AFL investigation

[Sir Why You Little 36,892]

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

Exactly...when interperating the 2009 games in question all parties must apply 2009 rules to everything, at all times.

Makes it much harder to prove anything..

Are the AFL planning on listening to any of Terry Wallaces match day tapes?

We do know of one game in particuliar where Terrence was extremely quiet for long periods of time...doing nothing.

Because he said so...

Listen to that AFL.

Edited January 11, 2013 by why you little

[sue 9,096]

Exactly...when interperating the 2009 games in question all paties must apply 2009 rules to everything, at all times.

Makes it much harder to prove anything..

Are the AFL planning on listening to any of Terry Wallaces match day tapes?

We do know of one game in particuliar where Terrence was extremely quiet for long periods of time...doing nothing.

Because he said so...

Listen to that AFL.

Watch out , BH will accuse you of using the "look at what other clubs have been doing" line ?

What he fails to acknowledge is that as guilty and deserving of punishment the MFC may be, we are in competition with the other clubs whose infractions have not been subject to a 6 month investigation. That makes the situation different that just whinging "the other speeding driver did not get fined". The AFL either bins our case, or follows up the other investigations or we can justly feel hard done by.

[Deecisive 1,709]

For them to prove we tanked they have to prove we played substandard sides even by our own poor standards. I really dont know if there was any good players left out deliberately. All of the players out there would have been playing for their futures, more so in games like this near the end of the season. The moves made by Bailey actually resulted in us hitting the lead, so you find it difficult to say these were moves to help us tank when they worked, logical would say that if we were loosing and he wanted us to loose then he would have kept everyone where they were. Rotations are impacted by injuries, can we see stats from other sides that have had 3 players injured, did they keep their rotations up to 100. Fumbling well thats just clutching at straws. So if they cannot prove any intent to loose then we did not tank. I agree the AFL will change the charge to bring the game into disrepute as that way they go after individuals and CC's own comments will be used against him. Pretty grubby if people telling jokes now becomes the new moral standard for the AFL, your safer taking drugs.

As for the tapes problem with that is do they exist and if they do then the AFL will want to hear all the tapes for the other games as well. Every cough, laugh or joke will be put under the microscope. The farce will continue.

[Sir Why You Little 36,892]

Watch out , BH will accuse you of using the "look at what other clubs have been doing" line ?

What he fails to acknowledge is that as guilty and deserving of punishment the MFC may be, we are in competition with the other clubs whose infractions have not been subject to a 6 month investigation. That makes the situation different that just whinging "the other speeding driver did not get fined". The AFL either bins our case, or follows up the other investigations or we can justly feel hard done by.

I am not too concerned about what BH thinks...he is free to tell us his opinion..I am more concerned about the MFC and how the club is being hounded by fools (so it seems) who are hired by HQ to do a job that was instigated by a 2IC that is no longer in existence...Meanwhile 17 other clubs many of whom have done exactly the same...sometime worse imo are all asleep over summer resting in peace...

There are many pieces of audio the AFL (or is that stalag 13) could listen too....

i agree with what you say.....one in all in.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,121]

I read in this mornings paper that they are also querying playing 3 ruckman !

Investigators " can you explain why you played 3 ruckman - jamar, Martin and spencer, all in the same side"

mfc defence " because it is our belief that 3 crap ruckman equals one good ruckman."

Haha it's such a farce - didn't Jamar kick 5 goals that day.

[Macca 16,900]

Imagine 14 banks being robbed by 14 different bank robbers . Only one is identified and caught . The other 13 bank robbers escape identification and are never caught . The authorities have absolutely no idea who the other 13 bank robbers are . The caught and identified bank robber couldn't really claim innocence on the back of the other 13 unsolved robberies . Obviously not .

Now, imagine 14 different 'tanking' seasons by 14 various clubs . Imagine if All these tanking seasons could be identified with a bit of investigation . Then imagine that the authorities decided to only investigate one club in one season and completely ignore all 13 other transgressions .

2001 - Saints, Hawks. Eagles

*2003 - Dogs, Blues

2004 - Tigers, Hawks, Dogs

2005 - Blues, Pies, Hawks

2007 - Blues, Tigers

2009 - ??????

