AFL investigation

[BarnDee 287]

that was a great movie , sooooo funny must watch again some time ,

[McQueen 17,864]

Wrong.

It's still tampering, because its exactly the same action.

Even if it is unintentional.

Same action, same result.

Intent is irrelevant.

And very difficult to prove.

Yep.

Ultimately, clubs do whatever they have to in order to one day play off in a GF. Whether it's 5 years off or a fortnight before it makes no difference.

[Redleg 40,773]

Billy, we'll just have to disagree.

I agree with your disagreement.

[rpfc 28,220]

You can't legislate an action two different ways.

Fan wants to have his and eat it.

Either an action taken is 'taking the game into disrepute' or it isn't.

You can't say 'if a team in this position does this they are cheating' but 'if a team does the same thing in this position, then they are not cheating.'

And Billy is wrong. We did not take the game into disrepute by doing what teams do in losing seasons in a draft regulated sport.

As long as players do their best, their is nothing that can be specified as cheating: injuries, youth, experimentation, rotations, etc.

Find intent and you can talk about sanctions. Without that you are just wasting everyone's time.

[Sir Why You Little 36,891]

As much as we need to look out for DB in this, DB is in it to cover his own arse.

Again, this is trying to clear our tanking name, which I expect to happen. But I do expect CC to lose his job over his continual comments about staying the course.

I'll throw one blokes name out there that seems to be very quiet in all this, and isn't mentioned on here at all (individually that is). Josh Mahoney. A copy of his transcript you would think, would be an interesting read.

We shall disagree thus far Billy.

I will not throw anyone out yet, and that includes Dean Bailey...all involved members must work as one on this.

If DB thinks those Audio Tapes are going to save his arse, there is a good chance the MFC will too.....

[beelzebub 23,311]

that was a great movie , sooooo funny must watch again some time ,

Its a classic. Made my kids watch it...will make grandkids too, if and when , lol

Would be in my top 10 laugh films.. Blazing saddles, Flying High... and on and on

but Im in danger of veering off a cliff here

watch the road Bub.... back to that other Mad Mad Mad World.... The AFL !!

[Redleg 40,773]

How did we bring the game into disrepute?

If you bring disrepute, it should be obvious at the time it happens.

And you should be charged then, not 3 years later after the whole thing has been signed off as OK by the head man and virtually forgotten.

Good post. Have an investigation and then make public, private comments made three years ago which have until today had no concern to the AFL and then deem that disrepute. Wonderful!

[dee-luded 2,959]

Exactly, and McMahon was not a reliable kick for goal. Not one you would put your house on to kick it.

must have been why we left him loose like a goose on Ol' McMahon's Farm then? obviously wanted to lose, sure as the nose on Gene Wilders face.

[beelzebub 23,311]

Hmm..

We traveled along a long and dusty highway and at times the only glimpse of a destination was that motel we just passed. Bates ??

We've argued up, down , turn it around , back and forth and here we are all but right back where we all started, only we're not.

Around the corner and a couple of sets of lights to go and then we're home. We will be tired, annoyed, relieved and only slightly the wiser for this journey.

We still dont really know the reason we had to go on it. Who's idea was it really ? And why ?

I hope this club can sit down after all this and look at it clinically and study it forensically. Any elements of a cancer within the club must be sought out and lanced. Its right and proper that healthy competition be had for leadership at the club but this all goes beyond the pale. Hopefully the MFC can identify those within and outside the club that dont have our best interests at heart and provide them with a suitable relationship going forwards !!

They say whatever doesnt kill you will only make you stronger. To those that hoped for a devastated Melbourne. Look again, you failed.

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

Like you I've no interest in trawling through the AFL rules and don't think it's necessary as this case won't go to court.

Sadly i have far too much time on my hands. So i went looking for the AFL regulations.

I thought that a good starting point would be the AFL website. So off i went....got there....and typed in AFL regulation 19 (A5). No result.

But it did provide a link on the website to 'Laws of the game'.

Sounded encouraging....so i opened the link, and it said 'THE AFL did not enforce any rules changes for 2012.' following a recommendation from the Laws of the Game committee. Wonderful!!!!

So i thought i'd give it one last try - off i went to Google. I typed in 'AFL Regulations' and i found it!!!!!

