On 06/01/2013 at 22:40, Ben-Hur said:

Because no-one has come forward with a complaint. And the AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne in the first place, but were pushed into a corner where they had to be seen to be doing something. If someone involved at Carlton at the time goes to the AFL with new information and strident allegations of tanking they'll be forced to conduct an inquiry that they don't really want to.

It's not really that hard to work out, but plenty seem to struggle with a terribly basic concept. We're being investigated because the AFL had to, not because they wanted to.

or because angry anderson saw a chance to make a name for himself while vlad was enjoying largesse at the olympics?

  On 06/01/2013 at 22:40, Ben-Hur said:

Because no-one has come forward with a complaint. And the AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne in the first place, but were pushed into a corner where they had to be seen to be doing something. If someone involved at Carlton at the time goes to the AFL with new information and strident allegations of tanking they'll be forced to conduct an inquiry that they don't really want to.

It's not really that hard to work out, but plenty seem to struggle with a terribly basic concept. We're being investigated because the AFL had to, not because they wanted to.

That again is where we differ. I do not see why McLean's comments would force their hand more than the earlier ones about other clubs. I'm no spin doctor, but I can think of responses the AFL could have made to his comments which would have defused the matter. They could even have announced a sham investigation which would review their earlier investigation and quickly confirm their earlier conclusion of no tanking.

I do not see why 'new information' which is actually less damming than 'old information' about other clubs would force their hand. So to argue "the AFL had to" I think you have to rely on the effect of pressure from the press. If a certain journalist put continual pressure on them they could have suggested to her that they'd be happy to widen the investigation to include Richmond too. For starters, how did they almost lose to a club that was blatantly tanking?

  On 06/01/2013 at 22:40, Ben-Hur said:

Because no-one has come forward with a complaint. And the AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne in the first place, but were pushed into a corner where they had to be seen to be doing something. If someone involved at Carlton at the time goes to the AFL with new information and strident allegations of tanking they'll be forced to conduct an inquiry that they don't really want to.

It's not really that hard to work out, but plenty seem to struggle with a terribly basic concept. We're being investigated because the AFL had to, not because they wanted to.

you are quite simply wrong on many accounts here.

So Libba and Fev point blank fessing the tanking wasn't sufficient to incur an enquiry into Carlton, and by comparison d!ckhead Mc

Leans tomfoolery on the couch was ? FFS that's laughable.

Interestingly enough he was /is a Carlton player at this juncture. Talk about pots and kettles and yet we are the naughty ones alone.

You are happy to ignore the facts eh BH

  On 06/01/2013 at 23:17, belzebub59 said:

you are quite simply wrong on many accounts here. So Libba and Fev point blank fessing the tanking wasn't sufficient to incur an enquiry into Carlton, and by comparison d!ckhead Mc Leans tomfoolery on the couch was ? FFS that's laughable. Interestingly enough he was /is a Carlton player at this juncture. Talk about pots and kettles and yet we are the naughty ones alone. You are happy to ignore the facts eh BH

Totally agree BB59 The AFL at no stage HAD TO investigate the MFC...They chose to go in all guns blazing..allowing the media to go even harder..

Whilst at the CFC down the road......nothing. Even after people involved giving specific information.....Nothing.

But i am so glad Ben Hur is happy with the present system...i will sleep better knowing that!

let me understand this

"the afl had to investigate but it didn't want to"

so they put together a team including the hercule poirot of the UN and they drag it out now for 6 months including questionable interrogation techniques

c'mon ben does this sound like the actions of a body doing something it doesn't want to do?

they may now wish they hadn't created this mess but at the time they started they definitely "wanted to". At least three of them did anyway.

The power of the media shouldn't be underestimated or discounted here .

Imagine if shortly after the investigation started, the Age or the H/S had launched a campaign to discredit the investigation . That Wilson didn't write her garbage pieces . That instead of the one-sided view, the media added balance to the whole argument . Probably in doing so highlighting the myriad of other 'Questionable' games dating back 15 years or so .

We would have seen the investigation have to take all sorts of different paths . In effect , this would have strengthened our own case and probably turned the focus right back to the real guilty parties . Teams that won 'Premierships' from 'so called' tanking and another club that a certain journalist has ties to . Not forgetting the 'Biggie' - down Royal Parade way .