With the exception of Richmond in 2007, all the above clubs received a priority pick before the 1st round of picks . (Wallace has admitted not making any 'moves' in their round 22 game vs St.Kilda . This game was played on the day before the infamous 'Kreuzer cup' or 'Judd cup')

Some big names came with those priority picks including Judd, Ball, Hodge, Cooney, Griffen, Thomas, Roughead, and Murphy . Also, Cotchin, who wasn't a priority pick, but is a top player

It could be argued that Judd was tanked for twice - 2001 and 2007 . It's any wonder he's gone a bit haywire on the field with his crazy indiscretions .

It could also be argued that all the above 'priority pick seasons' were 'tanking' seasons . It's all there to be investigated . The same sort of tanking 'evidence' of those seasons could be uncovered if each possible season (and team) is given a 6 month investigation .

Quite a number of years would be needed for these investigations of course . 13 x 6 months = 6.5 years . Unless the AFL want to 'fast track' everything and bring in some more 'Haddad and Clothier' types . Not forgetting the ensuing court cases that would possibly follow .

Edit : The bank robbery analogy is there to highlight that in our case we could point at other indiscretions and say - "What about them? It's transparent, everyone was watching, we know who they are and we know what they did"

The threat of highlighting these other 'dodgy' seasons in court is very real and one that the AFL must be acutely aware of . The possibility of other clubs being found to have gone down a similar track as what we have (list management etc) could be our saving grace .

The AFL won't want this to go to court .

*We received a priority pick in 2003 but we really were rubbish that year

Edited January 11, 2013 by Macca

[dee-luded 2,959]

Imagine 14 banks being robbed by 14 different bank robbers . Only one is identified and caught . The other 13 bank robbers escape identification and are never caught . The authorities have absolutely no idea who the other 13 bank robbers are . The caught and identified bank robber couldn't really claim innocence on the back of the other 13 unsolved robberies . Obviously not .

Now, imagine 14 different 'tanking' seasons by 14 various clubs . Imagine if All these tanking seasons could be identified with a bit of investigation . Then imagine that the authorities decided to only investigate one club in one season and completely ignore all 13 other transgressions .

2001 - Saints

2001 - Hawks

2001 - Eagles

2003 - Dogs

2003 - Blues

2004 - Tigers

2004 - Hawks

2004 - Dogs

2005 - Blues

2005 - Pies

2005 - Hawks

2007 - Blues

2007 - Tigers

2009 - ??????

With the exception of Richmond in 2007, all the above clubs received a priority pick before the 1st round of picks . (Wallace has admitted not making any 'moves' in their round 22 game vs St.Kilda . The day before the 'Kreuzer cup' or 'Judd cup')

Some big names came with those priority picks including Judd, Ball, Hodge, Cooney, Griffen, Thomas, Roughead, and Murphy . Also, Cotchin who wasn't a priority pick, but is a top player

It could be argued that Judd was tanked for twice - 2001 and 2007 .

We received a priority pick in 2003 but we really were rubbish that year

not to mention some? creative workings getting murphy to not go father/son to the Lions.

[Macca 16,900]

If the Hawks had not received a priority pick in 2004 there is a very good chance they wouldn't have picked up Buddy Franklin at all in that seasons National Draft . As it is they received picks 2 (Roughy) and 5(Buddy) . Without a priority pick they would have probably had pick 5 only . How do they win the 2008 flag without Buddy ? They don't . Leigh Matthews described Buddy's year as the best year he'd ever seen from any player .

The Hawks lost 12 of their last 14 games that season including 2 losses by 1 point and another loss by 4 points . Wonder if there were instances of '3 minutes of fumbling' in those games ? We've got the videos - all we have to do is look at them .

... Season 2004

[dee-luded 2,959]

If the Hawks had not received a priority pick in 2004 there is a very good chance they wouldn't have picked up Buddy Franklin at all in that seasons National Draft . As it is they received picks 2 (Roughy) and 5(Buddy) . Without a priority pick they would have probably had pick 5 only . How do they win the 2008 flag without Buddy ? They don't . Leigh Matthews described Buddy's year as the best year he'd ever seen from any player .

The Hawks lost 12 of their last 14 games that season including 2 losses by 1 point and another loss by 4 points . Wonder if there were instances of '3 minutes of fumbling' in those games ? We've got the videos - all we have to do is look at them .

... Season 2004

riewoldt & kosi?

