AFL investigation

[The Chazz 4,077]

did i miss something billy?

[French harasser, possibly from Old French harer, to set a dog on, from hare, interj. used to set a dog on, of Germanic origin.]

Break up the word "harass", between the "r" and "a" giving you 2 seperate words, and pronunce those 2 words how you would if you were saying "harass".

Wow, that works so much better in real life!

[GM11 713]

Not rolling over at all WYL, just being realistic. I'm not saying we shouldn't fight, I'm saying that if the AFL go down the "game in to disrepute" track, it makes a fight bloody hard. If they charge us with tanking, I would be a lot more confident that we will win.

As I said, I'm not saying don't fight, and I'm certainly not rolling over.

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.

[sue 8,623]

Where is the evidence that CC repeated his remarks, joking or not, many times? Even so, just because he repeated it doesn't necessarily add any weight to proving he was serious. I'm sure we all know someone who doesn't tire of making the same weak joke repeatedly.

BTW, even if everyone in the 'Vault' testified they felt he was being serious, he could still mount a defence that he was joking, particularly if he has people prepared to testify he often makes weak jokes which people take seriously. I know of a couple of sh!t-stirrers like that.

(I leave aside the excellent argument, that if he says it in private and no one acts on it, it doesn't bring the game into disrepute. Since as Billy says apparently the AFL can't prove tanking, then they can't claim anyone acted on his non-jokes either.)

[daisycutter 28,727]

Break up the word "harass", between the "r" and "a" giving you 2 seperate words, and pronunce those 2 words how you would if you were saying "harass".

Wow, that works so much better in real life!

lost me, but i'm pretty thick on hot days

[nutbean 8,837]

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.

someone as old as me !!!

[The Chazz 4,077]

To bring the game into disrepute means there has to be a very public act committed by people that damages the game's reputation. If people have private discussions within club which aren't acted upon then it can hardly be said that the game has been brought into disrepute. If Bailey is not guilty of anything (and I don't believe that he is) them the disrepute claim must fail as must the draft tampering claim. If the case against Bailey rises or falls because of three minutes at the end of the Jordan McMahon, then where would the case be had McMahon missed the shot after the siren? The AFL has no case. This farce needs to be put to an end ASAP.

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.

It has all been said before, I know, but if we are guilty of "bringing the game into disrepute", based on the performance on 2009, a year in which we were quite simply poor and not good enough, what then does the AFL make of other clubs before and since that time.

There are numerous and more blatant "tanking" scenarios which can be levelled at other clubs, with far more veracity than what has been levelled at us. If the AFL continue to go down this path with us, then they will open the proverbial Pandoras can of worms.

The AFL do not want to go there.

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.

[The Chazz 4,077]

lost me, but i'm pretty thick on hot days

Harass (pronunced herass), broken in to 2 words - Har Ass (ie. Her Ass).

[The Chazz 4,077]

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.

We = ? Players? They didn't (well, not that day, 186 is a different story). Coach? Hard to prove, rotations down, but we have injuries/medical records to back that up, positional changes/list management is bloody hard to prove. The Football Manager? Making comments about getting sacked if we won more games than we need to, assuring some groups that we have things in place the see picks 1 & 2 at the end of the season, that's probably not giving the game a very good look is it?

Where is the evidence that CC repeated his remarks, joking or not, many times? Even so, just because he repeated it doesn't necessarily add any weight to proving he was serious. I'm sure we all know someone who doesn't tire of making the same weak joke repeatedly.

BTW, even if everyone in the 'Vault' testified they felt he was being serious, he could still mount a defence that he was joking, particularly if he has people prepared to testify he often makes weak jokes which people take seriously. I know of a couple of sh!t-stirrers like that.

(I leave aside the excellent argument, that if he says it in private and no one acts on it, it doesn't bring the game into disrepute. Since as Billy says apparently the AFL can't prove tanking, then they can't claim anyone acted on his non-jokes either.)

