"Tanking"

[Whispering_Jack 29,753]

The tanking debate will continue for some weeks to come and I think it will continue beyond the time of the resolution of the current investigation.

Watching the Oprah interview of Lance Armstrong, I couldn't help but wonder why cycling authorities the world over allowed their sport to degenerate to its current low point. Lou Sweeney sums it up in The Lance and Oprah Show:

"I pretty much knew already you couldn't ride a bike up a mountain at full tilt for three weeks on just a muesli bar and Jesus."

We knew the evils that beset the sport and cycling authorities took on and conquered some offenders but Armstrong, who was suspected of drug cheating by some commentators, was given free rein for too long a time. There are some who are now suggesting that cycling be removed from the Olympics.

It's also a bit reminiscent of prohibition and marihuana laws. They were brought in for a reason but they didn't quite work and the way in which they were enforced led to accusations of corruption by authorities.

Now we have this investigation where one club has been chosen as the target for investigation when we know that the relevant rule has been and continues to be breached by other clubs whose activities have been ignored. GWS dropped 10 players one week in 2012 and were rewarded with Lauchie Whitfield but this was OK; the coach apparently played the game on its merits.

There are those who will say that the MFC invited it because its officials mishandled the situation by talking out of school or by being too obvious in the way they conducted their list management. If that is the case it still begs the question why other clubs weren't investigated. In 2007, a Carlton board member boasted to me about Fevola being rested to allow his club to snare pick #1 and a "big fish". They did that after winning losing the Kreuzer Cup. A closer look at some other late 2007 Carlton games really indicates how obvious the Blues were in their attempts.

None of this absolves Melbourne if it really "tanked" but the AFL CEO had previously defined tanking and list management and, based on his narrow definition of the act of tanking, I can't see how Melbourne tanked on the basis of what I've read to date*. Moreover, I believe that the rule against tanking is inadequate for what the AFL is apparently trying to achieve.

To my mind, the existing rule is bad law and it's lack of execution against a succession of others before Melbourne makes the current investigation a farce.

The AFL has to find a way out of this and then make new and better laws for the future. This selective attack on one club alone will leave it open to further claims of incompetence at best and possibly corruption at worst.

* I maintain that the issue of defining "tanking" is not the same as whether a club wants to win games or whether a particular club's actions are morally defensible. In Melbourne's case I covered those matters back in 2009. For the record, I supported us not winning more than 5 games but still found the idea repulsive.

[daisycutter 29,600]

+10 (days)

[dee-luded 2,959]

The tanking debate will continue for some weeks to come and I think it will continue beyond the time of the resolution of the current investigation.

Watching the Oprah interview of Lance Armstrong, I couldn't help but wonder why cycling authorities the world over allowed their sport to degenerate to its current low point. Lou Sweeney sums it up in The Lance and Oprah Show:

"I pretty much knew already you couldn't ride a bike up a mountain at full tilt for three weeks on just a muesli bar and Jesus."

We knew the evils that beset the sport and cycling authorities took on and conquered some offenders but Armstrong, who was suspected of drug cheating by some commentators, was given free rein for too long a time. There are some who are now suggesting that cycling be removed from the Olympics.

It's also a bit reminiscent of prohibition and marihuana laws. They were brought in for a reason but they didn't quite work and the way in which they were enforced led to accusations of corruption by authorities.

Now we have this investigation where one club has been chosen as the target for investigation when we know that the relevant rule has been and continues to be breached by other clubs whose activities have been ignored. GWS dropped 10 players one week in 2012 and were rewarded with Lauchie Whitfield but this was OK; the coach apparently played the game on its merits.

There are those who will say that the MFC invited it because its officials mishandled the situation by talking out of school or by being too obvious in the way they conducted their list management. If that is the case it still begs the question why other clubs weren't investigated. In 2007, a Carlton board member boasted to me about Fevola being rested to allow his club to snare pick #1 and a "big fish". They did that after winning losing the Kreuzer Cup. A closer look at some other late 2007 Carlton games really indicates how obvious the Blues were in their attempts.

None of this absolves Melbourne if it really "tanked" but the AFL CEO had previously defined tanking and list management and, based on his narrow definition of the act of tanking, I can't see how Melbourne tanked on the basis of what I've read to date*. Moreover, I believe that the rule against tanking is inadequate for what the AFL is apparently trying to achieve.

To my mind, the existing rule is bad law and it's lack of execution against a succession of others before Melbourne makes the current investigation a farce.

The AFL has to find a way out of this and then make new and better laws for the future. This selective attack on one club alone will leave it open to further claims of incompetence at best and possibly corruption at worst.