Rules of Australian Football - United States!!!!

Do we need any more proof that the AFL is trying to bury this investigation? Rules? What rules?

[nutbean 8,838]

As long as players do their best, their is nothing that can be specified as cheating: injuries, youth, experimentation, rotations, etc.

Find intent and you can talk about sanctions. Without that you are just wasting everyone's time.

And at the risk of being repetitive and boring - intent can only be found if there is concrete proof that players were actually told not perform or there is proof that the coaches were told not to perform. Trying to retro-fit on field actions as proof that the players/coaches were told not perform or a couple of flippant comments by administrators is speculative at best. Anything other than concrete proof is guessing.

[iv'a worn smith 1,979]

Saying to multiple audiences that we will get picks 1 & 2 in the draft, with at least one of those audiences being outside the club, probably ticks that box.

Your point, and most others (mine included), about those 3 minutes, is 100% correct. How can we be charged based on that? We can't, it's impossible to prove. But that's the tanking charge. That has nothing to do with the disrpute charge that CC could face.

So many on this thread have the blinkers on. Yes, it is a tanking investigation, and yes, it is near impossible to prove. What about the other allegations that have been raised - do you think the AFL will turn a blind eye to those? Absolutely not, given they will be a lot easier to prove, and given that the AFL know they won't get us for tanking and will need to get us for something.

Again, it's not the onfield performance that will get us in trouble. It's the offield performance of individuals that the AFL will be zooming in on.

Iv'a, I know what you're saying, but to be honest, at this point in time, I want to get our sh!t sorted before I worry about what other clubs have done.

I agree Billy. However, given the Lawyers are now clearly involved, there is the intrinsic legal principle of "precedent" If the AFL go down this path with us, then the precedent has been set.

Interestingly, Ray Finklestein is a Carlton man. Perhaps he sees a vested interest in assisting us. Kreuzer Cup anyone????

Edited January 11, 2013 by iv'a worn smith

[dee-luded 2,959]

We still dont really know the reason we had to go on it. Who's idea was it really ? And why ?

I hope this club can sit down after all this and look at it clinically and study it forensically. Any elements of a cancer within the club must be sought out and lanced. Its right and proper that healthy competition be had for leadership at the club but this all goes beyond the pale.

Hopefully the MFC can identify those within and outside the club that dont have our best interests at heart and provide them with a suitable relationship going forwards !!

Adrian Anderson: - "The fact that we’ve got a draft has been great for the competition. What it also does do is bring into play the sort of situation where there’s an advantage for finishing lower at the end of the season. On balance the draft has been a great thing for the competition, but it’s not all positive.

"A draft does invoke some sort of speculation that’s not healthy for the competition, but there’s no easy answers."

Anderson said that at the end of the expansion period the league would "have another look" at priority picks.

Any reappraisal of the policy will be unwelcome for teams like Port Adelaide, currently languishing at the bottom of the ladder with two wins and a long injury list.

Anderson contacted Bailey after hearing him say he had done the right thing by the club in using players out of their normal positions.

"It’s quite a difficult one, because what some people call tanking is actually in a lot of ways what you’d expect a team to do with a developing list.

"You mightn’t select a senior guy who you know is not going to be with you next year for the sake of having a look at a younger bloke. Or you might do a couple of things which are a bit different for the development.

In some people’s eyes, that’s wrong…"

Read more:

August 2, 2011 - AFL admits tanking concern http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/afl-admits-tanking-concern-20110802-1i96m.html#ixzz2HdzGuQVu

August 01, 2012 - AFL may look beyond Brock McLean in tanking investigation - http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/afl/afl-to-interview-brock-mclean-over-tanking-claims/story-e6frepex-1226438966390

August 08, 2012 - Andrew Demetriou still defiant as tanking probe widens - THE AFL's tanking investigation has widened beyond outspoken midfielder Brock McLean.

........AFL chief Andrew Demetriou last night repeated his view that tanking did not exist in the AFL, before adding that if Melbourne had done so, it had not gained an advantage.

.......It is understood league integrity manager Brett Clothier has interviewed former Melbourne coach Dean Bailey and other officials who were at the club in 2008-09.

