THE TIMING OF THE SHREW by Whispering Jack

"No shame but mine. I must, forsooth, be forced

To give my hand, opposed against my heart

Unto a mad-brain rudesby, full of spleen

Who wooed in haste and means to wed at leisure"

William Shakespeare The Taming of the Shrew

Imagine if the Age newspaper published an opinion piece tomorrow on Adrian Bayley, accused killer of Jill Meagher, in which the author pronounced him guilty beyond any doubt of murder even though the trial is months away? What if it was suggested that the appropriate punishment for such a heinous crime was nothing less than life in prison to be served in solitary confinement for the next ten years?

There are those who care little for the rights of the accused in such circumstances but in reality, it is the respect for those rights that is the very cornerstone of our democratic society. Without the rule of law, our society sinks into the realm of the uncivilised.

Three years ago, the Council of the International Bar Association passed a resolution endorsing this definition of the rule of law:

"An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client; equality of all before the law; these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law."

What this means is that in the context of the AFL's current investigation into the Melbourne Football Club's activities in the same year as the passing of the above resolution, there is no place for sensationalist opinion pieces such as that written by Caroline Wilson and published yesterday in the Age. Wilson may well know more than she's letting on but playing judge, jury and executioner based on the evidence presented by her this week is not helpful to her reputation as a journalist or to her readers' understanding of the matter.

What she has done is to treat her readers to rumour, innuendo, supposition, double meaning, lack of context, smoke and mirrors and general palaver that may or may not stand scrutiny in a court of law.

Most of it fails to address the basic fact that for a decade before 1999, the AFL and its leadership set a certain standard as to what defines "tanking", the loose word that's supposed to describe the offence being investigated.

During that period, there was an almost annual outcry about one team or another deliberately trying to lose games to achieve a better outcome in the draft and the AFL condoned the practice as long as it didn't involve a direct order to the players to lose matches.

After the infamous Kreuzer Cup in round 22, 2007 an employee of the "losing" team, Carlton spoke about his concern about how that game was played. The AFL's investigation lasted about 15 minutes after which the world was told there was nothing to see here; move along.

The message was loud and clear. Once your season is over in terms of your capacity to make the finals, you can send players off for surgery, play them out of position, interchange them when they're firing and, if you're permitted to do that, then surely you're also allowed to meet and discuss such things among yourselves, joke about them and even brag to your sponsors that things are going to get better next year because you managed to pick up a priority pick?

I was never comfortable with this but, as Patrick Smith pointed out in the Australian yesterday, the AFL's position has always been based on Andrew Demetriou's narrow definition of tanking.

"Demetriou's understanding allows for only direct action taken on the field of play - instructing a player to deliberately kick a point when a goal would have won the match - as tanking. According to Demetriou, putting inferior players on the field, resting elite ones, playing others in unsuitable positions, taking influential players off the ground are all examples of list management and experimentation. They do not define tanking."

So what is Wilson telling us when she describes Melbourne's conduct in 2009 as shocking and awful? That it was worse than those other clubs including West Coast, Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn, the Western Bulldogs, St. Kilda and Fremantle that have lost sufficient games to qualify for priority picks but have (to date at least) not been investigated by the AFL?

That the investigators have already found the club guilty even though it has yet been charged, has not seen the evidence against it or had the opportunity to put forward the case in its defence?

I look at that definition of the rule of law above and I can only conclude that the Age and Wilson have trampled all over Melbourne's rights in the past week. If the AFL has been involved at all in supplying her with information/conclusions then they've created a fine mess for themselves and are about to help a lot of lawyers to educate their children at expensive private schools.

Not only that, but Wilson has been disingenuous in the way in which she's gone about her business and in the timing of her articles. Her stories this week remind me of this famous scene from the Pink Panther -

Inspector Clouseau was led by the concierge to believe that the dog on the floor in front on him didn't bite but he omitted an important fact - that it wasn't the concierge's dog. Who knows what manner of tanking Wilson's been writing about this week but is it the sort that would enable the AFL to apply sanctions against Melbourne without opening a Pandora's can of worms involving half the other clubs in the competition?

Finally, what is it about Wilson and Demon CEO Cameron Schwab? Apart from a reference to him appearing "grim-faced" after Melbourne's third win of the season when the club was still two wins away from losing a priority pick (perhaps the chicken vindaloo at the president's lunch was off that day?), I don't quite see what he's done to deserve the gallows.

