I saw late last night on Channel 7 news highlights that Connelly spoke about the tanking investigation.

I've been trying to track down the clip, but cannot find it. Anyone watch it?

I wonder if AD caught any Badminton while he was over there....

http://espn.go.com/olympics/summer/2012/badminton/story/_/id/8221408/2012-london-olympics-eight-badminton-players-disqualified-trying-lose-matches

It's actually interesting to watch that discussion to get the American POV where they see a clear distinction between professional sports and Olympic Ideals. Far more sensible than the carry on we have around tanking here where it appears the fact we are in a professional dog eat dog competition can conveniently be put aside for some greater ideal directed by people outside the organisation.

You and others are deluded on this issue.

I don't care that others did it, I'll leave the "list management" defence for our lawyers. We're the ones being investigated, not Carlton, or anyone else. I agree that it's difficult to prove, I've said that all along. We're not being picked on. Once it became a media storm it was always going to be looked at again. Other clubs avoided media storms - the Carlton one was over before it started once Libba retracted his comments the nest day.

And yes, we were hopeless in our orchestration of deliberately trying to fix match outcomes. Rather than constantly laying the blame with the critics, or the investigators, why don't you consider the amateur hour fashion in which we conducted ourselves ?

I completely agree with this but the reality is that we've debated the issue for so long we all have our positions and they are not going to change.

Let's hope we just get off and move on.

I saw late last night on Channel 7 news highlights that Connelly spoke about the tanking investigation.

I've been trying to track down the clip, but cannot find it. Anyone watch it?

Mainly commented that he couldn't comment.

Just another beat up.

I completely agree with this but the reality is that we've debated the issue for so long we all have our positions and they are not going to change.

Let's hope we just get off and move on.

This is something we all agree on. (both comments)

This is something we all agree on. (both comments)

Yep +1

I understand this could be seen as a silly question by some, but specifically what does the AFL mean by " bringing the game into disrepute"? because the other two charges live and die with dean bailey, can't see how they could even hope for those to hold up.

Has tom signed yet ?

I understand this could be seen as a silly question by some, but specifically what does the AFL mean by " bringing the game into disrepute"? because the other two charges live and die with dean bailey, can't see how they could even hope for those to hold up.

Specifically bringing the game into disrepute is defined as "nutbean in the foetal position, sucking his thumb and crying like a girlie girl after the 186 point Geelong walloping and being wrong about Tom Scully"

edit - pardon my facetiousness but "bringing the game into disrepute" is as well defined as "tanking"

Edited February 4, 201312 yr by nutbean

At the risk of re-igniting debate, is there any confirmed evidence that Adrian Anderson, in his role as acting CEO, commenced the investigation without first discussing the matter with Andrew Demetriou? A number of posters have suggested that Anderson proceeded without Demetriou's knowledge and subsequently found his employment terminated because of it. This may be true, but if so, can someone point me to a place where hard evidence exists to support this view?

If it's not a fact, or at least not confirmed as a fact, perhaps we are doing Adrian Anderson a disservice. Yes, he might have suggested the idea of an investigation. But if he didn't and Demetriou actually instructed Anderson to proceed, the buck stops with the CEO. Does anyone actually know?

AGM is 48 hours away so that is not long for the AFL to publish their intention / result.

If the current situation continues we can kiss good bye any questions on the subject.

They will be buried in " cannot discuss until a decision is known".

AGM is 48 hours away so that is not long for the AFL to publish their intention / result.

If the current situation continues we can kiss good bye any questions on the subject.

They will be buried in " cannot discuss until a decision is known".

well it is hardly the club's fault that this has dragged on for an excruciating 7 months old dee

7 months is an absolute disgrace regardless

well it is hardly the club's fault that this has dragged on for an excruciating 7 months old dee

7 months is an absolute disgrace regardless

Not suggesting it is dc.

Just a statement of fact.

And it is still not finished!

Rather than constantly laying the blame with the critics, or the investigators, why don't you consider the amateur hour fashion in which we conducted ourselves ?

Until all the info is released and we know what actually happened, hard to say how we conducted ourselves.

Until all the info is released and we know what actually happened, hard to say how we conducted ourselves.

Do you think it will be?

I have my doubts we will ever see the 800 page inquisition or the reply

AGM is 48 hours away so that is not long for the AFL to publish their intention / result.

If the current situation continues we can kiss good bye any questions on the subject.

They will be buried in " cannot discuss until a decision is known".

I would think if the decision is not known by then it will be heading in the wrong direction for us anyway 'old dee'. Lets hope it's all wrapped up.

Until all the info is released and we know what actually happened, hard to say how we conducted ourselves.

