AFL investigation

[Grapeviney 9,538]

Lol , the last quarter?

I think Nutbean was referring to the Nixon White House tapes which were central to the Watergate investigation, from which 18 minutes were mysteriously missing.

[GM11 745]

Which is exactly why it goes to motive.

Motive is irrelevant to to the process.

If winning today is less important than winning tomorrow, then the reason has no bearing.

[DeeZee 7,296]

The tapes were from inside the coaches box. Every game is taped so they can then review.

Bailey believes he has nothing to worry about, just reported on SEN.

[Choko 493]

or if you knew what was on it

Yes..... refer to my previous post!

[Buffalo 203]

So the much vaunted investigation team missed the tapes entirely - what on earth were these so called professionals doing for six months...

[daisycutter 29,343]

So the much vaunted investigation team missed the tapes entirely - what on earth were these so called professionals doing for six months...

having long boozy lunches with Kero while the rage picked up the tab?

[Sir Why You Little 36,670]

Seriously if i was running this investigation rhese matchday tapes would be the FIRST thing i would want to study.

All of the answers to this affair would be there.

What have these imbeciles been doing for 6 months apart from harassing people!!

It is beyond incompetence.

[monoccular 17,338]

My guess is that if these tapes exist then there is sure to be an 18 minute gap in them.

Perhaps, like the AFL Inquisitors are alleged to have done, the club paused the recording at critical moments.

[monoccular 17,338]

So the much vaunted investigation team missed the tapes entirely - what on earth were these so called professionals doing for six months...

Waterboarding

[monoccular 17,338]

If I was Bailey's lawyer, I would only be asking for the tape if I knew it didn't exist....

...unless you knew that it was exonerating.

Sure, IF when McMahon's kick sailed through they said: "Bummer, there goes $cully 18 months early" or words to that effect they would sure as hell want to wipe them.

IF on the other hand they cried and cursed at that time then play them loud and clear for all to hear.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

One of the better views I've heard is that "tanking" can only occur on the field. When GWS made 8 changes against GCS in the Whitfield Cup and Hawthorn left 10 or so players out of their team punters knew what was happening and could adjust their betting accordingly. Personally, if you believed we tanked which I do, it wasn't hard to judge MFC's from going into games in the last half of 2009 so I reckon the punter was in a much better position than usual in our games.

IMO tanking initially related to players not trying to win but the confusion now lies over its possible extension to list management and selection decisions. And what of training? [censored] the players on the track during the week so they can hardly run on the weekend? I wonder if that got examined.

What people are concerned about is the motive. If the motive was to list manage and lose in order to gain PP then it's draft tampering. To me that is the issue. I can't imagine any sensible person thinks the players didn't try.

It’s not just a 'better' view to take of tanking but really the only one. The problem here is that the word doesn’t occur anywhere in the AFL’s regulations and what the AFL has to find evidence of relates to some violation or otherwise of Regulation 19 A5). It’s been quoted before, but is worth quoting again:

‘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’.

‘Tanking’ is being used by all and sundry to describe what the MFC is supposed to have done, but a lot of what the MFC is supposed to have done hasn’t got much to do with specific competitive actions on the field. I wonder whether the AFL’s report or findings or charges will even use the word or, if they do, they’re going to have to give it a meaning that links it specifically to the regulation.

The regulation itself is a lawyer’s picnic, particularly because of an injudicious use of an ‘and’. But as far as it relates to what takes place on the field, because it refers to inducing or encouraging actions that might lead to a loss, what the AFL presumably needs to establish is, at some level or other, something about intention. Hence the apparent efforts to number every fumble and every interchange as if these disclose some demonic pattern and purpose.

On the other hand, since it also ends with that catch-all (or hopeful catch-all) ‘for any reason whatsoever’, the regulation asserts that intention doesn’t really matter. So I’m not surprised people might be at odds about whether intention’s important or not … or, for that matter, whether ‘tanking’ has taken place or not.

[titan_uranus 24,657]

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

Apologies, your highness. You could, of course, have said 'no, Fan is saying X'. But, true to your form, you didn't.

As I read it, Fan said that there is 'discussion' because people can't prove we didn't tank. That is absurd. We all understand the reasons why there is talk about Melbourne tanking, but saying that 'you can't prove we didn't tank' is a reason for discussion is just dumb.

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

I don't want to ignore you, I like opposing views. I simply disagreed with what read as a ridiculous statement that there is discussion about MFC's 2009 because we can't prove we didn't tank.

On the basis of RR and BH's wonderfully explanatory statements, I possibly mis-read what you wrote, although I'm struggling to see what else you meant by 'I can't prove we tanked, but you can't prove we didn't. That's why there is discussion'.

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

It’s not just a 'better' view to take of tanking but really the only one. The problem here is that the word doesn’t occur anywhere in the AFL’s regulations and what the AFL has to find evidence of relates to some violation or otherwise of Regulation 19 A5). It’s been quoted before, but is worth quoting again:

‘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’.

‘Tanking’ is being used by all and sundry to describe what the MFC is supposed to have done, but a lot of what the MFC is supposed to have done hasn’t got much to do with specific competitive actions on the field. I wonder whether the AFL’s report or findings or charges will even use the word or, if they do, they’re going to have to give it a meaning that links it specifically to the regulation.