Strangely enough, I've yet to find a Wilson article involving Schwab in which she has anything nice to say about him. It's almost as if there's a deep-seated rift between the Wilsons and the Schwabs going back centuries all the way to Shakespearean times, one that evokes visions of a shrewish Liz Taylor, mouth frothing and begging to be tamed. Taylor, of course, was acting.

A very good read, thanks WJ.

Wilson's vitriolic attacks on the club are so over-the-top that they seriously harm the tone of discussion, creating a block to measured response.

She has created an implicity threatening environment by allusions to the crimes of the Melbourne Football Club being so outrageous that a taint will fall upon anyone defending the club or seeking deliberation which also considers the behaviour of several other clubs prior to and since then.

Interestingly, the 'chatter' on this is slipping to the point where only Wilson, Jeff Kennett and Demetriou seem to still be bent on the pound of flesh from the Demons. The Herald is swinging both ways, while Patrick Smith, and Wilson's colleague Denham, Flanagan and Niall have all given more measured opinions, each hinting at the hypocrisy of targetting Melbourne alone, and even going so far as to suggest that the fish is rotting from the head at AFL HQ.

Interesting times.

Edited November 4, 201212 yr by Little Goffy

The best thing the AFL could do is bury this investigation, quick and smart.

Can you just imagine a ruthless QC calling witnesses from other clubs?

THE TIMING OF THE SHREW by Whispering Jack

"No shame but mine. I must, forsooth, be forced

To give my hand, opposed against my heart

Unto a mad-brain rudesby, full of spleen

Who wooed in haste and means to wed at leisure"

William Shakespeare The Taming of the Shrew

Imagine if the Age newspaper published an opinion piece tomorrow on Adrian Bayley, accused killer of Jill Meagher, in which the author pronounced him guilty beyond any doubt of murder even though the trial is months away? What if it was suggested that the appropriate punishment for such a heinous crime was nothing less than life in prison to be served in solitary confinement for the next ten years?

There are those who care little for the rights of the accused in such circumstances but in reality, it is the respect for those rights that is the very cornerstone of our democratic society. Without the rule of law, our society sinks into the realm of the uncivilised.

....

Strangely enough, I've yet to find a Wilson article involving Schwab in which she has anything nice to say about him. It's almost as if there's a deep-seated rift between the Wilsons and the Schwabs going back centuries all the way to Shakespearean times, one that evokes visions of a shrewish Liz Taylor, mouth frothing and begging to be tamed. Taylor, of course, was acting.

Love your whole post WJ including Inspector Clouseau.......................... but your final paragraph is right on the money.............

Pretty much sums it up and Ive been saying similar for a few days.

Agree with your final comments Jack.

For those who are not aware -

Cameron's Father was secretary of Richmond for some years and a Life Member when he died in unusual circumstances in 1993.

At the time Cameron was the Tiger's CEO.

Wilson's Father was previously Chairman of the Tigers.

Cameron moved to MFC in 1997 and I believe the feud between Wilson and Schwab has been ongoing.

Wilson is taking every opportunity to stick the boots in and in so doing is damaging the MFC.

Nasty vindictive b**ch.

THE TIMING OF THE SHREW by Whispering Jack

"No shame but mine. I must, forsooth, be forced

To give my hand, opposed against my heart

Unto a mad-brain rudesby, full of spleen

Who wooed in haste and means to wed at leisure"

William Shakespeare The Taming of the Shrew

Imagine if the Age newspaper published an opinion piece tomorrow on Adrian Bayley, accused killer of Jill Meagher, in which the author pronounced him guilty beyond any doubt of murder even though the trial is months away? What if it was suggested that the appropriate punishment for such a heinous crime was nothing less than life in prison to be served in solitary confinement for the next ten years?

There are those who care little for the rights of the accused in such circumstances but in reality, it is the respect for those rights that is the very cornerstone of our democratic society. Without the rule of law, our society sinks into the realm of the uncivilised.

Three years ago, the Council of the International Bar Association passed a resolution endorsing this definition of the rule of law:

"An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential communications between lawyer and client; equality of all before the law; these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law."

What this means is that in the context of the AFL's current investigation into the Melbourne Football Club's activities in the same year as the passing of the above resolution, there is no place for sensationalist opinion pieces such as that written by Caroline Wilson and published yesterday in the Age. Wilson may well know more than she's letting on but playing judge, jury and executioner based on the evidence presented by her this week is not helpful to her reputation as a journalist or to her readers' understanding of the matter.