I know exactly how we conducted ourselves.

I just can't prove it.

I know exactly how we conducted ourselves.

I just can't prove it.

Let's hope the AFL are in a similar situation.

You and others are deluded on this issue.

I don't care that others did it, I'll leave the "list management" defence for our lawyers. We're the ones being investigated, not Carlton, or anyone else. I agree that it's difficult to prove, I've said that all along. We're not being picked on. Once it became a media storm it was always going to be looked at again. Other clubs avoided media storms - the Carlton one was over before it started once Libba retracted his comments the nest day.

And yes, we were hopeless in our orchestration of deliberately trying to fix match outcomes. Rather than constantly laying the blame with the critics, or the investigators, why don't you consider the amateur hour fashion in which we conducted ourselves ?

I can understand this coming from someone who obviously took no notice of the comedic way in which Carlton played out the last half a dozen games of 2007 but exactly what is it that we did that makes us guilty of breaching any AFL rule and how did we do it?

I can understand this coming from someone who obviously took no notice of the comedic way in which Carlton played out the last half a dozen games of 2007 but exactly what is it that we did that makes us guilty of breaching any AFL rule and how did we do it?

This point is exactly why they can't charge us, they failed to define the line between list management, experimentation and tanking or even define tanking in the first place, poor rule, poor definitions and the AFL is paying the price of looking like a joke for it,

At the risk of re-igniting debate, is there any confirmed evidence that Adrian Anderson, in his role as acting CEO, commenced the investigation without first discussing the matter with Andrew Demetriou? A number of posters have suggested that Anderson proceeded without Demetriou's knowledge and subsequently found his employment terminated because of it. This may be true, but if so, can someone point me to a place where hard evidence exists to support this view?

If it's not a fact, or at least not confirmed as a fact, perhaps we are doing Adrian Anderson a disservice. Yes, he might have suggested the idea of an investigation. But if he didn't and Demetriou actually instructed Anderson to proceed, the buck stops with the CEO. Does anyone actually know?

There is no confirmed evidence in any of the tanking allegations ... yet. Like most of this case, there is no 'hard' evidence either way ... yet. That hasn't stopped anyone here from trying to destroy reputations and professional standing, spreading rumours and innuendo as fact, or spreading speculation or inferences as fact.

This point is exactly why they can't charge us, they failed to define the line between list management, experimentation and tanking or even define tanking in the first place, poor rule, poor definitions and the AFL is paying the price of looking like a joke for it,

If anyone is to face any charges, it can't be for 'tanking'. There's no such AFL rule. It may be for draft offences, or in Bailey's case, failing to coach 'on his merits'.

There is no confirmed evidence in any of the tanking allegations ... yet. Like most of this case, there is no 'hard' evidence either way ... yet. That hasn't stopped anyone here from trying to destroy reputations and professional standing, spreading rumours and innuendo as fact, or spreading speculation or inferences as fact.

If anyone is to face any charges, it can't be for 'tanking'. There's no such AFL rule. It may be for draft offences, or in Bailey's case, failing to coach 'on his merits'.

I think you'll find that the latter is exactly what the AFL referred to when it commenced the tanking investigation - rule 19 (A5).

There's no offence for list management as far as I know despite the fact that many people maintain that this is a crime despite the AFL CEO insisting that it's ok. A journalist by the name of Caroline Wilson once wrote an article about it quoting the CEO extensively.

But I think we've been there before.

This point is exactly why they can't charge us, they failed to define the line between list management, experimentation and tanking or even define tanking in the first place, poor rule, poor definitions and the AFL is paying the price of looking like a joke for it,

There is no confirmed evidence in any of the tanking allegations ... yet. Like most of this case, there is no 'hard' evidence either way ... yet. That hasn't stopped anyone here from trying to destroy reputations and professional standing, spreading rumours and innuendo as fact, or spreading speculation or inferences as fact.

If anyone is to face any charges, it can't be for 'tanking'. There's no such AFL rule. It may be for draft offences, or in Bailey's case, failing to coach 'on his merits'.

We will be charged for tanking. They will merely reword or reinterpret the current rules.

We know the charges, we know the people they are targeting and we know (roughly) what the evidence is like.

We will be charged for tanking. They will merely reword or reinterpret the current rules.

We know the charges, we know the people they are targeting and we know (roughly) what the evidence is like.

Tanking is a media word. We will not be charged with tanking...

Tanking is a media word. We will not be charged with tanking...

True, formally no. But it will all look like we will be charged with tanking in the eyes of the public & the AFL - reporters like CW will make sure of that.

Same [censored] different smell