mauriesy

It's like going up on a charge of burglary and using as a defence that all the other burglars haven't been caught, so you should get off. It's like the naughty kid at school who when caught by the teacher points to another kid and says "but she did it too!" There might be some injustice, but it doesn't mean you didn't do 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'.

So since you seem to have knowledge, what exactly is 'the complete landscape'? What facts do you have that counter Caro's 'imbalanced' opinion? I'm not saying Caro is right. I'm just saying no has supplied me with information yet, other than the club's basic denial, that tells me she is definitely wrong.

The name of the meeting or room are trivial. I'm not going to hang Caro over getting a meeting name or room name wrong. The substantive issues are what took place and whether there was pressure within the club not to perform, either at the meeting or over a longer period of time. Caro or any other journalist in some sort of 'loop' might well know that better than any of us who just read the papers. Neither I nor anyone else here knows that at present, yet many are readily prepared to make judgements because it suits them not to believe there has been a misdemeanour by the club. I'm simply waiting for outcomes rather than prematurely speculating, and have been all along.

Which is exactly my point. Somehow we rely on the media for information (maybe also 'standard' responses from the club) and have little inside knowledge, yet we think we know more than Caro and she's wrong. How will we really know Caro is wrong? It will be purely time and outcomes that tell me that, not assumption, bias or character assassination.

I said 'a lot'. I didn't say 'all'. I don't think a 'lot' necessarily even means 'most'. Funny though how most, if not all, people get the bulk of their information from, and rely on, the very media that they castigate, selectively filtering out what they want to hear from what they don't. There will be a lot of egg on some faces when this is sorted out. Whether it's Caro and Pierek, or some posters here, I'm not willing to speculate.

The only use of a nadir is to show how absolute rock-bottom low you can go. I'd rather benchmark against other successful teams than against any of our past performances.

The basis of a lot of thinking here is that if a journalist writes a complimentary article on Melbourne they are a 'good' journalist, but if they write a negative article on Melbourne they are a 'hack'. Stories supportive of Melbourne are immediately described as 'great' (regardless of their real literary worth), while stories criticising Melbourne have their author's integrity questioned I think it's sloppy logic and poor debate.

The Australian population has increased by exactly 50% (16 million to 24 million) in the same time that the number of VFL/AFL teams has increased by 50% (12 to 18 since 1986). The talent pool shouldn't be spread that much at all.

I just want to go down in history as the inventor of the Duckworth-Maurie draft system.

This thread doesn't have a topic. It only has one prohibited topic.

I see the Hun thinks it's newsworthy for Swan and Thomas to dodge a hold-up by walking past 45 minutes after it happened. What's the next headline ... "Swan and Thomas dodge collision by driving past road accident one hour later" "Swan and Thomas dodge drowning by swimming at beach on same day man dies" ??

Or maybe you got it from me? I claim IP.

I thought you were going to give a detailed account as to why we shouldn't be found guilty of tanking. I agree we have an awful lot of 'defenders'.

In 2012, Jordie gave away on average 2.0 free kicks per game (that's one per half). However, he also received 1.7 free kicks per game (total 41 against, 34 for). The differential of 0.3 was much lower than James Frawley (0.6), Joel McDonald (0.7), Colin Garland (0.6) and Brent Moloney (0.9) (mostly defenders ... that's what happens!). Considering he has the most tackles in the team (average 5.8 per game), it's no wonder he gives away a couple of free kicks.

And this venture contributes exactly how to the advancement of humanity on the planet?

I would have thought that there's a big onus on individuals to post responsibly, but perhaps there's now an even bigger onus on moderators to decide how to handle posts that are potentially libellous or defamatory. While I woudn't want freedom of speech or airing of views to be limited, this area of internet discussion board content seems to be very untested when it comes to libel and defamation. It is after all, just another public medium, subject to the same rules as any other. It's a problem for people who run discussion boards like Demonland in good faith. There's a lot of stuff here, indeed in any discussion board, that often poses as fact when it's really just opinion, rumour or hearsay.

I suppose amongst all the vitriol, the idea that Denham is right, or even half right, is out of the question?

Agree. I have no sympathy for drink drivers or those who use violence. But Liam has gone from being one of the AFL's most amazing stories to one of total tragedy.

Will they still be available at pick 9 or 10?

I would want to know more about the gambling regulator's powers, in particular whether they can just remove a liquor licence as the result of an internal investigation by a non-Government body. I'd also want to know about the business structures of the Leighoak and Bentleigh clubs vis-a-vis the Melbournefc football department, and how a liquor licence with one can just be arbitrarily linked to a gambling integrity issue with the other.

I didn't assume anything of the sort. I didn't even say that it was CC raising the conspiracy theory. I just said that when a conspiracy theory arises, credibility can go out the window. Note also that not all conspiracy theories are guff.

My concern about the article this morning is that you start treading on dangerous ground and run the possibility of losing credibility when you add 'conspiracy theories' into any debate.

So you call it 'bs' on the basis you've 'never bothered with it'? Thanks for the well-informed contribution to the debate.

Lewis Jetta 181cm 77kg