[rjay 24,809]

You might also want to have a look at WC at it again in 2010 'Macca'. Interesting how they came back up so quickly. Injuries yes but Gaff and don't mention the war, Darling the priority pick certainly helped.

[Macca 16,900]

riewoldt & kosi?

The list of dodgy seasons is immense . Even non priority pick years could be brought into question .

2006 - Bryce Gibbs cup

You might also want to have a look at WC at it again in 2010 'Macca'. Interesting how they came back up so quickly. Injuries yes but Gaff and don't mention the war, Darling the priority pick certainly helped.

Yes rjay, and the Lions of 2011 . Remember that game late in the season when they lost to the Crows after leading by over 20 points upon entering the time on period?

They could have only received a priority pick before the 2nd round of picks but at the time that particular pick was up in the air . Fairly sure they qualified for that priority pick with only a total of 4 wins, but the AFL decided not to award it to them One of their senior players made a vague reference about the way they were finishing their season around that time.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Macca

[Flying Cloud 152]

For me it is the AFL that is on trial here.

I mean they are meant to be the organisation that impartially administers a sporting competition, aren't they?

Actually, anyones guess what they are meant to do.

When I started thinking this I though OK this must go against the charter of the AFL or something...

- Home page of the IOC has a link to details about what they are about and what they are trying to achieve

- The ICC has a link on the their home page to Vision and Strategic Direction etc.

- Even the ARL has an excelent page on what they are about and what they hope to achieve

- And that bastion of impartiality, FIFA has an excelent run down of their mission

But 30 minutes of checking the AFL web site and no charter, no goals, no constitution, nothing. Not saying they don't have one, but AD did you learn anything from your junket to London?

Edit: Grammar

Edited January 11, 2013 by Flying Cloud

[Grapeviney 9,668]

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

Throw in Top Secret and a smattering of Naked Gun and I'll come over for a movie night BB.

In fact, I suspect (hope)Clothier and Haddad have a bit of the Frank Drebin about them.

[DirtyDees DDC 176]

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.

So 3 people (CS, CC and DB) have possibly been charged with draft tampering, yet there is no actual regulation that defines this practice? Not even something like 'clubs shall not try to manipulate their draft selections to gain an unfair advantage'? Our legal guys will love this.

There must be more in this report than has been released. The usual practice when reviewing decisions is:

1. gather the facts,

2. look at the law, and

3. apply the law to the facts.

Surely the report couldn't recommend possible charges against CS, CC and DB without linking those charges to some specific regulation(s) of the AFL? And i'm not sure that good old regulation 19 (A5) covers draft tampering either, if only for the previously raised reason that CC and CS weren't on the coaching panel.

The AFL Regulation 19 (A5) explains that:

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 that match, for any reason whatsoever.

No there must be something else.

[BarnDee 287]

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 !!

yeah , cheers , i sat my lil girls 7 and 8 to watch mars attacks and life of brian , they loved both , they still watch em and so funny to hear them losing it , seems the more times they see em the more they pick , up , , but they havent seen mad mad yet , so i must get it , hahahaha , what a crack up , cheers

[monoccular 17,408]

Billy. You are rolling over. Stop it now.

This sham must be hard fought by the MFC Dean Bailey and the legal Teams.

The AFL have bought themselves into disrepute thus far...

And you are holding a white flag??

FIGHT THE POWER.

It is all of the AFL, in particularly the recently departed coffee boy, Brock McLean, and the clowns on OTC who exploited his limited intelligence who have brought the game into disrepute.

[rjay 24,809]

The list of dodgy seasons is immense . Even non priority pick years could be brought into question .

2006 - Bryce Gibbs cup

Yes rjay, and the Lions of 2011 . Remember that game late in the season when they lost to the Crows after leading by over 20 points upon entering the time on period?

They could have only received a priority pick before the 2nd round of picks but at the time that particular pick was up in the air (fairly sure they qualified for it with only a total of 4 wins, but the AFL decided not to award it to them )

You do really have to ask why we have been picked out. It's not a matter of feeling insecure or conspiracy theories or anything else, I mean I'm not paranoid by why is everyone picking on me.

Have we just been unlucky, we don't seem to have left ourselves any more open than Richmond or Carlton to name a couple where senior people have come out with some statements that would cast some doubt on their actions.