* I maintain that the issue of defining "tanking" is not the same as whether a club wants to win games or whether a particular club's actions are morally defensible. In Melbourne's case I covered those matters back in 2009. For the record, I supported us not winning more than 5 games but still found the idea repulsive.

Thanks Jack, for restoring my faith in you.

I always felt you understood, & cared. but in all the threads & posts it became blurred.

I to thought the same as you re the Armstrong confessions & the 'inside' help he had at all levels to hide his advantages.

The AFL don't need to be embarrassed for trying to help the lower clubs & in doing so even up things footy....

....But to go back on they're word, instead of remaining steadfast, & coming out on the front foot, to those who want to call it "cheating", trying to catch up to the competition....

IMO, the competitions competitors are their own worst enemies. they're not fellow competitors, they're cannibals...

just as the media are nowadays, they want to eat their own. gluttons.

No wonder these things like the media are so sick. they've lost whats right & wrong, blurred into the 'ether',,,, of us against them.

desperation can breed inhuman acts.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

The tanking debate will continue for some weeks to come...

I think everyone agrees that the situation we find ourselves in is not fair.

I am more interested in finding out how we came to find ourselves in this situation and how the club can get out of it without potentially fatal damage.

Incidentally, it seems odd that you would start a new thread for your post.

[Lost Highway 31]

The whole question of whether or not the MFC 'tanked' is almost completely irrelevant to what is happening in the public arena, which is simply a blatant case of victimisation. The AFL is bringing vague 'disrepute' clauses into play, when the present witch-hunt and media coverage is clearly bringing the MFC into disrepute. Some supporters argue that MFC is to blame for its own predicament and seem to infer from the present situation that we would deserve any 'punishment' meted out. They're foolish to think like this, and are doing the club a disservice. The whole issue IS that of singling out one club, after years of numerous clubs inevitably playing out a scenario implied, tacitly approved - even DEMANDED - by the creation of the Priority Pick. The AFL created the moral vacuum, and only they should close it in an honest and confessional fashion. Were this investigation to go to a court, the counsel for the Defence would surely call Mr Demetriou - he who denied, when and if the occasion demanded, that 'tanking' was occurring - as its first witness.

There can only be a just end to the era of 'tanking' when the AFL fesses up to its own mistakes and misjudgments. There can be no other satisfactory conclusion to the matter. Further, it should be demanded that the AFL run a football competition that is not deliberately biased by fiddling with the fixture, the draft, the salary cap, kow-towing to TV stations and so on. Individual clubs should do their own soul-searching about ethics - what they are and if they should apply to succeeding in Football; the AFL cannot sit in judgment.

[Whispering_Jack 29,753]

I think everyone agrees that the situation we find ourselves in is not fair.

I am more interested in finding out how we came to find ourselves in this situation and how the club can get out of it without potentially fatal damage.

We're in heated agreement on that.

Incidentally, it seems odd that you would start a new thread for your post.

I posted an explanation at the end of the AFL Investigation thread as to why it was closed. That thread had degenerated and veered so far off topic that it reached the point where it was almost unreadable.

This is an attempt to continue discussion on a rational basis and, to achieve that, the level of moderation will be stricter. Posts involving personal abuse, bullying and flaming will be deleted and repeat offenders will be given holidays and ultimately banned.

Hopefully, it won't come to that and people will get the message.

[daisycutter 29,600]

Yes LH, in some respects the afl are sitting in judgement on their own failings in "bringing the game into disrepute".

Hopefully they realise the folly in this situation by laying off the mfc and addressing their own drafting and integrity rules.

[GM11 776]

We're in heated agreement on that.

I posted an explanation at the end of the AFL Investigation thread as to why it was closed. That thread had degenerated and veered so far off topic that it reached the point where it was almost unreadable.

This is an attempt to continue discussion on a rational basis and, to achieve that, the level of moderation will be stricter. Posts involving personal abuse, bullying and flaming will be deleted and repeat offenders will be given holidays and ultimately banned.

Hopefully, it won't come to that and people will get the message.

Good move WJ, the other thread was stuffed.

[monoccular 17,411]

I has put this in the Jimmy thread, but it fits better here.

Having development and experimentation as a priority over winning games is NOT the same as deliberately losing games.

Deliberately losing games (as in CFC and Kruzer Cup) was and would be IMO seriously bringing the game into disrepute: there is nothing to say that we did this, in fact we won that particular game and lost by doing so.

Winning was just not the number 1 aim of meaningless games late in those seasons.

