Flying Cloud

Fairly sure the process is that if we are charged, that goes to the commission, at which time the commission consider the case, and we get tp argue our position. So charges by themselves are not the end of the world. Only then is guilty or not decided by the commission. Then penalties are applied. Would imagine that MFC would get an injunction very easily and quickly based on what has been reported. Then we wait till the hearing which could be along time. If there is only 800 - 1000 pages then I don't imagine it would be a long case to hear. Any legal types have a different view?

And then there is the funny side... 'The Herald Sun last night submitted questions to the Australian Crime Commission, a leading law enforcement body in the fight against organised crime. In response, it said: "The Australian Crime Commission does not confirm who it is or isn't investigating."' This is news?

seems Telstra have stuffed up. AFL, Essendon and even MelbourneFC are down. Expect is making big news world wide. A whole club used performance enhancing drugs. Compared with a poor team may have not tried their absolute hardest to win. This is going to hurt the whole comp, guilty or not. Edit: removed swear word. OOPS

Well yes, after 15 years enslaved in Canberra I am aware of the political side of the ABC news, but I don't follow political news any more because it is irrelevant. I just want headlines in case something important is happening in the world.If I want opinion I talk to friends (and read forums for entertainment)!

Any list manager would be mad to take ANY player off the "to be traded list", even if it is just to stuff other clubs around. You would always listed to a proposal from another club. You may laugh at it, but you would listen.

I bypassed the boycott approach and just stopped listening. Used to be a real advocate of the station, and actually miss Tim in the morning and Schwarter in the evening, but life is to short to listen or read stuff that pisses you off. Same as have stopped reading the age. Wrote and told SEN and the age as well. But I don't expect a response. You know I actually found that there are plenty of other good sources of news and even footy news without SEN and the age. The ABC web site is a good start. They tend to do reporting rather than opinioning.

Thread title is wrong, should be... What will happen to Demonland when we start to win

I wonder if the Melbournefc were also sent the same letter. For the licence to be removed, it would need to be based on a conviction against a specific charge. It couldn't be DB not tring hard enough. If they only gave licences to people who tried their best all the time then there wouldn't be many licences. I wonder about bringing the game into disrepute. Been a heap of these charges in the past, and I struggle to see the link between this and a licence. If it is the draft tampering, then I wonder if the same thing has happended to Adelaide (although would be a different State's authority). Also, surely there would need to be a law broken, not just a an AFL Rule. Also, this all happened more than 3 years ago. Wondering how this affects it all.

Am so glad I don't read that paper anymore (well just sneaked a peek)!. According to Jon Pierik, the number of witness statements grew from 57 to 60 from Jan 13 to Jan 15.

As I posted by Flying Cloud on 22 May 2012 - 03:22 PM in Melbourne Demons Just checked - Alwyn Davey 2012 - Average Disposals 13.7, Average Tackles 2.7 Aaron Davey 2012 - Average Disposals 10.1, Average Tackles 4.6 Aaron is 64th in league for tackles and 5th in the team. Not the best best in the team but far from the worst.

60 statements that include reference to the one meeting. Well that is at least 60 pages of the 800, probably, probably more like 300 pages once you get through the usual header stuff like date and time of interview etc. Statements I have seen are typically double spaced etc. 800 pages is going to be eaten up very quickly. Unlikely there is to much in the 800 pages either given that Jon Pierik seems to have been able to read (but not necessarily comprehend) the hard copy (1st sentence of 2nd para in this morning article).

I will take it a step further and say I will not vote for anyone other than current board members unless or until those who make political statements on this board identify themselves.

Yes they can, but there would be something very strange about 60 statements from 11 people (presumably CC's isnt't included) that refer to the one event. 11 people who had 6 statemements each taken in 2012 covering a meeting in 2009, all saying he said "...." with any level of similarity would be incredible. People by and large do not remember specific sentences from 1 month ago, never mind 3 years ago unless they have kept contemporary records.

For me it is the AFL that is on trial here. I mean they are meant to be the organisation that impartially administers a sporting competition, aren't they? Actually, anyones guess what they are meant to do. When I started thinking this I though OK this must go against the charter of the AFL or something... - Home page of the IOC has a link to details about what they are about and what they are trying to achieve - The ICC has a link on the their home page to Vision and Strategic Direction etc. - Even the ARL has an excelent page on what they are about and what they hope to achieve - And that bastion of impartiality, FIFA has an excelent run down of their mission But 30 minutes of checking the AFL web site and no charter, no goals, no constitution, nothing. Not saying they don't have one, but AD did you learn anything from your junket to London? Edit: Grammar

Think at the time was the second fastest on our list, and resting rucks in the forward and back pockets has been part of Aussie Rules since i was a kid.....

Has been some suggstions that some disgruntled ex employees (medical staff) may have fed both Wilson and the the investigation. It may be that those who provided Wilson and the AFL investigators with evidence that Melbourne was "disgusting" may have had second thoughts once it became aparent they may have to appear in a public court room and repeat that same evidence. One thing to have a grudge and a view and try and score some cheap shots, another again to risk you career by giving evidence in court with a top QC ripping your professional (medical) credentials to pieces.

Something that has been on my mind... If MFC took the AFL to court, I presume that Vlad could be called over his repeated comments that he did not believe that tanking occured. Given that the the charges laid by the AFL would be to do with the MFC not winning, then it would make sense if a line of questioning could be opened up about the eveness of the competition and wether or not the AFL was even handed in ensuring all teams had an even chance. For example, does the draw represent every team with an equal chance of making the finals? Does the AFL randomly select which teams will play each other twice? Not sure this is a line of public scrutiny that Vlad would enjoy.

I hope that the source(s) is/are named. If it is medicos, then while not strictly a patient doctor confidence in this case, I would not want to trust these medicos with my personal medical history. I wonder if the Health Services Commissioner may get involved?

For punishment they should all be made to read this thread from start to finish.

I think you are right, however I also believe the AFL may want to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. A negotiated penalty for bringing the game into disrepute against CS and/or CC and/or the club of an amount that is enough to ensure others are more careful in the future, but not so much as to make it worth fighting in court Somehting like a $10K fine each and a 6 month suspended sentence, and if the club say$50K.

More than that, it will apply to the future, and require, for example, investigations into clubs who list manage, blood new players, or play players in new positions in the NAB cup!

Excelent read BB, one of the best on 'land for some time. I have wondered if A is falling on his sword, however I have also pondered another scenario where this his departure has been on the books for some time, that CW was aware of it and that she was so fearful her arch enemy CS was potentially in the running for the position that she wrote the series of articles to destroy any chance he may have had. While MFC may not in the end be charged with anything, it would be impossible for the AFL to employ CS at the moment given the CW created perception of a lack of integrity.

Correct, including ensuring each team plays their absolute best 22 for each NAB cup game.

The AFL has found fresh evidence of Melbourne tanking as late as 2011. Secret photos of senior Melbourne staff liaising with camouflaged US military personnel in March 2011 close to the entrance to the hidden Burnley tunnel have emerged. It is understood discussions included sharing the strategies used in tanking manoeuvres. It is also understood discussions were held around how to ensure injured personnel did not take to the field of battle. In what is a disgusting series of events Cameron Schwab must be sacked as he can be clearly seen as the driver of the van in one of the photos. http://www.flickr.co...in/photostream/

Again, the rule in question only cover players and coaches. They can get CS for bringing the game into disrepute, but they can get anyone for that.