Is Brock a more substantial voice than Wallace or Libba, how about Fev.

...and the actions of the other clubs you mentioned have all been dubious in relation to how they got priority and or high draft picks.

[Macca 16,900]

You do really have to ask why we have been picked out. It's not a matter of feeling insecure or conspiracy theories or anything else, I mean I'm not paranoid by why is everyone picking on me.

Have we just been unlucky, we don't seem to have left ourselves any more open than Richmond or Carlton to name a couple where senior people have come out with some statements that would cast some doubt on their actions.

Is Brock a more substantial voice than Wallace or Libba, how about Fev.

...and the actions of the other clubs you mentioned have all been dubious in relation to how they got priority and or high draft picks.

I've sort of come to terms with the 'why us' bit . I can only put it down to a number of possible explanations .

Scapegoat

Sacrificial lamb

The bully element

Easy head to kick

They need an example to show others

Sheer stupidity (in the sense of where it could all end up - where nobody wins)

Bloody mindedness

Investigators are incompetent

Mike Sheahan's 'pathetic and disgusting' jibe

The OTC set up (?)

The mob mentality

Bandwagon jumpers

The gullible roped in by obviously embellished articles in the media

Vlad overseas

AA out of his depth

The perceived need to find us guilty

Extreme media bias

Caro's vendetta against Schwab and her general one-sided and largely embellished articles about us .

Humour not acknowledged (CC)

Our role in all this

It's like it's a perfect storm .

Obviously we have to be in fight back mode. Public support is very important and can't be underestimated .We would love this to totally backfire on the AFL - and it can .

A week ago I intimated that this saga might end up in a somewhat unpalatable suspended fine situation but after the events of the past few days (the ridiculous fumbling accusations and the ludicrous 'tanking win' bit) I now believe we should accept nothing more than a finding of 'No charges to answer' .

Edited January 11, 2013 by Macca

[Carrot Top 947]

I've sort of come to terms with the 'why us' bit . I can only put it down to a number of possible explanations .

The main one is that we kept bleeding into the shark tank. It was amateur hour from go until not long ago. We seem to have a smarter set up running the show these days, but geez we went about things in dumb ways at times.

What's done is done, but we need to be a lot smarter about almost everything going forward or we'll keep getting eaten alive over everything.

[Macca 16,900]

The main one is that we kept bleeding into the shark tank. It was amateur hour from go until not long ago. We seem to have a smarter set up running the show these days, but geez we went about things in dumb ways at times.

What's done is done, but we need to be a lot smarter about almost everything going forward or we'll keep getting eaten alive over everything.

Yeah CT, you make a good point . Non success on the field is another reason this sort of stuff might happen . With season after season of poor on field returns comes probable sackings and possible infighting . Noses can be put out of joint, grudges are often held, backstabbing can occur and the blame game no doubt starts .

Fingers are pointed in every which way and before you know it, leaks can occur . Not sure how you can stop all this by the way . And I'm not specifically talking about our club - that sort of stuff can happen at any club, any time .

I have a small concern about Bailey. Not about him per say but his predicament . I really hope we are working with him closely.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Macca

[Carrot Top 947]

I have a small concern about Bailey. Not about him per say but his predicament . I really hope we are somehow working with him .

He's chained to us. If he turns on us to save his skin his name will be Mudd in the coaching world. Ask Libber how being a rat is working out for him.

[Macca 16,900]

He's chained to us. If he turns on us to save his skin his name will be Mudd in the coaching world. Ask Libber how being a rat is working out for him.

As I said, it's only a small concern. Early on in this thread, a few of us were indicating that they all get their stories straight. Our club needs to be working with Dean as closely as possible.

[stuie 7,374]

Thought this was a good, sensible piece for a change...

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/spat-over-tanking-bedevils-dees-20130111-2clhj.html

[My TD 156]

Pretty much spelt it out.

Only bit he missed was that Pendlebury and Thomas were picked up only 2 years after losing consecutive GFs.

Coulda left out the poor us bit at the end.

[timD 994]

Pretty much spelt it out.

Only bit he missed was that Pendlebury and Thomas were picked up only 2 years after losing consecutive GFs.

Coulda left out the poor us bit at the end.

I think the 'poor us' bit softened the descriptions of the inept playing list/performances we've put us. It allowed him to sink the boots in and not come of looking like a flamer.