"Tanking"

[Whispering_Jack 31,144]

IMO we are kidding ourselves if we think the AFL is going to admit that it forced a club to endure a 7 month enquiry - only to produce an 800 page report which didn't justify even one charge being laid!!

So now we're guilty because the AFL took a long time to complete an investigation?

[Redleg 41,952]

I fear Hoopla's arguments in #1319 is correct - after this long investigation the AFL will have to hit us for something or look very silly. I just hope they and the MFC come up with a formula which lets the AFL pretend it wasn't wasting its time but does no significant damage to the club or further damage to our 'brand'.

i understand what you are saying but it is based on a corrupt threshhold, like so much that is part of the AFL operation. We do a deal on penalty, to save the AFL face for a misguided investigation, I am sure the media would see through that.

As much as that stinks, you would have to look seriously at a deal though. What if CC for example was agreeable to a bringing the game into disrepute by making flippant remarks charge and fined $10000.00, with half suspended and no other charges. I am sure that deal would be embraced.

BTW as the rules of natural justice require you to be allowed to face your accuser, call your witnesses and evidence and test the other side's evidence, who would hear the case if we deny the charges? A case like this could go for weeks and surely the Commission couldn't hear it, nor have the expertise to, aside from the Family Law Judge on it who would have her own work to attend to. It seems to me that the AFL would have to set up a new tribunal to hear the charges. More expense, more mess, more waste of AFL resources and more distraction.

Yes I can see a deal coming or the book being thrown at us, to justify their position and then the charges being dismissed by the Commission.

[Pink Freud 378]

i understand what you are saying but it is based on a corrupt threshhold, like so much that is part of the AFL operation. We do a deal on penalty, to save the AFL face for a misguided investigation, I am sure the media would see through that.

As much as that stinks, you would have to look seriously at a deal though. What if CC for example was agreeable to a bringing the game into disrepute by making flippant remarks charge and fined $10000.00, with half suspended and no other charges. I am sure that deal would be embraced.

BTW as the rules of natural justice require you to be allowed to face your accuser, call your witnesses and evidence and test the other side's evidence, who would hear the case if we deny the charges? A case like this could go for weeks and surely the Commission couldn't hear it, nor have the expertise to, aside from the Family Law Judge on it who would have her own work to attend to. It seems to me that the AFL would have to set up a new tribunal to hear the charges. More expense, more mess, more waste of AFL resources and more distraction.

Yes I can see a deal coming or the book being thrown at us, to justify their position and then the charges being dismissed by the Commission.

Surely, the Commission can't hear charges (if any eventuate). It's far too conflicted.

You would need to cross-examine Demetriou on his public statements and understanding of what constitutes an offence under the AFL's tanking rules and if the issue of the AFL not investigating other clubs who have been suspected of doing the same thing such as for example Carlton, then Mike Fitzpatrick would have to excuse himself. If we don't get heard by an independent tribunal, then the AFL lays itself open to costly litigation it can only lose.

[s-t-i-n-g-a 439]

Can I just say thanks to WJ and Redleg for your contributions to this thread. Your posts, given your backgrounds, have made for interesting reading.

Cheers

[Dr. Gonzo 24,448]

If we are punished by the Commission, would you still be happy not to go to court, if that punishment also forced the Gaming Commission to take away the gambling and alcohol licences for the Bentleigh and Leighoak clubs? Definitely not.

If we are found guilty there are much bigger consequences than just a fine or loss of draft picks. We don't just have a moral right to protect the integrity of the club and its employees. We may have to fight for our financial survival; potentially suffering losses that far outweigh the legal costs of a court hearing.

We are not clearly guilty either. The coach is the key, and he denies it. That's why we will go to court.

Yeah that's a fair argument however we may end up cutting off our nose to spite our face. It's not an easy decision. When I say "clearly guilty" I don't mean in the context of the evidence gathered by the investigation proving we tanked; I mean to me it is clear watching those games at the time we did not want to win to disqualify ourselves from a PP. if any supporters are honest with themselves they'll know that is the case. Proving it is another thing altogether though as most of the evidence is circumstantial and easily argued against.