The regulation itself is a lawyer’s picnic, particularly because of an injudicious use of an ‘and’. But as far as it relates to what takes place on the field, because it refers to inducing or encouraging actions that might lead to a loss, what the AFL presumably needs to establish is, at some level or other, something about intention. Hence the apparent efforts to number every fumble and every interchange as if these disclose some demonic pattern and purpose.

On the other hand, since it also ends with that catch-all (or hopeful catch-all) ‘for any reason whatsoever’, the regulation asserts that intention doesn’t really matter. So I’m not surprised people might be at odds about whether intention’s important or not … or, for that matter, whether ‘tanking’ has taken place or not.

That's a very good explanation and I take your point re "any reason what so ever". Is this the only regulation or are there others about draft tampering?

And on a separate point, if tapes of the coaches box were the sole property of the MFC (and not media), why the hell weren't they lost.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,621]

They will be now.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Apologies, your highness. You could, of course, have said 'no, Fan is saying X'. But, true to your form, you didn't.

As I read it, Fan said that there is 'discussion' because people can't prove we didn't tank. That is absurd. We all understand the reasons why there is talk about Melbourne tanking, but saying that 'you can't prove we didn't tank' is a reason for discussion is just dumb.

I don't want to ignore you, I like opposing views. I simply disagreed with what read as a ridiculous statement that there is discussion about MFC's 2009 because we can't prove we didn't tank.

On the basis of RR and BH's wonderfully explanatory statements, I possibly mis-read what you wrote, although I'm struggling to see what else you meant by 'I can't prove we tanked, but you can't prove we didn't. That's why there is discussion'.

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.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

...... if tapes of the coaches box were the sole property of the MFC (and not media), why the hell weren't they lost.

Fair question....

[beelzebub 23,200]

Why are so many jumping to the conclusion ( or assumption ) the tapes are condemning ?

They may prove the absolute "get out of Jail"

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

That's a very good explanation and I take your point re "any reason what so ever". Is this the only regulation or are there others about draft tampering?

And on a separate point, if tapes of the coaches box were the sole property of the MFC (and not media), why the hell weren't they lost.

I haven't trawled through the regulations for this point. Probably a useful task for those lawyers from the Love Boat. All I've seen offered so far is the 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge, which of course wouldn't require intention, just effect ... but I've said earlier is also a pretty weak possibility at the end of a six month plus investigation.

[Longsufferingnomore 1,621]

Why are so many jumping to the conclusion ( or assumption ) the tapes are condemning ?

They may prove the absolute "get out of Jail"

Maybe they are our ace up our sleeve!

[old55 22,853]

That's a very good explanation and I take your point re "any reason what so ever". Is this the only regulation or are there others about draft tampering?

And on a separate point, if tapes of the coaches box were the sole property of the MFC (and not media), why the hell weren't they lost.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/afl/more-news/demons-recorded-dean-bailey-in-coaches-box-during-tanking-year/story-e6frf9jf-1226551547888

It is believed Bailey's legal team remains hopeful the audio has not been destroyed and it is trying to track down the necessary files.

The recordings could help explain the motives behind the club's 2009 campaign and provide context to the series of unusual tactical moves made by Melbourne during several losses being put under the AFL microscope

That says Bailey is looking for the tapes to help the defence against charges. Sounds like they'll never be found to me "but if only they were then we'd be in the clear". I'd be looking behind the ice-cream in CC's freezer.

[beelzebub 23,200]

heres a link that bypasses

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/afl/demons-recorded-dean-bailey-in-coaches-box-during-tanking-year/story-e6freck3-1226551547888

[beelzebub 23,200]

Maybe they are our ace up our sleeve!

exactly.

Whilst all the bastards were looking for a smoking gun we may have forgotten about our bullet proof vest B)

[Slartibartfast 16,900]

I haven't trawled through the regulations for this point. Probably a useful task for those lawyers from the Love Boat. All I've seen offered so far is the 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge, which of course wouldn't require intention, just effect ... but I've said earlier is also a pretty weak possibility at the end of a six month plus investigation.

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. Our solicitors will have done that to show the AFL court is a poor option.

So then it moves to a negotiated settlement when the sort of discussion we are having here is more relevant.

I'd be looking behind the ice-cream in CC's freezer.

Old that's very funny. Unlike Robbie I do think you could make a living cracking jokes!

[hoopla 418]

What an utter farce this has become.

"It all boils down to three minutes of footy" we are told.

Well the AFL was at the game- the whole footy world was able to watch it- 3 and a half years ago!! If a crime was committed in those 3 minutes why didn't the AFL do something about it then? The reason - a clear-cut crime was not committed. It wasn't clear at the time - and it certainly isn't clear the best part of 4 years later.

For goodness sake AFL you owe us big time - for the damage your incompetence has caused

[beelzebub 23,200]

Actually this whole thing revolves around one word : "Merits"

As others point out a qualifier is motive, but I cant see how you can get too far from ability. Somehow many pundits , sitting currently on the bench of accusers , would have it we were more than capable and we should have won far more games than we did, thus proving the motive and qualifying the 'merit' of the situation.

If however you take the far more realistic view that we were simply rubbish ( for the most part ) then our 'merits' simply wouldn't have got us very far irrespective.

The League and others are trying to apply an absolute to a subjective and this is why we must fight, because they cant possibly do that. Its illogical.