-e6frf3e3-1225752963181

How about you write a full investigation into this Wilson??

An admission by the senior coach of the day here....

Make a good story for at least a week....

"Tigers Tanked to get Cotchin"....

[hoopla 418]

Two things to mention;

• The current investigation was kicked off while Demetriou was overseas at the Olympics
  
• This is the only investigation into tanking to date undertaken by the AFL's new/expanded integrity department - the prior investigations were low level compared to this one so you'd think they should be re-opened and investigated just as vigorously as this one has been
  

I think this is a very salient point.

We attack Vlad ... but lets give him some credit. He knew that a full blown tanking investigation could only lead to trouble for the AFL - and so he played it down. There is no doubt that the competition ( through the damage to one of its clubs) has lost money through Wilson's hysterical coverage of this investigation. Would McLean's self-serving whinges has received any credence if Demetriou had been around?

http://www.foxsports...3-1225752963181

How about you write a full investigation into this Wilson??

An admission by the senior coach of the day here....

Make a good story for at least a week....

"Tigers Tanked to get Cotchin"....

Its a story Wilson. If you are a fair-minded investigative journalist you will be on to it .The fact that refers to a football department that has since been moved on is irrelevant................. and if the investigation you advocate finds even one pro tanking assertion in the vicinity of the Punt Rd Oval .......... you will label the Tigers a "disgrace"

Prove that all us Melbourne supporters have been wrong questioning your motives ............ here's your chance!

Edited November 4, 2012 by hoopla

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

I'm sensing that this story has taken a different tack. Todays AGE has the Wilson rant buried well down the list of AFL related stories, number 11 in fact. Why would they lead with this story yesterday, and then by today try to bury it amongst the rest of their AFL related stories. I have a suspicion that Wilson hasn't got anything else to throw at us or maybe has been told to pull her head in. The AGE's senior Editor's would be trying to gauge which way the wind is blowing on this one and might have come to the conclusion that the story is running out of legs or starting to track negatively for them. I also like many on this forum get the Impression that we are being subjected to a public trial via the media with the AFL's tacit approval.It seems fairly obvious that information is being leaked from the investigation to the media. Why would they do this if they had sufficient evidence to act through the normal channels. Is it because as I believe, that they don't have sufficient evidence. I have a gut feeling that their investigation has faltered. This could be interpreted in several ways, are they either trying to flush out more evidence or is this one way of punishing us whist also sending out a clear message to all other clubs, whilst knowing that they will not be able to act against us once the finding are released? Why has all of this information been released two weeks ahead of the investigation deadline for reporting? Two weeks is an eternity in the media life cycle and the story could well be dead come reporting day. Then again I could be wrong and this could just be the calm before the storm. Either way it seems to me as though the AFL has deliberately compromised it's own investigation.One further point to consider. Wilson appears to have been the chosen AFL attack dog in this matter. This in itself seems strange given her strained relationship with AFL. I might be reading too much into this and crediting the AFL with Machiavellian prowess beyond their due, but given Wilson's obvious vendetta against Schwab, did they choose her because they knew that she would over step the mark as per Saturdays article. In effect deliberately compromising their own investigation whilst irrevocably damaging Wilson's own reputation within the Industry. Yeah a bit far fetched I guess but a nice thought though.

Well said and not beyond the realm of possibility. I think its particularly interesting that they chose Caro to leak if they were the source of the leak (and by F i doubt it was anyone in MFC! )

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

No one else heard the rumour about us being charged with bringing the game into disrepute?

Incidently a bloke at work plays golf with someone that was allegedly in the room. But that someone apparently rarely gives ANYTHING away unfortunately.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Norm Smith's Curse

[Norm Smith's Curse 2,602]

The Jimmy fell out of bed comment - even in the context of how Caro has written it in a way to sound inflammatory - was just so obviously a joke.

[Pirlo 813]

From years ago, how does she like it?

http://www.vexnews.com/2008/09/cruel-age-sports-writer-caroline-wilson-sledges-paralympics-as-not-really-like-sport/

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Half the people in the room were recruiting people who have nothing to do with match day and are not coaches. To tell the whole room that you will all be sacked is obviously a joke. Then he leaves. He is trying to be funny which he has done at every function I have seen him at.

So he comes uninvited into a meeting and says "you will all be sacked if we lose the draft pick and Jimmy has fallen out of his hospital bed" and then leaves. Gee that sounds real serious. If he wanted to tank he need only quietly mention it to Bailey not in front of 15 witnesses.

Get a grip, it's a bloody joke.

Get a grip?

Re-read the context in which I wrote it, I was merely passing on the information, not making a judgement on the issue.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Clint Bizkit

[DEE fence 5,029]

Not sure which thread to put this in, seems like a few more could be merged

As a former Policeman (not a gun investigator but qualified enough to say calm the procreation down), I have been quite amazed at some of the things written in the news and on the forum, so wanted to add my two cents.