Firts that would only be one component of a defence not the whole defence. Second this alleged evidence against us only came about after a 7 month investigation, that may by the way be flawed, but why then shouldn't others be investigated to see what evidence comes out after 7 months, as you admit others did the same as us. Why only us?

As a Melbourne supporter I agree with you - looking at it somewhat objectively though I'd say that all that is really irrelevant to whether or not we are found guilty. And it doesn't change the fact that Demetriou's defence to accusations of approving of tanking at the time will be that there was no evidence at the time that it was occurring. I've made the same arguments others have made on here when arguing with the riff-raff and trolls on BigFooty however I'm trying to be a bit more realistic on here. I'm a lifelong Melbourne supporter and don't want to see the club punished. It kills me we have to go through this and makes me angry we have been singled out when other clubs have tanked in some cases worse than while the AFL basically gave tacit approval to the strategy yet we are the one likely to be dragged over the coals for it. It is rubbish but at the end of the day none of that is really any defence from an objective point of view. Now list the specific allegations of tanking against us one by one and I feel we could make a convincing argument for each as they are mostly based on observation (player positioning, rotations, player selection etc) and interpretation of comments made in meetings (or one specific meeting) which were interpreted differently by the different attendees. But that doesn't alter the fact that you, I and every other footy supporter knows we tanked in 2009 as the Blues did in 2006-07 as the Pies did in 2005 as the Hawks did in 2004 as Richmond did in 2007 and as West Coast likely did in 2008. Pointing out others guilt doesn't exonerate us though and I don't think it would be a wise argument to rely on even if it weren't the only one as it is one easily countered by the AFL.

[GM11 787]

But that doesn't alter the fact that you, I and every other footy supporter knows we tanked in 2009 as the Blues did in 2006-07 as the Pies did in 2005 as the Hawks did in 2004 as Richmond did in 2007 and as West Coast likely did in 2008. Pointing out others guilt doesn't exonerate us though and I don't think it would be a wise argument to rely on even if it weren't the only one as it is one easily countered by the AFL.

I would think though Doctor, the relevance of all these tanking examples would be to highlight the fact that the AFL gave tacit approval to the practices involved.

There have been statements made similar to or more specific than McLean's that were never acted on.

That must lead to a genuine belief that subsequent use of the same list management practices would also be approved.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Virtually impossible? I'm not so sure about that. A firm statement saying what Brock said wasn't anything new (compared to what Bailey had said post 186) and it had been investigated and cleared at the time might have defused the press. Of course the media might have kept going with the issue, but we'll never know because the AFL didn't say 'done & dusted and in any case we've dropped he PP rule, so move along'.

And I am affronted that once tanking was again investigated, the investigation wasn't widened.

Yes, and there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

[cowboy_from_hell 2,390]

Yes, and there are fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Not anymore we traded him to west coast for pick 88.

[dpositive 1,819]

I fear Hoopla's arguments in #1319 is correct - after this long investigation the AFL will have to hit us for something or look very silly. I just hope they and the MFC come up with a formula which lets the AFL pretend it wasn't wasting its time but does no significant damage to the club or further damage to our 'brand'.

I think the AFL may already "look very silly" along with almost all sport related industries But it hasnt made any difference in the past

Have enjoyed following all the commentary and still have NFI how any of this is likely to be resolved Just hope we are not emasculated.AFL has tried in the past and we have always managed to survive

Re tanking and drug link. I would hope our efforts on the field (hopeless) are seen as an adherence not to take drugsand overdevelop our young fragile list. Unfortunately such an argument could be seen as tanking as we did not adopt industry standards>

OOOppps that could be me getting "Very silly"

[titan_uranus 25,176]

This is a bit conceptual for some, I know, but the rule that concerns coaches and players "performing on their merits" puts no time frame on that.

Surely the widely known and practiced method of "taking 1 step back to take 2 steps forward" makes this highly subjective?

I know others have pointed out certain practices, such as a player running to the bench after having kicked a goal - this is just an extrapolation of that over a longer time frame.

Indeed.