Quite possibly Demetriou's AFL didnt want a bar of it and quite rightly, but Anderson's jumping jihad splinter group certainly saw an opening !!

Vlad inherited this balls up and yet thats karma in a sense for had he not p!ssed off OS for a little freeby then none of this would have transpired

  On 07/01/2013 at 00:03, belzebub59 said:

Quite possibly Demetriou's AFL didnt want a bar of it and quite rightly, but Anderson's jumping jihad splinter group certainly saw an opening !!

Vlad inherited this balls up and yet thats karma in a sense for had he not p!ssed off OS for a little freeby then none of this would have transpired

Anderson's Fatwah? I like it

You never want to let the opposition know about your tactics - until the very last moment .

If it looks like we might incur some penalties from the 'Politburo' I'd like to see the 'Fink' march into Vlad's office and outline exactly what's in store for them if they punish us . Of course, this is probably not going to happen but the dramatic effect would be something to see

You can use your imagination on what he'd probably say ...

  On 06/01/2013 at 23:59, daisycutter said:

let me understand this

"the afl had to investigate but it didn't want to"

so they put together a team including the hercule poirot of the UN and they drag it out now for 6 months including questionable interrogation techniques

c'mon ben does this sound like the actions of a body doing something it doesn't want to do?

they may now wish they hadn't created this mess but at the time they started they definitely "wanted to". At least three of them did anyway.

Spot On DC.

The AFL does not leap into this as it has without wanting to do it.

It is an absurd thought to think 6 months later the AFL really didn't want this.

They get what they want.

A weaker MFC and a Carlton & Richmond that are both heading to Septembers.

"Ching Ching"

Aparently i am a Dolt for thinking such thoughts.

Makes perfect sense to me.

  On 06/01/2013 at 06:51, why you little said:

believe what ever you wish little man.

My source was rock solid.

We all know you wish Schwab & Conolly to come crashing down.

I am merely asking why the blowtorch has not been applied to Carltank?

Fitzpatrick is a large part of the answer thus far.

I disagree with this.

Vlad didnt want ANY clubs under the blowtorch. It was not Fitzpatrick who stopped Carlton being heavied over tanking - it was Vlad with his carte blanche statement for all clubs " tanking does not exist" - thats what stopped Carlton and others having pressure applied.

The one opinion I am very firm on - the last thing that AD wanted was this investigation.

  On 06/01/2013 at 11:58, Ben-Hur said:

Are you thick ? Because no allegations have been made and the AFL weren't keen on this investigation to start with. The AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne, let alone Carlton, or anyone else, but circumstances dictated that they had to qualify public comments and subsequent interest. They had to be seen to act and the events as we know them have followed.

You, Sue and others can think that we're the scapegoat and that Carlton have been protected, but it's self-serving shallow thinking.

So your "INTO" playing the public for fools.

some say we & others brought the game into disrepute, but these public AFL games play the people as idiots. direpute?

come clean, honesty from the top, comeon fitz', comeon vlad, comeon kelty, be honest & public.

The AFL Commission in 2010 (from left) Chris Langford, Graeme John, Sam Mostyn, Chris Lynch, Mike Fitzpatrick (chairman), Andrew Demetriou (chief executive officer), Bill Kelty, Bob Hammond and Justice Linda Dessau. Photo: AFL

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/meet-the-afl-commissioners-20121019-27xau.html#ixzz2HFKyna4s

  On 07/01/2013 at 00:48, nutbean said:

I disagree with this.

Vlad didnt want ANY clubs under the blowtorch. It was not Fitzpatrick who stopped Carlton being heavied over tanking - it was Vlad with his carte blanche statement for all clubs " tanking does not exist" - thats what stopped Carlton and others having pressure applied.

The one opinion I am very firm on - the last thing that AD wanted was this investigation.

Vlad could have stopped this via Telphone or email from London anytime he wanted. Or stopped it once he landed back in Melbourne.

But nothing was done to stop it, at all.

Anderson is gone but the interviews kept going.

The MFC is expendable to the Hierachy

Carlton & Caro's Tiges are Cash Registers to the AFL.

Vlad may have PREFERRED not to have this investigation.

But he has done nothing to stop it rolling.

If the MFC does not fight this to the last man we wi be forever labelled The Example.

