I imagine most supporters are getting completely fed up with the tanking debate and CW's vile attacks but I just wanted to post the link for Patrick Smith's article on Oct 31 (he followed up with further articles on November 1 and 3)

A much more concise and realistic appraisal and pretty much says what most of us think - his last paragraph in particular.

THE AFL has more probes in action than NASA and the season ended more than a month ago. Staff refer to football operations general manager Adrian Anderson’s office as mission control. His chief investigator Brett Clothier has taken his job seriously and wears a spacesuit to work.

There’s the probe by the AFL Commission into Sydney’s $900,000 living allowance. It is a figure that has helped make an offer to Kurt Tippett, a contract that will pay him some $800,000 a year.

Then there’s the probe into Tippett himself and the secret and illegal deal struck by Adelaide, Tippett and his management company that saw the forward paid an extra $300,000 over three years and all outside the official player contract lodged with the AFL. There’s another complication. Adelaide agreed to let Tippett go at the end of his contract for a generous second-round draft pick.

There’s the probe into Lachlan Hansen, who came back on to the field after receiving a heavy knock to the head against Essendon in round 20. The AFL wants to ensure that concussion protocols had been followed.

And there’s the probe into tanking. Remember this was prompted when former Melbourne player Brock McLean appeared on Fox Footy, this time representing Carlton which he joined from the Demons at the end of the 2009 season.

Melbourne — along with a bunch of other clubs — had been accused of manipulating results to ensure it got the best draft picks. In 2008, the side won three matches and earned first pick (Jack Watts) in the draft. In 2009, it managed only four wins which gave it a priority selection and Melbourne had the first two picks (Tom Scully and Jack Trengove).

Asked whether Melbourne had endeavoured to ensure it did not win enough matches to risk its priority selection in 2009, McLean said: ‘‘I think you would have to be blind Freddy to not figure that one out.’’

Dean Bailey was sacked as coach of Melbourne towards the end of the 2011 season. He began his tenure at the Demons in 2008. At his news conference, Bailey said: ‘‘I had no hesitation at all in the first two years in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks. I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club and I did it. I put players in different positions.’’

Strangely, Bailey’s revelation almost 12 months before McLean came up with the sight-impaired Frederick, drew only a one-phone call AFL investigation. At the time, Anderson explained why no action was taken: ‘‘I asked Dean yesterday exactly what he meant by his comments, and what he said he meant was that he did play players out of their position as part of their development, guys like Mark Jamar playing forward and Neville Jetta on the ball.

‘‘He also said he meant that they allowed senior players to leave the club and get draft picks in return and pursue those draft picks.

‘‘He also said at all times he believed the players were playing to the utmost of their ability . . . I can’t see anything even close to an admission that (tanking) has taken place in this particular case.’’

The AFL opened a more vigorous inquiry following McLean’s comment. It is believed the AFL has evidence that a senior Melbourne official told a football department meeting that the club needed to tank to secure the best draft positions.

If this is true, the AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou has said the commission could expect to hand out harsh penalties to any clubs involved.

But, in truth, while this is a matter of grave concern, Melbourne has good grounds to argue that it was all but given the green light from the AFL to act in such a manner. Firstly, the AFL was adamant from top to bottom, that tanking did not take place. When questions were raised about games which saw odd positioning of players, weird match-ups, and confusing instructions from the coaching panel, the league officials would make excuses for the clubs.

Demetriou himself would say critics were confusing experimentation with tanking; list management with tanking; and youth policy with tanking. Demetriou was giving clubs their alibi and doing it with some force, arrogantly swatting down any critic whom he thought was mistakenly swapping normal end-of-season house cleaning with rumour and innuendo.

Yesterday, Demetriou denied to The Australian that the AFL had created, even sanctioned, the environment that allowed clubs to feel they could tank, immune from both discovery and prosecution. He even likened tanking to the problem of drug abuse in cycling. A lot of critics thought cycling was doped to its eyeballs but it could rarely be proved. Until Lance Armstrong was exposed. That analogy doesn’t work. At least cycling was testing and finding the odd cheat out. The AFL did not even investigate the commonly held view that teams were manipulating matches.

What gave clubs greater confidence that the AFL had given tacit approval to tanking was the fanatical way it was chasing down, naming and shaming, some poor officials who had placed innocent dollar bets on games in which they were not involved. If an AFL football department was so zealous that it would nationally embarrass harmless and minimalist punters but not even question bizarre tactics on the football field and at selection, then clearly football had turned a blind eye to tanking.

If the AFL heavily punishes any club for tanking, then it is a most hypocritical position to take. Ultimately they were doing something the AFL appeared to sanction.

Edited November 3, 201213 yr by The Embalmer

More measured than CW who is like a dog with a bone ATM.

Still a fair [censored] Smith although he at least lays the blame squarely with the AFL and acknowledges that it's a systemic problem and not just Melbourne's.