AFL investigation

[beelzebub 23,382]

what a good idea, we need representation there.

touche

Can you fix it so !

Edited January 10, 2013 by belzebub59

[Redleg 41,420]

Won,t we all be lost when the footy starts and this crap is behind us.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Is there any evidence, we just don,t know?

Interesting point on draft tampering. You are right, the AFL draft tampers with its fixture, allowances,extra large lists for some, etc.

Also resting players affects matches and is draft tampering as well. Taking players off late in a game is also affecting results and would be draft tampering.

The rules and definitions are basically flawed and the AFL wouldn't, want them exposed.

Not to mention less than 6 day breaks between games.

[Redleg 41,420]

Not to mention less than 6 day breaks between games.

Yes I covered that in the word fixture, with its myriad of advantages and disadvantages.

I think the word fixture is meant to mean " arranging a list of games " not " assisting with the fixing of them".

Edited January 10, 2013 by Redleg

[Deestroy All 14,266]

Hes the king of bagging people down,

Is that like tea-bagging?

[daisycutter 29,731]

Won,t we all be lost when the footy starts and this crap is behind us.

i dread the thought redleg

[titan_uranus 25,043]

Titan there are question marks after each of my statement. I was asking H_T questions.

I can't prove we tanked (subject to the definition) but you can't prove we didn't. That's why there is discussion. My views are in my penultimate post. That's my view.

You're kidding, right? You're saying that the fact that no one can prove we didn't tank is a reason to say we tanked?

Nah, surely you're kidding.

Surely.

[Macca 17,032]

First of all, there's the '3 minutes of fumbling', now it's the supposed 'tanking' in a game we actually won .

You've got to wonder whether Vlad read over the 800 pages of 'evidence' . Or maybe he did, but it's hard to imagine someone of Vlad's street smart ways letting both of these utterly absurd accusations go through .

Both the fumbling bit and 'tanking win' bit couldn't be too difficult to disprove so why on earth are they part of the 800 page dossier? Why would you weaken your own case?

We could use these 2 ridiculous 'charges' as a way of breaking down the whole case . Use their own evidence against them . All accusations contained in the 'tanking win' could be disregarded in other games that have been looked at and if they've mentioned 'fumbling' in other games then all 'actions' related to fumbling could be disregarded . (if, of course, we first disprove intentional fumbling and have the 'tanking win' disregarded)

Just use your imagination on what fumbling is connected to - one example is : we fumbled the ball, they picked it up and kicked a goal With regards to the 'tanking win', anything they mention in that Port game (for instance, some positional moves) could therefore be disregarded in other games (losses)

If one more 'absurd' charge happens to surface then this whole saga is going to look like more of a farce than it already is .

[Hannibal 5,814]

You're saying that the fact that no one can prove we didn't tank is a reason to say we tanked?

Nah, surely you're kidding.

Surely.

Oh dear.

[BarnDee 287]

We might just make the magic number before this is over.

whats the magic number , ? 69 or 100 , ? i just know i cant keep up, !

[Cards13 9,117]

Things go quickly when you're fired up. I should've been doing my real job as well...

Media scratching the surface for Dees tanking evidence

I've just slapped it on my blog as a draft.

Need to read through it all and finish it off with another par, but want to send this on tomorrow. Feedback (some of it) welcome.

Couple of spellings, Col 3 "math" was other one I saw.

Great start and the facts against the [censored] the Hun highlighted is mind boggling. How can they get away with making such false claims?!!!! Robbo dropped the week prior?! Sylvia was in middle of 3 match ban?! F me. Is there no media watchdogs?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Why is that?

It just means we comprehensively beat his teams when we played them.

We embarrassed them.

Maybe you've interpreted it a different way, but I didn't say I beat him up, or bullied him, or used dirty tactics against him.

So many people with comprehension issues these days...

Anyway, the guy was a flopper, consistently tried to milk frees, ducked his head, took short steps and was a smart arse to boot.

So that's what I think of him.

I am not sure it was every relevant what you did at bball and I did note you did said "Has been from a young age when I used to beat up on him in footy & basketball."

And you and Jay may have more in common than you think.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You're kidding, right? You're saying that the fact that no one can prove we didn't tank is a reason to say we tanked?

Nah, surely you're kidding.

Surely.

FFS, he is not saying that at all. Go and re read.

Oh dear.

Indeed.

[Macca 17,032]

Get set for fumbling to become a stat this season . Teddy Hopkins will be salivating at the chance to add another item to his 'Champion Data' system .

Dream team participants will be having nightmares trying to figure out which players are the 'fumble kings' . The fumbles category might end up rivaling the 'Key Performance Indicator' for top billing .

Edited January 10, 2013 by Macca

[dee-luded 2,959]

Is that like tea-bagging?

Hah, a liptons jiggler?

[Guest José Mourinho]

I am not sure it was every relevant what you did at bball and I did note you did said "Has been from a young age when I used to beat up on him in footy & basketball."

It wasn't really relevant, it was self-indulgent.

And if you don't understand the vernacular, it's not my problem.

But it doesn't necessarily mean what you may think it does.

And you and Jay may have more in common than you think.

A bit like you and Kim Jong Il..?

[markc 975]

Won,t we all be lost when the footy starts and this crap is behind us.

but i am sure we will find something else to argue over ! ... well heated debate in some cases

[Dee Fan 3,247]

You would have to think that it would be in Melbourne's best interest to get this matter finalized, so I would hope that they don't wait until the end of the month to answer the allegations. If they have to wait until the commissioners meeting then its out of our control but hopefully they can get it under way before then.

God knows it will reduce the angst on this board.

[Slartibartfast 17,592]

You're kidding, right? You're saying that the fact that no one can prove we didn't tank is a reason to say we tanked?

Nah, surely you're kidding.

Surely.

Titan put me on "ignore", you'll find it easier that way.

[Demonsterative 3,020]

What? Just Titan?

[Slartibartfast 17,592]

What? Just Titan?

No, anyone who doesn't want to read my posts. That would be good.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

No, anyone who doesn't want to read my posts. That would be good.

Perhaps you should try writing letters to yourself and returning them unopened.

[Undeeterred 3,124]

A bit like you and Kim Jong Il..?

Ahhh, Jose, you're back... That's the spirit.

Made me laugh out loud.

[rjay 25,075]

whats the magic number , ? 69 or 100 , ? i just know i cant keep up, !

The way we are going we're going to blow the first one out of the water.

[rjay 25,075]

You would have to think that it would be in Melbourne's best interest to get this matter finalized, so I would hope that they don't wait until the end of the month to answer the allegations. If they have to wait until the commissioners meeting then its out of our control but hopefully they can get it under way before then.

God knows it will reduce the angst on this board.

Would like to think it was out of the way before we hit the NAB cup. With the evidence to date you would have to think it will be a distant memory by then.