An entertaining read from a well known satirist.

Which would make him the third best satirist at the Age behind Wilson and Pierik.

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?!

This points to the utter sham this investigation has become. The AFL has supported a set of rules which encourage teams to "bottom out" . If you want to get ahead , its been said, you have to "bottom out". And what is "bottoming out"? - its losing pure and simple ............ what else can it be ?

I wonder if this unprecedented victimization of one team will be remembered as "Anderson's Folly"

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?!

In AFL's world they should ivestigate Australia getting all out for 74? since it's impossible for team to be bad without tanking according to AFL

System a farce Andrew

It's so refreshing to have such a logical article written about this tanking disgrace.

Hopefully the tide turns and Andy D starts to feel some heat.

All he is trying to do is protect his reputation at the cost of our club.

The moment Andy had to justify himself to the media and prove himself to them -

was the moment the heat got cranked up on us.

More mischievous misreporting from Age hack writer Pierik in Agent calls for player protection on tanking -

McLean has backtracked from his original declaration of outright tanking

McLean never alleged outright tanking. His words were "[T]hey don't call it tanking; we would call it 'experimenting' or whatever it was."

"Experimenting" is exactly what the AFL's boss was condoning in this article back in 2009 -

AFL boss backs Dees after loss.

So if the head honcho of the competition says it's in order to "experiment" then it's in order not only to do so but for your officials and coaches to discuss "experimentation" irrespective of their motive - just as long as the coaches don't instruct players not to try to win games, something about which there is apparently no evidence in the current tanking enquiry and which Pierik himself virtually concedes in today's article.

Pierik's comment above is therefore mischievous and probably defamatory.

But that's not all. The sheer stupidity of his nonsensical final paragraph is testament to the pathetic standard of reporting we've been exposed to by Fairfax Media since the very start of the tanking shenanigans .

The article states that Chris Connolly he is "the victim of a conspiracy despite an overwhelming number of witness statements detailing the now infamous 'vault meeting'" but the conspiracy is not in the number of statements but rather than in their content and the way in which the meeting has been detailed and interpreted. The subtlety of that difference is possibly a little bit over this bloke's head.

Which would make him the third best satirist at the Age behind Wilson and Pierik.

you give kero and p(ie)rik far too much credit jack. satire requires some writing talent

you give kero and p(ie)rik far too much credit jack. satire requires some writing talent

How sad dc that all you and I have to do early on Sunday in January is visit Demonland.

We seriously need to re evaluate of lives mate.

+9

There is an interesting change in the accusation against CC in the last bit of todays Ageing article.

Connolly has argued he is the victim of a conspiracy theory despite an overwhelming number of witness statements detailing the now infamous ''vault meeting'' after a win over Port Adelaide where he allegedly made it clear the Demons were harming their hopes of securing a coveted extra pick.

Harming is not the same as 'stop winning'. It is a statement of fact.

But I expect this is due to journalistic sloppiness, regurgitating stuff and not wanting to cut and past everything, than anything meaningful.

* 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.

What does this mean ?

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).

I'll meet you halfway.

How about Hawthorn, Richmond, Collingwood , Carlton and west coast go first and admit that winning wasn't a priority then we would consider doing the same.

More mischievous misreporting from Age hack writer Pierik in Agent calls for player protection on tanking -

Yes, this article is the usual disgrace; thick-headed, loose in language, and typically malicious.

Pierik says about CC and CS, that they have to 'prove why they should not be charged'.

But they don't have to 'prove' anything at all; it is well nigh impossible to 'prove' one's innocence, which is why innocence is presumed and the onus of proof is on the prosecution in our legal system. Surely the MFC needs only provide reasonable explanations or refutations in order to persuade whoever sits in judgment. This loose language reminds me of the ignorant use of 'forfeiting' by both Pierik and Wilson.

Later he writes:

'Connolly has argued he is the victim of a conspiracy theory despite an overwhelming number of witness statements detailing the now infamous ''vault meeting'' after a win over Port Adelaide where he allegedly made it clear the Demons were harming their hopes of securing a coveted extra pick.'

First, Pierik gives us the implied opinion ('despite') that Connolly has no right or justification in his argument because there is 'overwhelming' (another opinion) evidence against him.

Next, he applies a veneer of historicity in the pejorative words 'now infamous', when it is he (among others) who has both created a sense of 'infamy' and reported his own creation.

Finally, he retreats behind the word 'allegedly' and fails, as usual, to provide the analysis which could lead any reasonable person to imagine quite easily a scenario in which CS said (allegedly, of course) with jocularity and irony, something along the lines of, 'You realise you're harming our chances of the priority pick!'

What does this mean ?

It goes to the very heart of what this is about.

It means that there is a difference between the legal interpretation of tanking and its popularly held meaning.

The AFL has a rule that defines tanking and the rule has been explained from time to time by the AFL and more particularly by Andrew Demetriou himself as having a narrow meaning which excludes such things as list management and experimental positioning of players. That is what I consider to be the AFL's law regarding tanking . That law can't be retrospectively changed in 2013 to apply to a set of circumstances that prevailed in 2009, 2007 or any other year. On that basis, I don't believe we can be charged unless the coach instructed his players to do things during a game which would minimise our chances of winning. Quite apart from the questionable investigation techniques applied by the AFL's people, this would ultimately see any case against us, thrown out by a court of law (if it ever came to that).