What she has done is to treat her readers to rumour, innuendo, supposition, double meaning, lack of context, smoke and mirrors and general palaver that may or may not stand scrutiny in a court of law.

Most of it fails to address the basic fact that for a decade before 1999, the AFL and its leadership set a certain standard as to what defines "tanking", the loose word that's supposed to describe the offence being investigated.

During that period, there was an almost annual outcry about one team or another deliberately trying to lose games to achieve a better outcome in the draft and the AFL condoned the practice as long as it didn't involve a direct order to the players to lose matches.

After the infamous Kreuzer Cup in round 22, 2007 an employee of the "losing" team, Carlton spoke about his concern about how that game was played. The AFL's investigation lasted about 15 minutes after which the world was told there was nothing to see here; move along.

The message was loud and clear. Once your season is over in terms of your capacity to make the finals, you can send players off for surgery, play them out of position, interchange them when they're firing and, if you're permitted to do that, then surely you're also allowed to meet and discuss such things among yourselves, joke about them and even brag to your sponsors that things are going to get better next year because you managed to pick up a priority pick?

I was never comfortable with this but, as Patrick Smith pointed out in the Australian yesterday, the AFL's position has always been based on Andrew Demetriou's narrow definition of tanking.

"Demetriou's understanding allows for only direct action taken on the field of play - instructing a player to deliberately kick a point when a goal would have won the match - as tanking. According to Demetriou, putting inferior players on the field, resting elite ones, playing others in unsuitable positions, taking influential players off the ground are all examples of list management and experimentation. They do not define tanking."

So what is Wilson telling us when she describes Melbourne's conduct in 2009 as shocking and awful? That it was worse than those other clubs including West Coast, Carlton, Collingwood, Richmond, Hawthorn, the Western Bulldogs, St. Kilda and Fremantle that have lost sufficient games to qualify for priority picks but have (to date at least) not been investigated by the AFL?

That the investigators have already found the club guilty even though it has yet been charged, has not seen the evidence against it or had the opportunity to put forward the case in its defence?

I look at that definition of the rule of law above and I can only conclude that the Age and Wilson have trampled all over Melbourne's rights in the past week. If the AFL has been involved at all in supplying her with information/conclusions then they've created a fine mess for themselves and are about to help a lot of lawyers to educate their children at expensive private schools.

Not only that, but Wilson has been disingenuous in the way in which she's gone about her business and in the timing of her articles. Her stories this week remind me of this famous scene from the Pink Panther -

[media=]

Inspector Clouseau was led by the concierge to believe that the dog on the floor in front on him didn't bite but he omitted an important fact - that it wasn't the concierge's dog. Who knows what manner of tanking Wilson's been writing about this week but is it the sort that would enable the AFL to apply sanctions against Melbourne without opening a Pandora's can of worms involving half the other clubs in the competition?

Finally, what is it about Wilson and Demon CEO Cameron Schwab? Apart from a reference to him appearing "ashen faced" after Melbourne's third win of the season when the club was still two wins away from losing a priority pick (perhaps the chicken vindaloo at the president's lunch was off that day?), I don't quite see what he's done to deserve the gallows.

Strangely enough, I've yet to find a Wilson article involving Schwab in which she has anything nice to say about him. It's almost as if there's a deep-seated rift between the Wilsons and the Schwabs going back centuries all the way to Shakespearean times, one that evokes visions of a shrewish Liz Taylor, mouth frothing and begging to be tamed. Taylor, of course, was acting.

LoL HaHaHa,,,, well done Jack. best read, your knowledge, & a beautiful piece.

I wonder what G Lyon has had to say to her, assuming they speak outside the Footy Classified season.

Magnificent piece of writing. Please submit it to the editor of the Age so he can read an intelligent piece of creative writing and compare it with the rubbish Caro is spewing out

It's now clear Wilson truly doesn't care about any variation to presentation of MFC's '09 season. She is bent on a course to bring down the CEO and she's not going to let pleas for 'natural justice' get in her way, hence her brain snap column Friday evening which went further than targeted the CEO but took aim at everyone at the club or those who support it.

I've never warmed to Cameron Schwab myself but his job is (was) to do what is in the best interests of the football club. If he doesn't (hasn't) then history will judge, not a reporter with a vendetta.

Excellent Jack... an intelligent and witty piece that is obviously beyond CW!

It is certainly very clear that Wilson genuinely despises Schwab: does anyone actually know why?