Pretty sure Sue if you asked a couple of posters on here that attended supporter functions that CC was a speaker at, they could enlighten you.

I'm not speaking any more on it (I think I said that on about page 3 of this thread, or one with a similar sound).

[nutbean 8,837]

It's already been reported to the media that the charges will be draft tampering, bringing the game in to disrepute, and for Bailey, not coaching to his best (or whatever the wording is). There is no mention that we will be charged with tanking, as, what a majority on here are saying, it is too hard to prove, and there are no clear rules that define tanking.

You see...now you are doing what the media is doing.... you are a getting a hint of scent and reporting it as the whole world has dropped its guts.

you stated above - "it is reported that the charges will be......." - nooooo......what it should read is "if the AFL are not satisfied with the responses provided by the club then the charges will be......".

If the MFC are true to their word , if charges are laid then that will trigger legal action as it means that the explanations offered by the club to evidence has not been accepted.

Our opinions differ as I don't think the club or coaches/admistrators will be charged with anything as I dont think that the AFL want (or can afford) for this to go legal. I think it iis important to note that even if the AFL think they can win a court challenge from the MFC, the damage will be done to the AFL when this pandora's box is opened in court whether or not the AFL wins (which is unlikely anyway)

[dee-luded 2,958]

Or already gone.

aah, the squeaky door?

[The Chazz 4,077]

You see...now you are doing what the media is doing.... you are a getting a hint of scent and reporting it as the whole world has dropped its guts.

you stated above - "it is reported that the charges will be......." - nooooo......what it should read is "if the AFL are not satisfied with the responses provided by the club then the charges will be......".

If the MFC are true to their word , if charges are laid then that will trigger legal action as it means that the explanations offered by the club to evidence has not been accepted.

Our opinions differ as I dont think the club or coaches/admistrators will be charged with anything as I dont think that the AFL want ( or can afford) for this to go legal .I think it iis important to note that even if the AFL think they can win a court challenge from the MFC, the damage will be done to the AFL when this pandora's box is opened in court whether or not the AFL wins ( which is unlikely anyway)

Apologies Nutbean, should've read "reported BY the media". The rest of your post I'm not to fussed with, as I am posting my opinions. I may be right, I may not be.

The AFL can't afford this to go to trial? Did that stop them when they suspended Cousins for 12 months on the back of a charge that was actually dropped?

[daisycutter 28,727]

Harass (pronunced herass), broken in to 2 words - Har Ass (ie. Her Ass).

you're a very naughty boy billy.....but i would never pronounce har as her

Edited January 11, 2013 by daisycutter

[Redleg 38,578]

Which is exactly why it goes to motive.

Can we therefore condone tanking or throwing games for whatever reasona club sees as beneficial as long as it is not to get a better draft pick?

[Redleg 38,578]

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

Coercing and threatening witnesses.

[sue 8,623]

Pretty sure Sue if you asked a couple of posters on here that attended supporter functions that CC was a speaker at, they could enlighten you.

OK. But there is a difference between saying we'll get picks 1 & 2 and instructing people to lose or even 'joking' that they will be sacked if we don't. I also confidently thought we'd get picks 1 & 2 because we were crap - as the whole season (and subsequent seasons) have shown.

I have no brief for CC - don't know much about him even. I'm just indicating that there are ways he could dodge a 'disrepute' charge. Some require a long bow admittedly, but they could be enough to make the AFL think twice.

[beelzebub 22,724]

If the AFL had any sense they'd know it ( smoking gun ) was buried under a " W "

Edited January 11, 2013 by belzebub59

[Redleg 38,578]

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 think the reference to "at all times" makes motive irrelevant actually.