  On 06/01/2013 at 23:17, belzebub59 said:

you are quite simply wrong on many accounts here. So Libba and Fev point blank fessing the tanking wasn't sufficient to incur an enquiry into Carlton, and by comparison d!ckhead Mc Leans tomfoolery on the couch was ? FFS that's laughable. Interestingly enough he was /is a Carlton player at this juncture. Talk about pots and kettles and yet we are the naughty ones alone. You are happy to ignore the facts eh BH

Libaratore recanted his assertions and Fev's comments were in a book. Nothing was as public as McLean's comments and the reaction to them by Paul Roos, Mike Sheahan, Gerard Healy and subsequent articles the next day and following days in the major papers. Headlines included, "I left the Dees because they were tanking".

The AFL never wanted this probe in the first place and to think that they were going to start investigating clubs other than Melbourne on the back of McLean's comments is farcical. Rightly, they'd treat any other allegations as separate entities; and I've not seen any other identity complain to the AFL about any other club since the investigation into Melbourne started.

By all means, jump to illogical conclusions and continue your woe is us attitude. I haven't been and won't be a party to it. Take solace though, misery loves company. And you have plenty.

  On 07/01/2013 at 01:02, Ben-Hur said:

Libaratore recanted his assertions and Fev's comments were in a book. Nothing was as public as McLean's comments and the reaction to them by Paul Roos, Mike Sheahan, Gerard Healy and subsequent articles the next day and following days in the major papers. Headlines included, "I left the Dees because they were tanking".

The AFL never wanted this probe in the first place and to think that they were going to start investigating clubs other than Melbourne on the back of McLean's comments is farcical. Rightly, they'd treat any other allegations as separate entities; and I've not seen any other identity complain to the AFL about any other club since the investigation into Melbourne started.

By all means, jump to illogical conclusions and continue your woe is us attitude. I haven't been and won't be a party to it. Take solace though, misery loves company. And you have plenty.

You really want this club to go down don't you Ben. Deep down in the Bowels of your soul you have your fingers crossed.

At least you are honest....i think.

  On 07/01/2013 at 00:59, why you little said:

Vlad could have stopped this via Telphone or email from London anytime he wanted. Or stopped it once he landed back in Melbourne.

But nothing was done to stop it, at all.

Anderson is gone but the interviews kept going.

The MFC is expendable to the Hierachy

Carlton & Caro's Tiges are Cash Registers to the AFL.

Vlad may have PREFERRED not to have this investigation.

But he has done nothing to stop it rolling.

If the MFC does not fight this to the last man we wi be forever labelled The Example.

I'm not sure Vlad could have stopped it Wyl . It had gone too far and he was overseas .

The investigation was completed about 10 days or so after AA 'departed' . Was the completion delayed so as not draw attention to the AA departure ?

If Vlad had not gone on holidays this investigation wouldn't have happened . Vlad said time and time again that "There's no such thing as tanking" . He would have knocked it on the head - just like he'd done many times before .

  On 06/01/2013 at 22:40, Ben-Hur said:

Because no-one has come forward with a complaint. And the AFL didn't want to investigate Melbourne in the first place, but were pushed into a corner where they had to be seen to be doing something. If someone involved at Carlton at the time goes to the AFL with new information and strident allegations of tanking they'll be forced to conduct an inquiry that they don't really want to.

It's not really that hard to work out, but plenty seem to struggle with a terribly basic concept. We're being investigated because the AFL had to, not because they wanted to.

I agree with BH's line of thought on this and add that AD would privately admit this has been handled woefully and would be less than impressed with AA's performance.

AD didnt want to investigate anyone.

What i firmly believe is in our favour ( and that lots are dismissing) is that others have done similar. If the AFL comes down on us with sanctions or penalties and we challenge it in court, the courts will make it clear what does and doesnt constitute "tanking" under the existing AFL rules. The AFL will then be forced to apply the same litmus test against other clubs. It will not just go away. The commission knows this and that is why I believe there will be nothing to see here - move on.

The AFL's whole investigation and "please explain" is for the sake of appearances and if the AFL do lay charges they will do it knowing that they will have to look at other clubs and judge them against a set of defined rules and standards that have been defined and refined by a court not by AFL - do you think they want that ? They well may go down this route but I do not buy for second that the "AFL is a dictatorship and it will start and stop with us". I like that they have not put the blowtorch under other clubs - it tells me that they are going to find no case to answer with us.