[sue 9,096]

I think everyone agrees that the situation we find ourselves in is not fair.

I am more interested in finding out how we came to find ourselves in this situation and how the club can get out of it without potentially fatal damage.

I'm certainly interested in the latter but I don't think the former is of much value. I might change my mind if someone can provide good evidence that the few people from that time who are still around the club, stuffed up in some way that led to us being the target of this witch-hunt. So far I haven't seen that evidence.

[jnrmac 20,053]

Lance has been burned big time while the others that have won and placed in the last decade have got off basically scott free. Its a witch hunt of the first order. 7 guys rode in the TDF in 2012 who confessed to cheating and were given 6 month suspensions (to be served in the off season no less!!)

Lance is the biggest fish in the pond so perhaps thats why the treatment. Contador won 3 times and has had one win taken from him. Doesn't seem quite right.

Melbourne ain't the biggest fish in the AFL pond. yet we are the ones being targetted by, it seems, all and sundry. Also doesn't seem right. I'll wait till this thing is resolved but the way it has gone to date is a disgrace from the media and the AFL If they have really started this can of worms on the say so of numnuts McLean they are a sicker bunch of administrators than I thought.

If on the other hand they are investigating because CW presented them with some new 'evidence' then I can see why they might wish to see this thing done thoroughly so they can eventually consign it to the bin. It has however gone out of control and one thing the AFL loves is control.

The next few weeks will be very interesting.

[Ted Lasso 19,261]

I am not the most knowledgeable on this topic as all i know is what the media is blabbering on about but the thing that i think is the most unfair is that libba has said carlton tanked and Terry Wallace said " i sat there and did nothing" which would be not coaching to his upmost, exactly what they're trying to charge Dean Bailey with.

I am bias but to me that is blatant discrimination and i can't see how any neutral court won't see it that way, we're the only team being targeted.

Seems the AFL just wants a way out that won't make them look stupid.

Also what i've read in the papers and on the net has been disgusting to say the least, if Melbourne FC don't recieve charges they should definately persue that.

[DemonWA 3,928]

IMO tanking is only an issue if it effects the integrity of the game. The AFL version of tanking seems to have been widely accepted in the last month or so as bottoming out. But what people forget is that teams bottom out as a last resort: they arent able to win games playing their best 22, so they play the kids and try out fringe players in different positions to see if they're any good in other roles. Its the last ditch effort to find a silver lining on an otherwise black cloud. This version of Tanking doesnt effect the integrity of the game IMO. Theres no one making big money from the bookies. What Fremantle did do secure a home final by resting players is more of an integrity issue than when the wooden spoon holder puts the que in the rack. If the AFL was dealing with Match fixing then i could understand the recent witch hunt investigation. Just like the umpires can be prone to over umpiring in recent seasons, the AFL has gone overboard with this investigation.

I wonder if the ICC will investigate cricket Australia for their rotation policy and experimenting with the one day side with an eye on the 2015 world cup?!

[waynewussell 5,147]

Demon WA, how dare you be so uncomplicated and concise, yet so clear and logical. Let's call it 'a common sense approach'. Unfortunately, common sense isn't that common when it comes to the AFL and the Media.

[bing181 9,193]

"I pretty much knew already you couldn't ride a bike up a mountain at full tilt for three weeks on just a muesli bar and Jesus."

Not the place for a discussion of cycling, but this is at the very least, ill-informed. Firstly because in those tours, you don't ride up mountains for 3 weeks, and secondly we're talking about elite level athletes. Long before there was EPO, blood transfusions and steroids, people were racing up mountains, and at a fair clip as well. It's a bit like saying no-one can run 42 km, yet alone in just over 2 hours.

I've ridden quite a few of those mountain stages myself, and they're not insurmountable - with a bit of (serious) training.

And just to pick up on one of your comments re cycling and the olympics: the original comment was made by Dick Pound, ex-head of WADA, and if there's a bigger loose cannon in international sport, I've yet to see one. He's the Jeff Kennet and Greg Denham of the olympic movement all rolled into one self-serving bundle. His statement was subsequently dismissed by the IOC.

Back to the tanking discussion.

[DeeSpencer 25,425]

What about getting on the front foot.

We admit to attempting to focus resources away from winning and towards development and admit that this was a wrong move. The AFL then hit us with a very light punishment. I'd agree to that on the 1 massive condition:

Hawthorn/Richmond/Collingwood/Carlton even West Coast all do the same.

The AFL provide proper rules as to what is and what isn't illegal and we all go forth.