[Bobby McKenzie 2,269]

To bring the game into disrepute means there has to be a very public act committed by people that damages the game's reputation. If people have private discussions within club which aren't acted upon then it can hardly be said that the game has been brought into disrepute. If Bailey is not guilty of anything (and I don't believe that he is) them the disrepute claim must fail as must the draft tampering claim. If the case against Bailey rises or falls because of three minutes at the end of the Jordan McMahon, then where would the case be had McMahon missed the shot after the siren? The AFL has no case. This farce needs to be put to an end ASAP.

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

[binman 39,595]

To bring the game into disrepute means there has to be a very public act committed by people that damages the game's reputation.

Absolutely spot on and a point i have previously made. If the issue of bragging the game into disrepute relates to the discussions held by CC, well they were private until revealed by the AFL. If about games of footy tanking would need to be proved.

Again the Freo game against the Hawks in Tassie comes to mind. That was a complete farce of a game and whilst Freo didn't tank per se by resting so many players, in reality they conceded the game (also sending a bloody funny message to the players who did play i would have thought - i mean hard for them to fire up given the club didn't care about winning).

That game was treated as a joke. As evidence of this the bookies didn't bet on the match IIRC. I remember Wheatley was scathing (though other commentators said all fair in love in war) and there was heaps of negative media about it. The fans in Tassie were duded and whoever broadcast the game were duded.

The Tigers - dees game was a thriller and the Freo game was a no contest. I know which match it could be said bought the game into direpute

Edited January 11, 2013 by binman

[nutbean 8,837]

Apologies Nutbean, should've read "reported BY the media". The rest of your post I'm not to fussed with, as I am posting my opinions. I may be right, I may not be.

The AFL can't afford this to go to trial? Did that stop them when they suspended Cousins for 12 months on the back of a charge that was actually dropped?

Cousins is a good example of the major difference between what they are playing with here. What exactly were the repercussions of getting the Cousins case wrong. A bit of egg on the face and maybe even recompense for Cousins. Charge the MFC and we take the AFL to court and the AFL is fighting the club, three individuals, possiblilty of muddying a Saints name (Jimmy) and then the follow on affect on Richmond, Stkilda, Carlton, WCE, Collingwood and Hawthorn.

I have no doubt that if the stakes were not as astronomically high as I think they are and the spill over effect so large that the AFL would not have the slightest hesitation in pressing charges. I firmly believe that the Commission is sitting and thinking that if they charge us they will be starting up something that they will not be able to control and stop even if they wanted to.

To my recollection there has never been a case like this that has the potential for so much collateral damage.

Edited January 11, 2013 by nutbean

[nutbean 8,837]

If the AFL had any sense they'd know it ( smoking gun ) was buried under a " W "

You are seriously showing your age ( I have made my kids sit through that movie a half a dozen time - sadly they laughed at me - not the movie)

Edited January 11, 2013 by nutbean

[Guest José Mourinho]

Redleg it goes to motive. If the objective of any decision is to gain access to a better draft pick it's tampering. If a club rests players before finals to give them a better chance of winning a GF then it clearly isn't.

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.

[Grapeviney 9,063]

someone as old as me !!!

don't give the game away nut - we're just well-read

[nutbean 8,837]

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.

The trouble with all of this is that there has been an outcome and people are working backwards and pointing at actions to make them fit the outcome. Whilst we all have our opinions as to what has transpired, it is still reverse engineering and open to interpretation.

2012 - outcome - there were no priority picks on offer. Action - we played our two key backmen (Rivers and Garland) as forwards. Conclusion - experimentation borne out of necessity and coaching curiosity.

2009 - outcome - priority picks up for grabs. Action - we played our two key backmen (Frawley and Warnock) as forwards. Conclusion - we did this to lose games and get priority picks

It is reverse engineering at its finest

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

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.

"Tanking" comes down to intent, pure and simple, but as you state it is difficult to prove.

EDIT: It is interesting to note that The Age are pursuing the intent (Schwab and Connolly) whilst the Herald Sun are pursuing the action (Richmond game).

Edited January 11, 2013 by Clint Bizkit