J Mac was Melbourne Captain and no longer has allegiance to Melbourne. He flatly denied any tanking took place and he would know.

All will be ok.

No you haven't. All you have said is that my head is 'in the sand.'

What strategies can be considered tanking, but not be prosecutable, but still be so heinous those in charge should be 'cleansed'?

Which strategies?

Brad Miller playing in the midfield comes to mind. That was a ripper.

I wish i had a copy of the SEN call of the Richmond game. It was quite amazing. K.B. was speechless as he finally realized Tanking was actually an issue.

Now rp you may not agree with my arguements here, but when the coach of the day looks down the barrel of a camera and says it happened (in a diplomatic way) Please do not tell me strategies were not put in place to give the club the best chance to win no more than 4 games in each of 2008-09 seasons, thus gaining priority picks.

In the context of higher draft picks for finishing lower the following strategies

• Season ending surgeries/rehab?
  
• Removal of older players for younger players?
  
• Experiementation with player positions?
  

Can be pursued for one of two reasons

1. Legitimately using the above strategies to set the players and team up for the following year, trying out new roles etc in anticipation of drafting, building a better team etc... OR
   
2. Using the above strategies to ensure we obtain higher draft picks through losing.
   

The actual motivation behind these strategies is unable to be proven as most would claim reason 1 was the rational.

My view is that we were doing it for both reasons and given the prize (high draft pick) that we probably drifted toward the second reason (The moral slip).

We should not be punished for it because the motivation is impossible to prove and every other club is playing the same game, and has done for over a decade without sanction.

Finally we should hold those leading the club responsible for bringing the club into disrepute by playing it so close to the line (and porentially crossing the line), i.e they let the lure of the high draft pick effect their judgement and have brought the club into disrepute. Same kind of flaw Adelaide is dealing with.

So you agree with wyl that what we did was so terrible that those in charge so go but not so terrible that we should be punished?!

That is some threading of the needle...

don't twist my words rp.

The AFL could well punish us very severly. But whether that punishment stands up in a court of law is another matter.

2 different paths.

Brad Miller playing in the midfield comes to mind. That was a ripper.

I wish i had a copy of the SEN call of the Richmond game. It was quite amazing. K.B. was speechless as he finally realized Tanking was actually an issue.

Now rp you may not agree with my arguements here, but when the coach of the day looks down the barrel of a camera and says it happened (in a diplomatic way) Please do not tell me strategies were not put in place to give the club the best chance to win no more than 4 games in each of 2008-09 seasons, thus gaining priority picks.

We absolutely designed our playing list and game day strategies to lessen the likelihood of winning.

That isn't tanking.

Tanking is telling players to lose. Because that is the only thing that can be proven to be tanking:

EXPERIMENTATION

Miller in midfield. Pfft. What about Garland in the forward line? Dunn in the backline? Bennell on the ground? We we tanking this season?

Experimentation is not tanking.

LIST MANAGEMENT

Retiring players and removing seasoned pros has a devastating effect on immediate playing ability. But it also allows McDonald to be placed on the list at 53 and Jurrah (eyes roll) in the PSD.

List management is not tanking.

SEASON ENDING SURGERY/REHAB

Player welfare is paramount and takes on significant importance in losing years. Protecting investments in losing years is perfectly fine.

Season ending surgeries/rehab is not tanking.

So please tell me again how we tanked and why I am wrong? And why those in charge are culpable for something that is not prosecutable.

Sorry if this is repeating what has already been said -too many pages to read.

But I note that some have said that we can't use as a defence the fact that other clubs should also be investigated. They use the analogy of getting caught speeding etc. But there is a difference. MFC is in competition with other clubs under the AFL's system. My bush lawyer instincts suggest that we would have cause to claim we were being unfairly disadvantaged if they failed to investigate other clubs.

The AFL will not let anything happen to us because they are the ones to blame for making a corruptible system.

To give a club pick 1 and 2 in the draft if they win less then 4 games two season's in a row is just asking for trouble.