Seeing as though someone brought Lance Armstrong into this conversation I'd rather be someone who gets a small wrap over the knuckles now that the guy who holds out forever and then gets burnt badly (and deservedly).

[Sir Why You Little 36,954]

What about getting on the front foot.

We admit to attempting to focus resources away from winning and towards development and admit that this was a wrong move. The AFL then hit us with a very light punishment. I'd agree to that on the 1 massive condition:

Hawthorn/Richmond/Collingwood/Carlton even West Coast all do the same.

The AFL provide proper rules as to what is and what isn't illegal and we all go forth.

Seeing as though someone brought Lance Armstrong into this conversation I'd rather be someone who gets a small wrap over the knuckles now that the guy who holds out forever and then gets burnt badly (and deservedly).

but what is the charge?

I don't want to roll over on any of the evidence bought up so far...

[jnrmac 20,053]

but what is the charge?

I don't want to roll over on any of the evidence bought up so far...

Thats just it.... there is no evidence. there is hearsay and speculation. There is not even a definition of 'tanking' or 'list management' or 'bottoming out' or 'resting players' that people seem to be able to agree on. Let alone no definitive rule to be broken.

So those that advocate rolling over can roll over my assssss.

[Pink Freud 364]

Not the place for a discussion of cycling, but this is at the very least, ill-informed. Firstly because in those tours, you don't ride up mountains for 3 weeks, and secondly we're talking about elite level athletes. Long before there was EPO, blood transfusions and steroids, people were racing up mountains, and at a fair clip as well. It's a bit like saying no-one can run 42 km, yet alone in just over 2 hours.

I've ridden quite a few of those mountain stages myself, and they're not insurmountable - with a bit of (serious) training.

And just to pick up on one of your comments re cycling and the olympics: the original comment was made by Dick Pound, ex-head of WADA, and if there's a bigger loose cannon in international sport, I've yet to see one. He's the Jeff Kennet and Greg Denham of the olympic movement all rolled into one self-serving bundle. His statement was subsequently dismissed by the IOC.

Back to the tanking discussion.

To be fair, the Back Page Lead article was somewhat tongue in cheek. I think the analogy is good. The other article cited shows that there was suspicion about Armstrong for almost a decade before the authorities acted. Similarly, there has been unrest in AFL circles for a long time and the AFL virtually buried its head in the sand and Vlad denied it existed. To allow Carlton to get three consecutive #1 picks and then act nearly four years after the fact on Melbourne smells a bit fishy especially when the AFL commission is presided over by a former Carlton champion. I'm not saying he's done anything untoward but it has the potential to embarrass.

[Guest Spirit of 39]

I sometimes worry that the folk on Demonland are so concerned about this tanking crap that they have lost sight of what is a really exciting year coming up for the footy club. I know the repercussions could be significant for MFC but there is no use worrying about things you can't control. I'm sure the club would rather we channel our energy towards talking the boys up and converting the uninitiated.

Just my two cents...

[old dee 23,744]

Thats just it.... there is no evidence. there is hearsay and speculation. There is not even a definition of 'tanking' or 'list management' or 'bottoming out' or 'resting players' that people seem to be able to agree on. Let alone no definitive rule to be broken.

So those that advocate rolling over can roll over my assssss.

I think everyone would prefer not to jnr

[monoccular 17,411]

What about getting on the front foot.

We admit to attempting to focus resources away from winning and towards development and admit that this was a wrong move. The AFL then hit us with a very light punishment. I'd agree to that on the 1 massive condition:

Hawthorn/Richmond/Collingwood/Carlton even West Coast all do the same.

The AFL provide proper rules as to what is and what isn't illegal and we all go forth.

Seeing as though someone brought Lance Armstrong into this conversation I'd rather be someone who gets a small wrap over the knuckles now that the guy who holds out forever and then gets burnt badly (and deservedly).

Roll over and be screwed, on what charge??

We merely changed our priorities from winning at all costs (which we never seemed to do very well anyway around that time) to development of youth and of team placements, with a view to the future. It would seem incredibly stupid to do otherwise.

But please punish us gently for doing nothing out of the norm.

THAT is something that we should never consider.

PS - MODS: I have rasied this before. We have a "like this" button but we really need a "really don't like this" button too!

Edited January 19, 2013 by monoccular

[biggestred 5,009]

System a farce Andrew

[daisycutter 29,600]

System a farce Andrew

An entertaining read from a well known satirist.

[Hazyshadeofgrinter 80]

System a farce Andrew

Strikes me as a refreshingly honest, fair and reasonable article that, if anything, does us a favour by placing emphasis on the culpability of the AFL in this matter.