I have to say it again, why is so little made of the injury list in 2009? I just did a little research, and the result is that as of round 19 2009 we had 20 players on the injured list. I wonder how this compares with Carlton from last season, given that they were supposed to have suffered drastically from injuries. To put it in perspective, at about the same time last year we had 15, and the entire football world knew that we were effectively crippled by it. How is it that we played in 2009 with a third more injuries than last year, made many of the same moves to try to compensate, and it is being called tanking? If it was tanking then, why is it not tanking now? Surely the AFL has to investigate our conduct in 2012, since it meets the same criteria?

To me, this one factor is sufficient to have all charges withdrawn. No team could have competed with half of their list gone, as has been proven by Carlton and their failure to make the finals with significantly fewer injuries than we had.

Connolly is so well known for his sense of humour. Strange as it could be to some, he is a funny guy. He invented "the VAULT", from Volvo, our sponsor at the time, as a joke to the fine conditions Collingwood had at their Lexcen (sp) centre.

Yep stingrays, a number of us have mentioned that we may have to prove humour (from 'flippant' comments attributed to Chris Connolly) . Of course that's virtually impossible isn't it ?

Do the 15 people in the room have to devulge whether they laughed at CC's comments? What about a suppressed smirk - does that count? Did someone get the uncontrollable giggles? Were there sarcastic looks given to Chris? Was he heckled? Uproarious laughter or was it a 'tough crowd'.

More and more 'weird' stuff is surfacing. These investigators are looking more and more like rank amateurs as each day passes. The 'fumbles' bit is just so ridiculous. There would hardly be a footy follower that would give the fumbling aspect any credence. Unless there was bias involved.

so then, why hasn't Vlad pulled the plug on it?

As Jay Clark and Jon Pierik wrestle for ownership of the tanking scandal story, Pierik has done us a favour this morning.

His piece in the Sunday Age says that investigative geniuses Clothier and Haddad "have questioned why he (Jack Watts) was not given more time in the seniors in a year the Demons would win only four matches".

How bizarre when everyone who was paying attention at the time saw Watts' debut on Queens Birthday as partly a stunt to draw a bigger crowd. Remember, that was the time Demetriou warned that the QB fixture was not guaranteed for Melbourne and if it could not pull 60,000 some other more deserving club might get the game. So, Watts makes his first appearance, and 60,000-plus people see he is clearly not ready and he gets rag-dolled. He plays two more games because to drop him after the QB day would be admitting something about his selection, and heads for the gym. But Clothear and Hadit reckon something's amiss.

What this tells me is they are questioning EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED AT SELECTION AND GAME DAY that year. The fact their report is 800 pages is not evidence of, err, evidence. It's a reflection of the fact that they are asking some very dumb, easily answered questions.

The other point of interest from Pierik today is that it becomes increasingly clear that follow up interviews were accompanied by threats along the lines "tell us what we want to hear or you'll be done". In Pierik's words C&H made it clear 'during the interview process what the ramifications would be for those who did not cooperate'. Tainted evidence indeed. Legally useless. Pierik says: 'the afl's handling of the five month investigation has also been questioned by lawyers who feel there was not enough scrutiny on H&C by senior afl figures. The conduct of the investigation and the line of questioning is expected to be brought up at the hearing."

OK, so maybe we can shoot this thing down, but it's time those at the club who are fuelling this media frenzy STFU. The drip feed of implausible, ignorant and sometimes unwarranted allegations is only hurting us and setting the public up for the expectation we take a fall.

I love how Jon Pierik's article raises the question of why Watts wasn't given more senior games in his debut year and then highlights a number of legitimate reasons as to why this was the case.

Adelaide need to be investigated because Dangerfield was still living in Victoria during his first year.

These Keystone Kops at the AFL are effin' unbelievable.

Did they watch any games that year?

Have they ever watched a game of footy?

The question should have been, why did Watts play even 3 games that year? But that doesn't sit with their "spolight in the eyes, bamboo under the fingernails, sign-ze-papers-old-man" style of interrogation.

I note that this kid Hogan who everyone has been drooling over has not played any games yet. What skullduggery are the MFC playing at???

If the Jack Watts match selections are being highlighted it looks like they are clutching at straws to get charges across the line. If the case they had built was strong enough that wouldnt even mention Watts as an issue. Blind Freddie could see he wasnt ready to play in that first year which was proven in those 3 games he played.

If this is the type of questions they need to answer from that year then I would think we will be found not guilty, as this is a nothing issue.

What a joke this is!

Wattsy playing every game as a 17 year old would have turned the whole competition on its head.

The AFL know this is their strongest bit of evidence.

In fact, the whole of season 2009 we were actually so good that we had to spend most of our time figuring out ways to lose-so we could get better .If that makes sense.

The Jyndabyne/Volvo conference is a case in point.

Robbo knew it, Caro knew it .Clothier knows it .

We should have murdered Sydney that day and gone on to win the 2012 flag .

Everyone knows Cale Morton can towel up Adam Goodes without even trying.

With a little reflection, this Watts info has been deliberately leaked to our mate Pierik.

But whether it's by the MFC, to make the investigation look ridiculous, or by the AFL, to prepare everyone for a fizzler of a conclusion, I can't work out.

Either way, it's working.