The way the Draft system works you can't blame a club to start losing game if they have no chance in making the finals.

What do you get out of coming 9th? Nothing.

What do you get for coming 18th? The crack at the best young player in the country.

You get a reward for coming last so what do they expect is going to happen?

Every Club does it.

And another thing, we lost (Scally) that pick anyways to GWS So it not like we gained anything anyways.

Plus that game against Richmond we could have won if they didn't kick a goal after the siren.

Playing semantics with the definition of the word "tanking" does not remove the moral flaw of trying to milk the system (get high draft picks) while claiming to be doing other wise (win every game of footy).

The tragedy of our fascination with high draft picks that lead us to become "comfortable" losing games is that it is based on the belief that the MFC cannot rise honestly through hard work but must try and "bend the rules to rise...

A moral weakness founded on a profound lack of self-belief.

J Mac was Melbourne Captain and no longer has allegiance to Melbourne. He flatly denied any tanking took place and he would know.

All will be ok.

I don't understand why you think "he would know", or for that matter why any of the leadersship group would be told anything

If there was any policy of experimentation (or whatever you wish to call it) by the coaching dept then you would expect the players would absolutely be kept out of it

Involving the players would be a whole different thing.

EXPERIMENTATION

Miller in midfield. Pfft. What about Garland in the forward line? Dunn in the backline? Bennell on the ground? We we tanking this season?

We played a big body centre half forward in the midfield called Brad Miller and then delisted him. We played a big body centre half forward called Matthew Bate in the midfield and then .....................

We played Warnock and Frawley at full forward and centre half forward kept one and the other left for gold coast. We played Rivers and Garland at centre half forward and full forward and kept one and...................

The hysterical part about our experimentation is Neeld did exactly the same this year !!!!!!

GWS' whole season has been about experimenting, playing youth, resting youth and even persisting with a Rugby League convert who didn't get a kick. Fairly sure the coaching panel werent trying to win every game they played in. Tanking?

The essence of the whole debacle is the notion that the goal of any teams season is to win each and every game at what ever cost whether it be advantageous or detrimental to the clubs longer term or overall strategy of winning a flag at some juncture when its "window" peaks.

Any competition will have events or fixtures that simply dont suit every competitor to go flat out at every opportunity. Footy is no different. if you arent at the point of jump off, yo dont suit up.

Any event or sport requires you to pace. You "go" when it suits. Yo dnot do it to advantage every one else do you.

We absolutely designed our playing list and game day strategies to lessen the likelihood of winning.

That isn't tanking.

Tanking is telling players to lose. Because that is the only thing that can be proven to be tanking:

EXPERIMENTATION

Miller in midfield. Pfft. What about Garland in the forward line? Dunn in the backline? Bennell on the ground? We we tanking this season?

Experimentation is not tanking.

LIST MANAGEMENT

Retiring players and removing seasoned pros has a devastating effect on immediate playing ability. But it also allows McDonald to be placed on the list at 53 and Jurrah (eyes roll) in the PSD.

List management is not tanking.

SEASON ENDING SURGERY/REHAB

Player welfare is paramount and takes on significant importance in losing years. Protecting investments in losing years is perfectly fine.

Season ending surgeries/rehab is not tanking.

So please tell me again how we tanked and why I am wrong? And why those in charge are culpable for something that is not prosecutable.

This where I struggle - to punish a club for a crime you have define the crime - bringing the game into disrepute - without proof (we went out to lose games) all you have is rehashing of age old practices - maybe more blatant - but the AFL cant prosecute on something subjective - as AD has said all along - bring proof of tanking and they can prosecute.

GWS' whole season has been about experimenting, playing youth, resting youth and even persisting with a Rugby League convert who didn't get a kick. Fairly sure the coaching panel werent trying to win every game they played in. Tanking?

I think GWS quite clearly falls into the first category Paul alluded to: "Legitimately using the above strategies to set the players and team up for the following year, trying out new roles etc in anticipation of drafting, building a better team etc..."