But this personal hatred is severely compromising her performances as a professional journalist and the CEO, Chairman or Editor-in-Chief of "The Age" should do what they are paid to do and pull her into line. They are already losing readership.

Thank you for this most eloquent post. It's the finest piece of writing I have seen on Demonland, and encapsulates my views perfectly of the whole situation. Very well done.

A very good read, thanks WJ.

Ditto. Your comments make a lot of sense. Hope the AFL reads your article. Maybe get it published in the AGE? Letters to the editor?Well done Jack.

It is certainly very clear that Wilson genuinely despises Schwab: does anyone actually know why?

Just in case you missed it Monocular, I've no doubt gsmith12's information below has something to do with it

Agree with your final comments Jack.

For those who are not aware -

Cameron's Father was secretary of Richmond for some years and a Life Member when he died in unusual circumstances in 1993.

At the time Cameron was the Tiger's CEO.

Wilson's Father was previously Chairman of the Tigers.

Cameron moved to MFC in 1997 and I believe the feud between Wilson and Schwab has been ongoing.

Wilson is taking every opportunity to stick the boots in and in so doing is damaging the MFC.

Nasty vindictive b**ch.

I'm sure somebody will draw this out into public arena shortly. Surely her poison will come back to bite her - and her paper - one day

If The Age is losing readership, it probably has more to do with the print versus electronic media than with particular articles, or perhaps even The Age's perceived political bias.

To return to the issue, a great piece on legal rights Jack - well done.

My concern is more related to reality - what if CW is onto something, or in fact is eventually proven fundamentally correct? What if MFC is guilty beyond what has been accepted in other cases? Where does that leave the club? Legal rights have a tendency to take a back-seat in situations such as these. The AFL is presumably the final arbiter in such situations, as they have been before. What if?

If The Age is losing readership, it probably has more to do with the print versus electronic media than with particular articles, or perhaps even The Age's perceived political bias.

To return to the issue, a great piece on legal rights Jack - well done.

My concern is more related to reality - what if CW is onto something, or in fact is eventually proven fundamentally correct? What if MFC is guilty beyond what has been accepted in other cases? Where does that leave the club? Legal rights have a tendency to take a back-seat in situations such as these. The AFL is presumably the final arbiter in such situations, as they have been before. What if?

One things for sure - if we are to get a fair trial we'll have to make sure that no-one who has read the Age gets on to the jury !!

What if she isnt? What if shes counting on something turing up in the river to bolster the flimsy hand shes actually holding .

Her agendas arent driven by facts just rage.

Edited November 4, 201212 yr by belzebub59

Just for the record - CS joined MFC in 1982 - straight out of school I believe. He then moved on to other positions.

My concern is more related to reality - what if CW is onto something, or in fact is eventually proven fundamentally correct? What if MFC is guilty beyond what has been accepted in other cases? Where does that leave the club? Legal rights have a tendency to take a back-seat in situations such as these. The AFL is presumably the final arbiter in such situations, as they have been before. What if?

I think those are fair questions to ask, but one of the reasons why reporters on legal cases aren't meant to report anything that can be prejudicial. How can the investigators be asked to deliver a completely unbiased finding when every single day CW is jamming down everyone's throats that we are guilty as sin and acting as executioner before they've come to the conclusion?

Thinking to the future and possibilities isn't a bad thing, but we can't really control that, we've got to stay in the present and hope the club will fight to the (hopefully not) bitter end. You could go mad with the what ifs.

"That the investigators have already found the club guilty even though it has yet been charged, has not seen the evidence against it or had the opportunity to put forward the case in its defence?

I look at that definition of the rule of law above and I can only conclude that the Age and Wilson have trampled all over Melbourne's rights in the past week. If the AFL has been involved at all in supplying her with information/conclusions then they've created a fine mess for themselves and are about to help a lot of lawyers to educate their children at expensive private schools."

Well said WJ!

Melbourne must start legal action as the damage is already done no matter what the investigators find and deliver any sanctions

Now is the time to be on the front foot Come on Melbourne

Fantastic piece!

Should be sent into Media Watch with the concerns over Wilson's reporting.

Just for the record - CS joined MFC in 1982 - straight out of school I believe. He then moved on to other positions.

This is true - but he soon moved back to his Richmond roots - before quitting to take a senior recruiting position with us as gsmith12 has described

I wonder what Steve Harris does these days? He was the cheif editor at the age wasn't he.