August 17, 2012 - AFL boss Andrew Demetriou scoffs at tanking claims - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/geelong-football-manager-neil-balme-questions-afl-tanking-investigation/story-e6freck3-1226452643107

A DEFIANT Andrew Demetriou yesterday declared tanking does not exist.

Figures connected to the club,,, allege a senior Demons official indicated before the match that steps had been taken to reduce the prospect of a win.

......But Demetriou dismissed the report as "lots of colourful language to try and determine an outcome".

"We don't go by that sort of story. We go by evidence," Demetriou said.

Geelong football manager Neil Balme questioned the seriousness of the AFL probe.

"I think it's a political investigation to look like they're doing an investigation," Balme told SEN radio yesterday.

_________________________________________________________________

#### IMO Adrian Anderson has been setup, character assassinated, & hung out to dry..... he's too honest for this game. as it is...

this isn't his doing.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Wrong.

It's still tampering, because its exactly the same action.

Even if it is unintentional.

Same action, same result.

Intent is irrelevant.

I don't get this.

One club is motivated to have the best year possible and the other club is motivated to have the worst year it feasibly can. One club is not motivated by draft selection, although the by-product gives them the worst possible pick, and the other club is only motivated by draft selection.

One club is coaching to win on match day irrespective of decisions made at the selection table and the other club is trying to manufacture a loss on match day.

You're right about being difficult to prove.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Ben-Hur

[sue 9,096]

I don't get this.

One club is motivated to have the best year possible and the other club is motivated to have the worst year it feasibly can. One club is not motivated by draft selection, although the by-product gives them the worst possible pick, and the other club is only motivated by draft selection.

One club is coaching to win on match day irrespective of decisions made at the selection table and the other club is trying to manufacture a loss on match day.

You're right about being difficult to prove.

All true. But rule 19 says at all times, any match and any reason. So fielding a weak team to prepare for a GF breaks the rule since a coach on merit would insist on his best team playing.

‘A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever’.

I haven't seen quoted a rule specifically about 'draft tampering'. Has it been posted anywhere?

[Hannibal 5,814]

All true. But rule 19 says at all times, any match and any reason. So fielding a weak team to prepare for a GF breaks the rule since a coach on merit would insist on his best team playing.

Are you back to the "look at what other clubs have been doing" line ?

It's clutching at straws to even equate the two.

[dees189227 12,361]

I cant believe the sun ran with the picture of Bailey sitting there when Pettard put through that goal and saying there is no emotion. Yeah that proved we are tanking. We had only won 3 games and there was still 1 min 40 to go. It wasnt a grand final. You look and see how many other coaches celebrated and jump and up and down when there team is in the same position.

If dean bailey leaped int he air he woudl have got bagged big time. My god the herald sun are getting worse than the age.

[The Third Eye 258]

Are you back to the "look at what other clubs have been doing" line ?

It's clutching at straws to even equate the two.

It's not look what other clubs are doing that's the problem. It's what the AFL said was in order and what all clubs including Melbourne did that's at the heart of the matter. At that point you're entitled to ask questions of the sort Sue is asking.

[sue 9,096]

Are you back to the "look at what other clubs have been doing" line ?

It's clutching at straws to even equate the two.

No I'm not, nor am I equating the seriousness. If we broke the rules we should pay for it. But the AFL should enforce all its rules, otherwise what's the point of the rules.

Anyway, where can I find the draft tampering rule? The experience of post 1660 doesn't encourage me to try to find it myself.

[titan_uranus 24,963]

What he is saying is that we cant prove it either way based on what we know from the AFL investigation. And that is not much more than planned selective leaks by the either or both the AFL and MFC which may or may not be representative of the totality of what the AFL 800-1000 page report.

It was not that difficult and your erroneous and slanted take on his comments was missing the point.

Slanted? Of course it's slanted. It's an opinion. This entire post of yours is slanted!

The way Fan wrote what he wrote clearly lent itself to the interpretation I gave it. Your high-horse response was, as is typical for you, OTT and overbearing.

You can't legislate an action two different ways.

Fan wants to have his and eat it.

Either an action taken is 'taking the game into disrepute' or it isn't.

You can't say 'if a team in this position does this they are cheating' but 'if a team does the same thing in this position, then they are not cheating.'

Agree with this.

I don't get this.