Not that it matters too us much. That charge is against Bailey only, not against the club or Schwab or Connolly. But if Bailey gets charged with that, the AFL is going to get slammed in a court.

List management to gain draft picks is "wrong" in the generally accepted sense IMO. List management to freshen players up for finals, resting players during the year as Geelong has regularly done is fine if it is to maximize the chances of success in that year.

List management to lose a game to have you better placed for finals (ie "selecting opponents") is really tricky but in essence I think is ok but TBH I'm not sure. Players doing anything but their best (in contrast to list management) is unacceptable in any circumstances.

Why?

[Guest José Mourinho]

I fear Hoopla's arguments in #1319 is correct - after this long investigation the AFL will have to hit us for something or look very silly. I just hope they and the MFC come up with a formula which lets the AFL pretend it wasn't wasting its time but does no significant damage to the club or further damage to our 'brand'.

Looking silly should not be a consideration for the AFL.

It's about truth, fairness and justice!

[Hannibal 5,814]

"However McLachlan said there was no evidence of match fixing in the AFL."

Case closed.

[Sir Why You Little 37,310]

"However McLachlan said the there was no evidence of match fixing in the AFL."

Cased closed.

that was my first thought.

Good evidence to bring up in court if necessary!!

[sue 9,195]

"However McLachlan said the there was no evidence of match fixing in the AFL."

Case closed.

Yes (hopefully) and no (sadly). I suspect McLachlan was only referring to the 1 match fixing case that the ACC has identified. And that it is not in the AFL and is probably tied to betting scams. That leaves room to look at AFL-style tanking as either a totally separate case or of a somewhat different nature (which it is).

Edited February 10, 2013 by sue

[Redleg 41,952]

Yes (hopefully) and no (sadly). I suspect McLachlan was only referring to the 1 match fixing case that the ACC has identified. And that it is not in the AFL and is probably tied to betting scams. That leaves room to look at AFL-style tanking as either a totally separate case or of a somewhat different nature (which it is).

Not sure that is right either. To deliberately lose is to fix the result. The gain for doing so is irrelevant. Be it for money or draft picks throwing a game is match fixing and he just said the AFL has no evidence of that.

Is this the precursor to tomorrow's expected MFC investigation announcement?

[sue 9,195]

Not sure that is right either. To deliberately lose is to fix the result. The gain for doing so is irrelevant. Be it for money or draft picks throwing a game is match fixing and he just said the AFL has no evidence of that.

Is this the precursor to tomorrow's expected MFC investigation announcement?

I see what you are saying. But it doesn't rule out some vague 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge I'd guess? Eg. X tried to match fix but he was ignored by the coach/players. Though as we've agreed, but for the investigation, it is not clear how the public would have been aware of the 'disreputable' event.

[Sir Why You Little 37,310]

I see what you are saying. But it doesn't rule out some vague 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge I'd guess? Eg. X tried to match fix but he was ignored by the coach/players. Though as we've agreed, but for the investigation, it is not clear how the public would have been aware of the 'disreputable' event.

it would in court.

[rjay 25,307]

"However McLachlan said there was no evidence of match fixing in the AFL."

Case closed.

Thanks 'Ben', well picked up. Got a good laugh, I just hope I'm still laughing in the next few days and it's all gone away.

[CBDees 3,167]

I see what you are saying. But it doesn't rule out some vague 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge I'd guess? Eg. X tried to match fix but he was ignored by the coach/players. Though as we've agreed, but for the investigation, it is not clear how the public would have been aware of the 'disreputable' event.

If anyone is guilty of 'bringing the game into disrepute' it is Carlton not Melbourne. Not only was their tanking in 2006-7 more blatant but they then exacerbated matters by paying Judd outside the salary cap, a small matter that the AFL was more than happy to countenance at the time (notwithstanding the fact that they were not so generous later with Scully's ploy with his father).

[PJ_12345 1,098]

If anyone is guilty of 'bringing the game into disrepute' it is Carlton not Melbourne. Not only was their tanking in 2006-7 more blatant but they then exacerbated matters by paying Judd outside the salary cap, a small matter that the AFL was more than happy to countenance at the time (notwithstanding the fact that they were not so generous later with Scully's ploy with his father).