1 first of all it is a civil, not criminal matter so the rules for a finding of fact are based on 'balance of probabilities' not 'beyond a reasonable doubt') findings are based on evidence, heresay unless certain exemptions are made, cannot be allowed into evidence. 99% of everything I have read has not been direct evidence but would be dismissed after consideration by a judge. Mr. Haddad is mentioned as a UN investigator this means nothing but it does sound good. If he had been with the armed robbers squad or the hommies then I would take him a little more seriously, but he was not appointed via any balanced recruitment process, nothing personal but he is just a good soldier not Dirty Harry. Any reasonable silk will take large chunks out of a statement by a peanut like Brock, you can make statements too good and they look cooked when you read them.

2 a witness can only provide evidence of what he or she saw, so former sponsors ... Meh means nothing except 2" of news print.

3 there are literally dozens of witnesses, does anyone have any idea how long this would take to hear and depose, think Milperra Bikie Massacre, that took two years this would be longer, no one is going to be up for that not the AFL not the club (actually I'm wrong the lawyers would love it). My point being that if the AFL hits us with punitive sanctions we should make very clear to our board that we want them to challenge them in court, I really deeply believe a compromise will be worked out that doesn't gut the club.

4 there was no direct profit or financial misconduct, while draft picks are gold, their tangible value is very hard to debate, they cannot be redeemed for cash and which individual profited? there is no criminal conspiracy to defraud (a criminal charge) unless you had the board as a group put there hand up and confess, which considering their personal financial positions, they would not jeopardize, and even then proving the 'for benefit' bit would probably set a legal precedent. My point is in other areas that the AFL has come down hard on there has been a clear financial trail, whether gambling or salary cap rorts. In this case it's 60 different muppets all with a slightly different tale to tell, can anyone really prove what Bailey did as a result of a conversation with Connolly or Schwab?

5 football clubs have always sat slightly outside the law, this has caused me much consternation because I am a great believer in the rule of law, which directly conflicts with my love of the club. I think the AFL gets this and that is why they have generally been keen to stay away from the courts. AFL is part of Australian culture that is why it has been cut some slack in the past and will continue to do so-Societies being protective of their culture (I could tell you about some really obnoxious cultures I see here in Africa). For all the [censored] we hang on the AFL it's been pretty good at moving forward, thuggery, violence towards women, alcohol, and race are all issues that they have been moving forward on over a period of time to make sure the good aspects of our football culture remain, I don't think they will tear all that down which is what would happen if they really tried to kill us over tanking. The good aspect of football culture that stands out for me is getting a group of young men to play together for a common purpose and with each other, it breeds good people and allows an outlet for all the crap that goes with being young and male, short of sending them to the army or on a cattle drive. But it is a fine thing to balance collective responsibility (the club ) versus individual actions ( the player ), and sometimes this loyalty means that societies rules get bent in a football club, for the greater good I'm happy with that because they (the afl) have been getting rid of the excesses mentioned previously.

6 The AFL got the priority pick thing wrong, the lesser evil for them will be to amend the rules and incentivize winning games over draft picks via a lottery.

This is typed on a dinky widget so please excuse typos/ grammar/spelling mistakes.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,633]

it will be interesting to see if G Lyon can work next to Wilson next year regardless of any outcome.

After watching this I now have a new found admiration for Grant Thomas. Always thought what a jerk but his dislike of Caro is now obviously well founded.

[GawnWithTheWind 604]

Jon Ralph, Robbo and Caro have all been spammed with questions around Viney and what happens if we lose 27.

None of them have answered, because simply I dont think they know.

There is no precidence for this situation, so whatever the AFL do, will be completely new.

IF we are found 'guilty', lets hope we can challenge and prolong the issue and possible sanctions

[jackaub 1,402]

Why does Wilson believe this is rock solid evidence of trying to loose games? Of course the answer is it suits her agenda. But you could not possibly hang or excuse him either way without context. It is true that Connolly injects a fair amount of humour into a lot of what he says.I actually laughed about the reference to the Cavalry coming to get them if they won more than 4 games because we were in the gun from half way through the season from all quarters that we would be viewed as having failed if we DIDN'T get the priority pick.

If she has EVIDENCE then she must make it available to AFL for scruitiny. If she doesnt or hasnt then she shold be roundly critised and charged with bringing the game in to disreput. She cannot be allowed to continue unfounded vitriol with out being challenged directlyShows you how pissweak the AFL and the chief really are

[Pirlo 813]

Jon Ralph has surely outdone her with the accusation that benching Jurrah after scoring a goal is considered tanking.

[machine11 142]

Jon Ralph has surely outdone her with the accusation that benching Jurrah after scoring a goal is considered tanking.

Wow tanking is rife in the AFL on a weekly basis... this needs to be stopped!

[demonoid 317]

Liam Jurrah's benching in 2009 game against St Kilda doesn't make sense

Now I've heard it all. This is just clutching at straws stuff. I do believe that Bruce comes on here from time to time and would love to know how he feels being dragged into this.