Whispering_Jack

We haven't done religion here so how about some Psalm 49:- Loses a little from the original but it sums up the final result nicely.

You could drive a tank through this totally expected self-serving drivel but what the heck?The AFL decided we did not tank - she never would have guessed that if we were going to be guilty of anything, it would be of employing two blokes for doing something so totally bizarre that it rendered the AFL's credibility barely a notch above hers. Now that it's done and dusted, whatever Wilson writes is beyond irrelevance - it's delusional.

Doesn't matter where you or anyone else sits OD. The fact is that officially we didn't tank and furthermore, the fact that the AFL accepted this is a fact means it's likely that its legal advice was that it had a snowflake's chance in hell of getting up before the judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria. You can back that one in.

Away you go ... tell Caro what you really think (but keep it clean, remember the COC and no bad jokes please)

If you believe that you believe in the tooth fairy. Congratulations to the MFC legal team for a brilliantly crafted settlement. As expected, we never tanked and Caro is totally p1zzed.

Enough of this ... we never tanked as most on this thread have agreed. I've started a new thread on conduct unbecoming.

The decision of the Australian Farce League ... Since Terry Wallace is no longer employed by an AFL club, he can escape investigation and suspension but the Richmond Football Club clearly was his employer when h admitted to not trying to win a game, Now that the precedent has been set, I suppose they will also cop a $500k fine for conduct unbecoming. And the investigation of the Carlton Football Club for conduct unbecoming will also be announced shortly. Oh ... and pigs can fly too!

This is interesting - Ray of hope for Dons with special clause in WADA code If the Essendon players can establish "no fault or negligence" on their part then if found to have taken banned substances they could have any future ban "wiped or dramatically reduced". Of course, they would need to get over the question of whether there was some fault on their behalf by not making proper enquiries before being subjected to intravenous drips off premises and signing waiver or disclaimer forms but nevertheless the rule presents them with some hope. And it didn't help Casey's Wade Lees who didn't even get to see the fat reducing supplement which he ordered on line and resulted in an 18 month ban.

If what the media is saying is correct the AFL is about to deliver a massive vote of no confidence in Demetriou. We need to see the charges and the details of the negotiated settlement (if and when it comes) but it would appear that Vlad's credibility is going to be undermined at the very time when he needs it the most in order to deal with the drug issues the code is facing. Instead, he's going to have to consider tendering his resignation.

Hamish McLaughlin will probably announce this as one of our negotiated penalties for the anonymous crime we will be charged with shortly.

While the club probably didn't handle some dismissals very well in the transition from the Bailey era to that of Neeld, we really need to know who it was that lagged on us before apportioning blame on the club. I've heard that at least one of those mentioned in despatches as a witness hostile to the club not only had an axe to grind but wasn't particularly popular and was described by another staff member as a "real p***k". You can draw your own inferences.

AFL: Demons drug-free, skipper insists

One can only assume that the AFL is getting some legal advice on all of this?

Did this Jason McGrath ever play for Brisbane?

The words used by Gerard Whateley on the Offsiders which I finally got to watch tonight were, "We have to wait for the outcome to judge." In other words, you are innocent until proven guilty. After 7½ months of being adjudged guilty, I learned tonight that the investigation has not been finalised and that we don't know exactly what we've been charged with. Madness.

I knew I'd heard those words before - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4AuxJH2Mj30 What do think they mean? EDIT: Please ignore the ads inserted by google. They're as offensive and outrageous to me on this clip as is Caroline Wilson. I've emailed google telling them so too!

No banana daiquiris, no banana smoothies and no banana ice cream. Settled for strawberry ice cream. Some interesting lyrics from the band - had they tried to sing that stuff on Demonland, they would have been facing a six month ban!

Good to read a well written football story that's actually about, well ... um, football. Neeld takes pressure off young Dees There's one thing I can't work out and that's the reason why Jimmy T's price in AFL Fantasy is so much higher than Jack V's. Is it because Jimmy made All Australian at the Undrr 18 champs and Jack didn't?

Because we are masochists and they are sickos who most likely when they were young, tore the wings off flies.

Well if you put it that way, we might as well go back to reading DC Comics.

Good article from Tim Lane who makes a suitcase full of good sense and is far superior to his co-writers at the Age Wilson and Niall. That quote comes from me - in the OP to this thread. I'm not going to go on about great minds thinking alike but when bad rules are applied selectively by an administrative body like the AFL, it leaves a bad smell. We've already seen how the AFLCA wanted those rules changed after the Kreuzer Cup and the Paul Roos incident (2007/8) but Demetriou kept on sticking to his guns that the rules were adequate, tanking didn't exist and list management was permitted. The AFL should follow Eddie's advice and call it a nil all draw and go after the real scourge of the game - the drug cheats and the lousy journos who think they know everything.

I'll correct you because you're wrong. Neither one of us is clairvoyant and I have no idea how they would deal with the subject. It would probably be preferable for one of the Fairfax people who deals with legal issues to look into it - we'd probably get a balanced and informative article with which I would take no issue.

It's a different but connected issue BH. I was addressing Wilson's comment that you would need 'vault-like' evidence (whatever that means) to find another club guilty of tanking and it's clear that other evidence already exists in the case of Richmond and would no doubt be found in the case of Carlton. There is a body of law that applies to this case, called "administrative law" that Redleg mentioned earlier that should answer your query about whether its on the periphery or not.

"others tanked but you won't find evidence that others had a 'vault'-like meeting" Really? I would suggest that an admission by Richmond's coach of 2007 that he did nothing to win a particular game that year which resulted in his club securing its current skipper in that year's draft would be far more compelling, direct and conclusive evidence that Richmond breached the AFL's rules. Perhaps, Garry Lyon might see fit to ask her about that on Thursday night and Wilson could write a cheque to the AFL for $500k on national TV on behalf of her pathetic and disgusting club to save it months of trouble and help the Toigs get off the rap lightly.

If I did lock and allegedly close a thread on tanking that you started a few months ago, I don't remember it. Over the time, some threads on tanking have been merged with others because they offended against our policy of having multiple threads. If you have details about the thread you claim I closed or deleted, I'll investigate the circumstances if you PM them.If I find something out as a result, I'll let you know. (On the odd occasion, I have been known to close threads but closed threads can be deleted by anyone in the moderating group and once deleted, it's difficult to determine who deleted them. How is it that you are so sure I deleted your thread?) Otherwise, I ask for the second time that you stick to the subject of the thread. I won't ask a third time.