Redleg

Didn't we?

I'll do my best in answering and will go point by point as I don't know how to multi quote answer.Yes I say other clubs list managed as is evidenced by their selections, removal of players from the ground, the securing of in some cases of multiple priority picks, admissions from coaches and players of the practice, sudden improvement the year after list managing and basically observing several clubs do what we did in 2009. Examples, taking a fit Fev off the ground and keeping him off the last 10 mins when a few points up and losing, not selecting Fev against us for a pathetically minor indiscretion, sending players including Fev who has since denied any pressing injury, for surgery, who were not seriously injured and in need of it then and there, Freo sending a reserves side to Tassie against Hawks and getting belted by over 100 points and then the next week in a final, selecting their true side and beating the Hawks, GWS dropping 12 of their best players this year against the GC and losing and winning Whitfield and then bringing those players back the next week when they couldn't win against a superior side, the Pies, Hawks, Saints and others playing reserve sides to gain priority picks, crazy moves from the Carlton bench in 2007 and earlier and especially the last round of 2007 known far and wide as the Kreuzer Cup, need I go on. I would not make what others did the excuse for us, but rather an illustration of the accepted methods of list management, endorsed and approved multiple times by the AFL. In other words if the ruling body says something is ok you are entitled to accept that and act accordingly. I agree with your last point but I think you would have to discuss what went before and since to get to the heart of the matter of what is acceptable list management practice.

You are welcome as always. I do enjoy the posts that make me think.

As to your first point there very well may be more to the investigation. My questions then are why and what?Bob, again you have used examples of tanking for different purposes. The AFL has never distinguished in their rules this difference. Their rule is, to "play or coach beneath your merits" whatever that is, is a breach of rule 19A. Sloppy rule, sure is, you could drive a truck through it. You are correct in that the ordinary person would condemn tanking for draft picks, but probably not for a premiership improvement in that year. The trouble is both are equally illegal under the AFL rules. What we are left with is an investigation that is centred on a practice that is illegal under the rules, but which according to the ruling body is ok, but now perhaps not, if you are trying to get draft picks, though that is not written anywhere. As a sideline, tanking to improve a premiership chance may involve a drop on the ladder. Guess what, that affects draft picks. Draft tampering in all its glory, but approved by the AFL and the ordinary man. So now lets change the offence to tanking or draft tampering, but with the express purpose of getting a priority pick, which the AFL instigated and has now stopped. We won't charge on an ordinary pick being tampered with, only a priority pick. It's ok to drop down the ladder and get a better pick and draft tamper as long as it's not a priority pick. This in my opinion is Basil Fawlty running the show.

Why do you need to add the words " with the intention of gaining the best draft picks"? There is no offence of in the AFL rules that I know of in not performing to get high draft picks.There is of course an offence in not performing on your merits by Coaches and Players, whatever that means, but it applies without the rider of" gaining high draft picks" Given that the AFL and many of us here have repeated countless times, that it is ok not to pick your best side, best positions, remove players from the ground, etc, etc, etc under list management principles, what is the relevance of the reason for doing it? If it is an offence, it is an offence no matter what your reason for doing it. Given and I hate to mention again other clubs, as Ben Hur will descend upon me, have done what we are alleged to have done and every other club has list managed when it suited them, why is the reason for doing it of any consequence? Now I concede that maybe 36 years as a Barrister has clouded my thinking, or maybe an even longer time as a fanatical Dees fan has, but I would just love to be at the coalface arguing this, as while I think we did what others did, this persecution 3 years after the events and after a previous investigation cleared us, based solely on the statement of a disgruntled ratbag former player, stinks.

There we go again on the accepted AFL definition of tanking, the players doing their best "on the field". Despite 186 and other poor performances "on the field" over many years, we are not being investigated for that but rather performance "off the field", which the AFL has said is not tanking. Yes, I know what you were getting at, but again it is the basis of wrongdoing being established/proved, that is at the heart of this whole sorry saga.

They may not be able to prove banned substances, but signed agreements outside the playing contract, prabably as a result of coercion, injecting players and in the stomach as well, (by non club personnel) and knowing about the above for at least a year, before contacting the AFL, will land the Bombers in a heavy penalty zone, even if there is no guilty finding on the substances injected.

Just read Sam Edmunds report on the game and either he knows nothing or some on here watched the game with Demon glasses on. There was not a single mention of Flash in the whole article.

Little article in the Sun on us this morning about the tanking investigation. We will very soon know the outcome of the AFL's view on the report. With the Essendon and drugs dramas holding centre stage and with inquiries taking off everywhere, about the Bombers and drugs, the Bombers and their handling of players, the Cats ( at a time when they won 2 flags), the Lions etc and new procedures being investigated and adopted, it is interesting that the latest articles keep mentioning how we will fight this to the death. It just makes you wonder if the AFL see our issue as a distraction to more pressing issues. That may or may not help us I don't know, but I just can't see the AFL wanting to open up a whole new front to deal with, if we go to Court and then involve other clubs. It would just be a nightmare for the AFL and a terrific strain on their resources. If CC was truly at AFL house all day, one day this week, that may lead to a deal, ending the saga, without a finding of cheating. Then again the AFL may throw the book at us and say damn the consequences, though personally I can't see that happening. I spoke to a senior footy journo yesterday and he said that he had absolutely no idea what would happen or how the latest dramas would affect us. He was familiar with the views expressed on Demonland and personally expressed sympathy for our position.He asked my opinion, if I thought we would go all the way if corruption was found against us by the AFL and I told him that if we wanted to continue as a proud club, that was the only choice and given the effect on our income streams and our standing in the community and our history, we would be forced to defend ourselves to our last dollar.

Now there is a good post, with a sentiment I endorse completely.

To be honest I think I am sick to death of AGM's. I learn nothing.

They are certainly concerned as it is a serious matter.

No food at all. Spoke to a Director and CC and CS after the meeting and then left.

I don't follow.

Can't say that I have.

Maybe suppositories would be better.

I'll go just to hear Howcroft's comedy lines in the Financial Report.

Don't forget the threatening and intimidating gathering of information. Hope they also talk to ex-sponsors and supporters in pubs. BTW Sandy has denied he is leaving 7 and says he has not received any offer from Fox Footy.

What some might see as meddling others would call doing their job. If Craig and Misson turned him down, they would be acting well and would seem as far as that issue goes and judged solely on that, good appointments.

Hey Buddy give me a clue.

Any Footy news lately?

Interesting sideline for those complaining about CS meddling in footy matters. In todays press on the Bombers, the media and the AFL, have stated that the CEO should have intimate knowledge of the whole footy area of the club and know pretty much exactly what is going on. Seems maybe CS was only trying to do his job. I note we knocked back "the Pharmacist" for a job last year after he left the Bombers. Seems our admin got that right too. C'mon CS haters, you too Caro, lets bash CS again.

You are not Robinson Crusoe, I am just as sick of it. Can't we talk about drugs for a change?

The statements might not be worth a pinch of sh-t if received in an illegal manner. I would have thought evidence would be led in front of the tribunal and submissions made and then a decision given which could then be appealed to a Court by either side if unhappy. Witnesses might say statements were obtained by threats and intimidation for example or might say that the person recording them did so incorrectly or left parts out. I would think a Tribunal would act on evidence on oath or affirmation given before it and tested, rather than statements that may be completely wrong. .

My question as well and it would have to be a body that can administer the rules of Natural Justice, so may be some form of tribunal that the AFL has already or can constitute to hear the matter.