In fact, there is only one instance of tanking that I believe can be proven and that is against Richmond, which by Terry Wallace's admission, gained a priority draft pick as a result of him not making moves to win a game against St. Kilda in 2007 i.e he did not allow his team to play on its merits. The AFL however, has failed to investigate or charge either the Tigers or Wallace. There have been other claims of tanking against several other clubs over the past decade or so but the AFL hasn't taken these seriously either and, as a result, it's my view that the AFL's tanking rules are bad law and need to be reviewed.

There is a disconnect between the L-A-W (where have I heard that before?) and the public perception of tanking which is what 99% of the population (including you) consider tanking to be - that is the much wider view which included experimenting with player positioning, unusual tactics and dropping players or sending them off for early surgery. If that's your definition of "tanking" then a dozen clubs including us have tanked in one way or another going back to Fremantle in 1999 all the way to the AFL love child GWS in 2012. Back in 2009, I supported the idea that we should do whatever was in our power to collect the priority draft pick. I still found it repugnant that the AFL put the temptation in front of us but, we're all mortals and we ate the forbidden (but very legal) fruit.

but, we're all mortals and we ate the forbidden (but very legal) fruit.

That captures the paradox perfectly. It's the AFL's problem now, of course, and no charges issued against anyone will resolve it.

It goes to the very heart of what this is about.

It means that there is a difference between the legal interpretation of tanking and its popularly held meaning.

The AFL has a rule that defines tanking and the rule has been explained from time to time by the AFL and more particularly by Andrew Demetriou himself as having a narrow meaning which excludes such things as list management and experimental positioning of players. That is what I consider to be the AFL's law regarding tanking . That law can't be retrospectively changed in 2013 to apply to a set of circumstances that prevailed in 2009, 2007 or any other year. On that basis, I don't believe we can be charged unless the coach instructed his players to do things during a game which would minimise our chances of winning.

So Demetriou's off the cuff remarks on TV, or glib radio interviews when questioned about tanking in the AFL are now what constitutes the definition of "tanking" ?

And what legal interpretation are you referring to ?

So Demetriou's off the cuff remarks on TV, or glib radio interviews when questioned about tanking in the AFL are now what constitutes the definition of "tanking" ?

And what legal interpretation are you referring to ?

If you're talking about a single off the cuff interview, the answer is no.

However, there was nothing informal or glib about Demetriou's pronouncements. He repeated them often and in detail. I have heard him set out his interpretation in radio and TV interviews, twice at functions where he was guest speaker and there's nothing glib in what he says here. Our friend Fan will tell you that the author of that article is an impeccable source.

So Demetriou's off the cuff remarks on TV, or glib radio interviews when questioned about tanking in the AFL are now what constitutes the definition of "tanking" ?

And what legal interpretation are you referring to ?

AFL Regulation 19 (A5).

If you're talking about a single off the cuff interview, the answer is no.

However, there was nothing informal or glib about Demetriou's pronouncements. He repeated them often and in detail. I have heard him set out his interpretation in radio and TV interviews, twice at functions where he was guest speaker and there's nothing glib in what he says here. Our friend Fan will tell you that the author of that article is an impeccable source.

I don't believe that any of Demetriou's public remarks can be considered the AFL's "definition" of tanking.

AFL Regulation 19 (A5).

No, that's the AFL's rule. WJ was talking about "legal interpretations".

So Demetriou's off the cuff remarks on TV, or glib radio interviews when questioned about tanking in the AFL are now what constitutes the definition of "tanking" ?

And what legal interpretation are you referring to ?

Maybe he's the boss of the whole shebang?

Maybe its the AFL Commission, of which he's 1,,,, that he reflects the position of?

the rules committee only make recommendations,,, for the AFL Commission to sit in judgement on?

Its the AFL Commissions baby, the priority pick. Why, because they wanted to help clubs down but not quite out, a lever to climb backup quickly.

So they want to end it as its become distasteful? And they want to use us as the example to save they're embarrassed Rss's...

Not On....

No, that's the AFL's rule. WJ was talking about "legal interpretations".

In this case the AFL is the law. I don't think WJ was referring to anything issued by a court or enshrined in legislation (19 (5A) is the only 'legislation' that matters and it's what any actions of the club or individuals will have to be tested against).

In this case the AFL is the law. I don't think WJ was referring to ...

I'm sure he'll answer.

Try reading AFL Regulation 19 (A5) and then read the article quoted by WJ. All of those things which Vlad approved in the article are not included in the AFL's definition of tanking. The rest remains the AFL's interpretation of the law on the matter.

The MFC is up against AFL Regulation 19 (A5)

Whatever spin or embellishment the journalists wish to add to it are not of any real importance.

The Media must sell itself. The law must administer.

Edited January 20, 201312 yr by why you little

I'm sure he'll answer.

oh dear, excuse me ... didn't realise this was a private conversation.