AFL investigation

[rpfc 28,084]

I will not get into a slanging match with a FH who donates a lot of time and money to our club.

With all due respect, that's a cop out and you know it.

RF is happy to play the ball and get physical, you can ignore his inference if you want to but don't [censored] down my neck with some deference to the FHs. Brock McLean is a FH.

Hell, even Schwab is a FH...

[Mono 455]

I will not get into a slanging match with a FH who donates a lot of time and money to our club.

Offensive and unacceptable. Back off, RobbieF is a respected and passionate contributor here.

If you have a personal grouch, get a room.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Actually that opinion was formed after getting to know him very well before and during his playing career, the person was my father who became good friends with many other footballers who studied PE at Rusden ie Peter Curran, Chris Connolly etc. Healy was always a massive ego

I'm sorry to hear that, that you found him like that.

He wasn't like that with myself, so thats all I can go on. However I had seen him since he had some issues a while back & did find him trying to be friendly but aloof.

I was also distant.

I'd like to catch up with him again over a couple of beers & see whats goin on.

[baysidedave 246]

Hearing rumours that the AFL will officially charge the club, Connolly, Bailey & Schwab with tanking. Don't shoot the messanger but my sources are usually pretty good.

we'll fight it to the death

[loges 6,767]

interesting reading on the tanking thread over at ology, hope its not true.

From the comments on ology it appears as though comments were made to Wilson which she then passed on to the AFL. She was at one stage coming out with a new allegation every few days, then when the MFC announced the appointment of their legal man her articles immediately dried up. It is one matter to make comments to a reporter, it is another to stand up in court and repeat them!

[Deeman 1,479]

I'd like to catch up with him again over a couple of beers & see whats goin on.

You might want to ask the arrogant sod about this pearler -

http://thedailymaggot.com/?p=2585'>DNA testing reveals Gerard Healy to be Naitanui’s father

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Offensive and unacceptable. Back off, RobbieF is a respected and passionate contributor here.

If you have a personal grouch, get a room.

FH = Foundation Hero

Chill out.

[dee-luded 2,959]

FH = Foundation Hero

Chill out.

This isn't the Coles $64,000.00 question.

If thats what it is they should type it.

Way to much abbreviating of uncommon words.

[Biffen 12,937]

This isn't the Coles $64,000.00 question.

If thats what it is they should type it.

Way to much abbreviating of uncommon words.

YOLO

[Biffen 12,937]

With all due respect, that's a cop out and you know it.

RF is happy to play the ball and get physical, you can ignore his inference if you want to but don't [censored] down my neck with some deference to the FHs. Brock McLean is a FH.

Hell, even Schwab is a FH...

We all are at times-let's face it .

[rpfc 28,084]

We all are at times-let's face it .

Well played, Biffen. Well played.

[Mono 455]

FH = Foundation Hero

Chill out.

I am suitably chilled. brrrrrrrrrr.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

This isn't the Coles $64,000.00 question.

If thats what it is they should type it.

Way to much abbreviating of uncommon words.

In this case it was a pretty obvious joining of the dots.

[dee-luded 2,959]

In this case it was a pretty obvious joining of the dots.

Rhino rhino, your so clever. way too for most here to even comprehend.

Us mere mortals are just human afterall, & some times abbreviations are more nuisance than help. You know that word, help.

Its intent is to be helpful. Yours?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I thought FH was pretty obvious in the context of its use to all but one poster who erroneously misjudged it.

And I wish you well in getting all the help you so richly deserve.

[beelzebub 23,254]

And we move on

[Redleg 40,445]

And we move on

You mean, AWMO.

[beelzebub 23,254]

You mean, AWMO.

most likely

[Rob Mac...... 638]

The AFL must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that actions taken by the coaches or players was different from those taken by other clubs and that these actions clearly slow an intention to loose games. If they cannot prove the above then it will not stand up in court.

If it goes to court it will be in "Civil", not "Criminal" court. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard of proof required in criminal cases only. Civil cases are decided upon the "preponderance of evidence," meaning if it appears more than 50% likely we did what we're accused of, then we lose, otherwise we win. Creating "reasonable doubt" is not enough to save us there, we must appear "more likely" not to have done it than to have done it. ......hence definitions of "tanking" (whatever that exactly means) etc. should become relevant.

Edited December 29, 2012 by Rob Mac......

[Whispering_Jack 29,370]

If it goes to court it will be in "Civil", not "Criminal" court. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is the standard required in criminal cases only. Civil cases are decided upon the "preponderance of evidence," meaning if it appears more than 50% likely we did what we're accused of, then we lose, otherwise we win. Creating "reasonable doubt" is not enough to save us there, we must appear "more likely" not to have done it than to have done it. ......hence definitions of "tanking" (whatever that exactly means) etc. should become relevant.

Ah yes ... the old burden of proof has been the undoing of many a legal Eagle.

Courts, burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, defining terms and working out what people meant when they said something or committed it to writing.

The music is like cash registers to the ears of lawyers ...

[beelzebub 23,254]

Ka ching !!

[pitmaster 3,483]

From the comments on ology it appears as though comments were made to Wilson which she then passed on to the AFL. She was at one stage coming out with a new allegation every few days, then when the MFC announced the appointment of their legal man her articles immediately dried up. It is one matter to make comments to a reporter, it is another to stand up in court and repeat them!

In the second (or third) article of the series she mentioned the families of players contacting the paper and suggesting that tanking had prematurely ended the careers of a couple of players.

It was clearly a reference to people responding to the initial article at least. That was as close as she went to identifying any kind of source for any of her claims.

[Biffen 12,937]

Ah yes ... the old burden of proof has been the undoing of many a legal Eagle.

Courts, burden of proof, on the balance of probabilities, defining terms and working out what people meant when they said something or committed it to writing.

The music is like cash registers to the ears of lawyers ...

The AFL have lost their legal advisor for this issue.

You should represent them on a "No win, big fee" basis.

[Whispering_Jack 29,370]

The AFL have lost their legal advisor for this issue.

You should represent them on a "No win, big fee" basis.

Me represent the AFL?

I reckon I could handle the gig but then, there's a fair chance that I'd probably tank.

[old dee 23,560]

Me represent the AFL?

I reckon I could handle the gig but then, there's a fair chance that I'd probably tank.

Oh No!