Playing semantics with the definition of the word "tanking" does not remove the moral flaw of trying to milk the system (get high draft picks) while claiming to be doing other wise (win every game of footy).

No, it is the single most important part of the debate.

Sorry if this is repeating what has already been said -too many pages to read.

But I note that some have said that we can't use as a defence the fact that other clubs should also be investigated. They use the analogy of getting caught speeding etc. But there is a difference. MFC is in competition with other clubs under the AFL's system. My bush lawyer instincts suggest that we would have cause to claim we were being unfairly disadvantaged if they failed to investigate other clubs.

We don't need to use the other clubs as a defence - to sanction us the AFL would have to specifically spell out what we did to receive the sanctions - if they go with the games where our experimentation was questionable the howl from the media scrum over other clubs would be deafening. Without proof subjectively sanctioning the MFC opens up a pandorra's box that the AFL does not want opened.

I spoke to a WCE mate of mine as I was hazy on what they did and he just giggled and said "Darren Glass was the worst full forward of all time - his leading and kicking were crap but his NikNating was sensational"

Sorry if this is repeating what has already been said -too many pages to read.

But I note that some have said that we can't use as a defence the fact that other clubs should also be investigated. They use the analogy of getting caught speeding etc. But there is a difference. MFC is in competition with other clubs under the AFL's system. My bush lawyer instincts suggest that we would have cause to claim we were being unfairly disadvantaged if they failed to investigate other clubs.

Like an alleged murderer claiming that someone else getting off murder somehow mitigates his crime...I dont think so.

you cant offer lollies then spank the hand that takes them.

This where I struggle - to punish a club for a crime you have define the crime - bringing the game into disrepute - without proof (we went out to lose games) all you have is rehashing of age old practices - maybe more blatant - but the AFL cant prosecute on something subjective - as AD has said all along - bring proof of tanking and they can prosecute.

I agree. However I think from my perspective of a Melb supporter, I'd like to know how the club is going to deal with the actions of "whomever" bringing the club into disrespute?

This squalid episode has eroded the brand of the MFC. A front page article in The Age stating we have acted with dubious morals need a response by the club. No to refute it but to work out who and why we've allowed ourselves to be in this dubious situation. It requires some self examination, honesty and action to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Edited October 30, 201212 yr by PaulRB

We absolutely designed our playing list and game day strategies to lessen the likelihood of winning.

That isn't tanking.

stop there my friend.

What you have said above is the very essence of Tanking & what the club did.

With a very clear vision.

I have never believed players are involved in tanking. That could be life threatening to not be switched on 100%.

"But too lesson the likelihood of winning" is absolutely Tanking in a nutshell

It comes down to motive.

It's fine to not have winning as the main priority, but If "experimentation" is done with the clear aim of losing AFL matches, as opposed to testing players in different positions for the purpose of development, these are two very different scenarios.

If the former can be proven, it is what the media have dubbed to be "tanking", surely. I can't see how it can be argued otherwise. It's not so clear cut that only directing players to lose is tanking.

If tanking revolves around winning 4 games or less.

We obviously tanked this year. It couldn't have been the game plan could it?

As for 08/ 09 It couldn't have been the game plan? We didn't have one.

We don't need to use the other clubs as a defence - to sanction us the AFL would have to specifically spell out what we did to receive the sanctions - if they go with the games where our experimentation was questionable the howl from the media scrum over other clubs would be deafening. Without proof subjectively sanctioning the MFC opens up a pandorra's box that the AFL does not want opened.

I agree. I was just pointing out that the 'other clubs do it' defence was not unusable as some had argued. I just hope the media howling would indeed happen. It's not too paranoid to fear it might not if some other bright flashing object got their attention.

stop there my friend.

What you have said above is the very essence of Tanking & what the club did.

With a very clear vision.

I have never believed players are involved in tanking. That could be life threatening to not be switched on 100%.

"But too lesson the likelihood of winning" is absolutely Tanking in a nutshell

This, however, is not good:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/tanking-affair-afl-to-lift-the-lid-on-melbournes-vault-20121030-28h3c.html