One club is motivated to have the best year possible and the other club is motivated to have the worst year it feasibly can. One club is not motivated by draft selection, although the by-product gives them the worst possible pick, and the other club is only motivated by draft selection.

One club is coaching to win on match day irrespective of decisions made at the selection table and the other club is trying to manufacture a loss on match day.

You're right about being difficult to prove.

Why does 'motivation' matter? If a club decides to take its best players out of a game, and as a result, is less competitive, and the result of that game to them is unimportant, then what does it matter whether the motivation for that indifference is a flag in the current year, or one in a future year?

It doesn't. At least, I don't think it should.

Put another way - two clubs, with two goals. One, like us in 2009, clearly can't win the flag in the current year; the other clearly can. One club knows that, as a business strategy, it needs to focus on the future to maintain success; the other knows that a flag in the current year is feasible and the best way of promoting and improving its business.

Both clubs engage in identical conduct, lessening competitiveness. On your stance, the club with no chance in the current year is guilty of an offence, but the other one is not. I don't think that can be the way things work.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

All true. But rule 19 says at all times, any match and any reason. So fielding a weak team to prepare for a GF breaks the rule since a coach on merit would insist on his best team playing.

‘A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match - or in relation to any aspect of the match, for any reason whatsoever’.

I haven't seen quoted a rule specifically about 'draft tampering'. Has it been posted anywhere?

After Fan raised this a few pages back, I cheated and let Google do some work on it. As Dirty Dees discovered, it's not easy turning up any regulations, let alone the ones you want.

All I discovered was that, on another thread, Whispering Jack had asked the same question a few months ago. If WJ doesn't know I'm not sure who would. But what's most likely is that there's no regulation defining and outlawing 'draft tampering'; rather, because there are procedures for draft, anything the AFL identifies as interfering with or manipulating these they'd call tampering.

They might then run into problems with direct and indirect 'tampering', intention and all the other issues that have been canvassed here, so I don't fancy their chances even on a finding that tries to step round the whole tanking question.

[Whispering_Jack 29,686]

After Fan raised this a few pages back, I cheated and let Google do some work on it. As Dirty Dees discovered, it's not easy turning up any regulations, let alone the ones you want.

All I discovered was that, on another thread, Whispering Jack had asked the same question a few months ago. If WJ doesn't know I'm not sure who would. But what's most likely is that there's no regulation defining and outlawing 'draft tampering'; rather, because there are procedures for draft, anything the AFL identifies as interfering with or manipulating these they'd call tampering.

They might then run into problems with direct and indirect 'tampering', intention and all the other issues that have been canvassed here, so I don't fancy their chances even on a finding that tries to step round the whole tanking question.

I'm sure the MFC's legal team is on top of the issues that have been raised here and that Ray Finkelstein has a number of answers. I'd love to see his final submission on behalf of the club because I doubt that there's going to be any need for anyone involved to step into a court of law on this.

Let's get back to the footy and celebrate the way our current team is being rebuilt. That's even more fascinating than the legalities of the tanking debate!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Slanted? Of course it's slanted. It's an opinion. This entire post of yours is slanted!

The way Fan wrote what he wrote clearly lent itself to the interpretation I gave it. Your high-horse response was, as is typical for you, OTT and overbearing.

It was a poor self serving misrepresentation of what Fan was saying. And you have been rightly pinned for it

His subsequent response to you would plainly indicated where he was focussed and it wasnt what you were claiming. For someone who melodramatically and repeated carried on with "surely" in response to Fan's post either has a narrow mind or is just ignorant.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

I'm sure the MFC's legal team is on top of the issues that have been raised here and that Ray Finkelstein has a number of answers. I'd love to see his final submission on behalf of the club because I doubt that there's going to be any need for anyone involved to step into a court of law on this.Let's get back to the footy and celebrate the way our current team is being rebuilt. That's even more fascinating than the legalities of the tanking debate!

Wise words WJ.

[McQueen 17,864]

I agree Billy. However, given the Lawyers are now clearly involved, there is the intrinsic legal principle of "precedent" If the AFL go down this path with us, then the precedent has been set.

Interestingly, Ray Finklestein is a Carlton man. Perhaps he sees a vested interest in assisting us. Kreuzer Cup anyone????

Ray Finklestein is obviously a football man.

Adrian Anderson is not.