I have to say it again, why is so little made of the injury list in 2009? I just did a little research, and the result is that as of round 19 2009 we had 20 players on the injured list.

Including season ending injuries to Green, Wona, Garland, Blease, Bell and several others who, if they had been picked would have been evidence of tanking (Maric and Meesen for example).

I just spent 2 minutes on Footywire and came up with the following re Jack Watts in 2009:

Played 3 game

Best game: 10 disposals

Laid 1 tackle in 3 games

Gave away 6 frees, received 2

Lucky to play more than 1 game in my opinion.

Mr. Clothier, Mr. Haddad, this is called INVESTIGATING, something which seems very foreign to you. Perhaps because of your serious lack of exposure to AFL games, these numbers mean nothing to you. It should have resulted in no mention in the report. End of story. Yet apparently this scenario was/is heavily scrutinized. You reveal yourselves to be bumbling amateurs AT BEST, especially when it comes to AFL footy. I'd be very surprised if the people you "interviewed" weren't struggling to keep a straight face as you asked your questions...

Including season ending injuries to Green, Wona, Garland, Blease, Bell and several others who, if they had been picked would have been evidence of tanking (Maric and Meesen for example).

The richmond game allegation about low interchange rotation is a perfect example of no knowlege by clousteau and his mateabout football and its workings. The 3 game ending injuries which now doubt would gave been doctor approval certainly impacts on rotation numbers and fatigue of the players. It also impacts on player positions and where you can play them. This line of questioning is a farce. If we didnt have injuries then low rotations may be an issue. I did laugh on h/s expose on the last 3 mins of the game when non selection of experienced players was mentioned ie Sylvia. Considering he was suspended , why should indisputable facts cloud a media beatup.

I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief if Jack Watts in 2009 is part of the line of investigation they are taking. Does this ex-UN bloke know anything or been debriefed on what footy is all about?

Thought this little bio about him on The Age's website was funnier than intended...

"Jon Pierik is a sports writer with The Age, focusing primarily on AFL football, cricket and basketball. He has won awards for his cricket and basketball writing."

because he knows sfa about football !!!

Clothier and Haddad will soon be know as being amongst the great comedy pairs of all time !

None of this can surely be taken seriously.

Messrs Dumb and Dumber; inquisitors for hire !!

As uncomfortable as all this is, it's still going to plan. Insufficient/inconclusive evidence of anything. My only concern is what started out looking like a semi authentic charade of an investigation is now looking so ridiculously inept that any shred of weight that could be given to the investigation is long gone. The only small comfort is journo's still aren't lambasting the investigation for the bad comedy it now is.

Shhhhh - don't say a word. People think this is genuine.

I'd be very surprised if the people you "interviewed" weren't struggling to keep a straight face as you asked your questions...

I reckon it would make it all the more terrifying.

"He's asking about Watts ... ashen faces ... fumbling ... My future is in the hands of this f*** knuckle?"

OK, this has got so silly that it is time for some solid conspiracy theories.

If I was asked to investigate tanking in basketball, a sport about which happily I know nothing, surely the commissioning body would get someone who was familiar with basketball to review my report before it was given to the accused team (in the event I was too stupid to have done so myself). That reviewer would remove any silly rubbish and which revealed my ignorance of basketball and made my otherwise good case subject to ridicule.

So if the leaks are really from the report, what is going on? Even if the AFL wanted to bury this, surely they wouldn't want any report in their name to look so stupid.

Is some comedy-writer at the MFC inventing this stuff to discredit the investigation? But that wouldn't work in the long run when all was finally revealed.

Haddad and Clothier know nothing about AFL football. They were employed by the AFL to oversee integrity issues. Clothier was a solicitor and Haddad was recruited from the UN to set up a database of Club employees and managers (phone numbers and bank accounts) in order to track down illicit betting activity. They are now running around like chooks with their heads cut off asking anyone and everyone associated with the MFC what their thoughts are regarding the tanking allegations. Not understanding the responses they received would explain the voluminous nature of their report. Instead of "investigating", they have merely reported and asked the various persons of interest to explain themselves.

They absolutely cannot be serious about the Jack Watts scenario.

Haddad wanted us charged with ball tempering, he claimed we squashed the ball in to an oval shape instead of the traditional round ball.

So basically if these tapes have criminal evidence against us tanking then they will never get found but they show DB coaching to his full potential then they will appear as if out of no where

I like how we're play this hand.

If they have 800 pages of evidence of tanking, we probably have 10000 pages of evidence why we didn't tank

So basically if these tapes have criminal evidence against us tanking then they will never get found but they show DB coaching to his full potential then they will appear as if out of no where I like how we're play this hand.

Surely even you can you see the inconsistency here, where's your actual facts that show the AFL is trying to reverse engineer an outcome?

Which one is, it pick an option?

How do we know it isn't the club selectively leaking information, maybe even in a Machiavellian manner, to highlight how ridiculous the evidence is?

Ideas about fumbling footballs and Jack Watts' non-selection can only help our argument and develop the Keystone Cops nature of the investigation.

Maybe they're investigating why we took Watts instead of NikNat...

(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

Maybe they're investigating why we took Watts instead of NikNat...

(Sorry, couldn't help myself)

Jack will put that quote to bed this year.