But last time I checked Melbourne is the one being investigated, not Carlton.

Finger pointing isn't a defence.

Unfortunately its tough luck

[45HG 1,559]

Is it too positive to say that the AFL desperately needs a good news story and a signal of normal integrity in the game, thus requiring an announcement of the innocence of the MFC?

[Redleg 41,952]

Is it too positive to say that the AFL desperately needs a good news story and a signal of normal integrity in the game, thus requiring an announcement of the innocence of the MFC?

Probably.

[Red and Bluebeard 2,101]

But last time I checked Melbourne is the one being investigated, not Carlton.

Finger pointing isn't a defence.

Unfortunately its tough luck

[i told myself I wasn't going to enter into this debate; but then 'Never say never' (except perhaps in that I never learn ) ] ...

In a schoolyard dispute, saying "But they did it too and they're not getting into trouble" won't cut it. IMHO what makes it different here is that it is anything but clear what the difference between correct and incorrect behaviour is, which means that citing examples of behaviour which is not subject to investigation is relevant.

Put another way, surely the main argument in our defence comes down to drawing the line between 'tanking' and 'list management', and showing what we did is within the bounds of 'list management'. Citing examples of 'list management' would help define where the boundary lies (if anywhere). This would include the well-known examples we have all discussed within an inch of their lives here, as well as instances such as giving Jack Grimes his debut in the final round of 2008 (and, for that matter, giving Jeff White, Adem Yze and Ben Holland farewell games). I can't see any sensible interpretation of this game as 'tanking' rather than 'list management'; coupling that with an argument that 'Well-known example X is not being investigated for tanking, so that is presumably legitimate list management' ought to create enough doubt in any reasonable jurisdiction that there is no case to answer. But, as Gollum said so memorably in 'The Lord of the Rings', we aren't in a reasonable place ...

Personally, I think any lawyer would blow a hole in the tanking case in about five minutes -- for that matter, Dirty Harry would do it in even less, and that is a far more satisfying image in my mind

Edited February 10, 2013 by Red and Bluebeard

[PJ_12345 1,098]

[i told myself I wasn't going to enter into this debate; but then 'Never say never' (except perhaps in that I never learn ) ] ...

In a schoolyard dispute, saying "But they did it too and they're not getting into trouble" won't cut it. IMHO what makes it different here is that it is anything but clear what the difference between correct and incorrect behaviour is, which means that citing examples of behaviour which is not subject to investigation is relevant.

Put another way, surely the main argument in our defence comes down to drawing the line between 'tanking' and 'list management', and showing what we did is within the bounds of 'list management'. Citing examples of 'list management' would help define where the boundary lies (if anywhere). This would include the well-known examples we have all discussed within an inch of their lives here, as well as instances such as giving Jack Grimes his debut in the final round of 2008 (and, for that matter, giving Jeff White, Adem Yze and Ben Holland farewell games). I can't see any sensible interpretation of this game as 'tanking' rather than 'list management'; coupling that with an argument that 'Well-known example X is not being investigated for tanking, so that is presumably legitimate list management' ought to create enough doubt in any reasonable jurisdiction that there is no case to answer. But, as Gollum said so memorably in 'The Lord of the Rings', we aren't in a reasonable place ...

Personally, I think any lawyer would blow a hole in the tanking case in about five minutes -- for that matter, Dirty Harry would do it in even less, and that is a far more satisfying image in my mind

Remeber that Carlton was subjected to an investigation. It was found that they had no case to answer due to their high number of goals missed by hitting the post during the Kreuzer Cup.

A lawyer once told me: the issues with grey areas are that they are as easy to argue for black as they are for white.

I personally think that we don't have a case to answer to, and if the AFL decides to press charges then they would honestly "go ahead, make my day"

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

Is it too positive to say that the AFL desperately needs a good news story and a signal of normal integrity in the game, thus requiring an announcement of the innocence of the MFC?

How bad will the competitions integrity appear if there was a major drug and a major tanking/match-fixing controversy happening concurrently. Surely if the AFL can avoid that situation, it will.