Our best move to date has been - "we will make no comment at all but just so you know - we have the "fink" loaded and ready to go".

lol...Libba got knuckled. He spoke the truth initially then tried to save his arse after he realised they didnt want to listen.. Especially certain elements within the AFL who are always looking after their own.

Without doubt BH thats absolute proof of nothing

How is something in a book any different from uttering in a paper or on telly ??

Hows your straws holding up.

  On 07/01/2013 at 01:12, belzebub59 said:

lol...Libba got knuckled. He spoke the truth initially then tried to save his arse after he realised they didnt want to listen.. Especially certain elements within the AFL who are always looking after their own.

Without doubt BH thats absolute proof of nothing

How is something in a book any different from uttering in a paper or on telly ??

Hows your straws holding up.

yeah reminds me of that ex swans player talking about drugs in the afl a few years back

the afl REALLY wanted to listen didn't they?

  On 06/01/2013 at 23:01, sue said:

That again is where we differ. I do not see why McLean's comments would force their hand more than the earlier ones about other clubs. I'm no spin doctor, but I can think of responses the AFL could have made to his comments which would have defused the matter. They could even have announced a sham investigation which would review their earlier investigation and quickly confirm their earlier conclusion of no tanking.

I do not see why 'new information' which is actually less damming than 'old information' about other clubs would force their hand. So to argue "the AFL had to" I think you have to rely on the effect of pressure from the press. If a certain journalist put continual pressure on them they could have suggested to her that they'd be happy to widen the investigation to include Richmond too. For starters, how did they almost lose to a club that was blatantly tanking?

I still really think heat has been applied to the AFL's seat from below, at frequencies below that which the media operate at.

IMO Roos hobby horse fits with those of 'The Players Association', & our player revolt of 186 as well.

some senior players careers were hurt.

Apply heat to the AFL from below & above. Players association? & The Couch? & possibly from within, now, does the Cardboard Cap fitz anyone?

a disgruntled ex player.

enter the scorned broad,,, sheet with an blunt axe that needs attention

wheels within wheels???

come in folks, step right up, see the magician turn gold into DIP (deinked pulp )!!!

  On 07/01/2013 at 01:08, why you little said:

You really want this club to go down don't you Ben. Deep down in the Bowels of your soul you have your fingers crossed.

At least you are honest....i think.

Quote where I've said, or even insinuated that ? I even said that I want the club to "fight likes there's no tomorrow".

But I don't bleat and scream like a little girl that we're being victimised. I appreciate that you wouldn't know the difference.

  On 07/01/2013 at 01:11, nutbean said:

Our best move to date has been - "we will make no comment at all but just so you know - we have the "fink" loaded and ready to go".

Yep.

Its taken nerve but the club is doing well. We wait and see what we're actually fighting. Then unload, possibly broadsiding them.

I sense Demetriou is now sensing vulnerability out in the open. He would do well to study the course of history.

  On 07/01/2013 at 01:10, Macca said:

I'm not sure Vlad could have stopped it Wyl . It had gone too far and he was overseas .

The investigation was completed about 10 days or so after AA 'departed' . Was the completion delayed so as not draw attention to the AA departure ?

If Vlad had not gone on holidays this investigation wouldn't have happened . Vlad said time and time again that "There's no such thing as tanking" . He would have knocked it on the head - just like he'd done many times before .

don't underestimate the leader Macca.

If he had not wanted this investigation to continue Vlad would have pulled the plug.

  On 07/01/2013 at 01:42, Ben-Hur said:

Quote where I've said, or even insinuated that ? I even said that I want the club to "fight likes there's no tomorrow".

But I don't bleat and scream like a little girl that we're being victimised. I appreciate that you wouldn't know the difference.

Dear, dear Ben. Your intellectual rigor appears to be breaking down under the pressure of this argie bargie. You just employed a very poor simile that does nothing but reinforce outdated sexual prejudices

  On 07/01/2013 at 01:12, belzebub59 said:

lol...Libba got knuckled. He spoke the truth initially then tried to save his arse after he realised they didnt want to listen.

Exactly,

Libba was advised to STFU if he knew what was was good for 'im.

I was expecting Mclean to get the same but .... No.

Dale Lewis was the swans player who was told to keep his mouth shut in regards to the player drug use.