sue

Did she state these as facts of which she had been informed or, as I presume, this is just her speculating on what she thinks is likely to happen? Either that or the AFL's processes are totally corrupt and leak like a sieve. Or she has a crystal ball.

That is one explanation of whatever was signed (if anything) - better than the one I suggested about never from suing the club. But wouldn't it look very suspicious if the entire team claimed to all be suffering the same injuries?

This waiver, if true, is mind boggling regardless of any illegal drug issue. What could it be? Player signs he won't sue the club if the supplement (or whatever) is later linked to some disease in 20 years? Any suggestions?

I think most of us agree with your list. But you exaggerate the 'victim mentality' of other posters and how inept our 'experimenting/tanking' was. As someone posted earlier today, there doesn't have to be a conspiracy, just an unfortunate set of circumstances and timing for us being the target. But why not grumble about that and some of the so-called journalism we have seen? - it's therapeutic for starters. Anyway, I'd rather read that sort of grumbling than read people calling us totally inept and deserving of being clobbered. And some posters even appear to take some masochistic pleasure out of all that . (Not ascribing that to you personally BH. But just as you are sick of 'bleating/victim mentality', I'm sick of those who beat their hairy-chests saying everyone should be sacked and that we are the most inept club in the league). Let's hope this will all be over and we can start arguing about which players should be sent to Casey.

You miss my point entirely. I'm not talking about guilt or innocence. I'm saying we are in a competition, organized by the AFL, with the other possible 'offenders'. Burglars and speeding motorists are not in such a competition. That difference may have legal consequences. I'm saying there MAY be a line of argument in court which could be taken. Not a line to prove we are not guilty. But perhaps we can argue that whatever punishment the AFL dishes out (beyond this ludicrously long process) is unfair and discriminatory <replace words with legal jargon here> unless the AFL can show why they have not investigated other clubs with whom we compete who are equally deserving of investigation. And that is a can of worms I expect the AFL would like to leave unopened.

Maybe not, but it could well be relevant if it goes to court. As I've said before, it is not like getting booked for speeding while the next car does not. The AFL runs a competition which we and the other naughty clubs are all in. I'm just a bush lawyer, but my guess is that that issue could well be a line MFC could take in court. Which if I'm correct, would make the AFL think twice about riling the MFC too much.

Your last sentence sums up what's wrong with the argument. Despite all these outrageous positional moves we were winning. Deliberately done to lose, or inspirational ideas for a crap team to try? No one can really tell but Bailey. Now if Bailey sent out a runner to tell a player to run over the mark after the siren to ensure a 50m penalty and a goal to Richmond, then you'd have a watertight case. But that didn't happen.

The statement in bold is often claimed but I haven't seen much evidence that supports this view. What is it based on? And in what way did the botching lead to us alone being investigated? The sacking of Bailey? Even if it could have been handled more personally after 186, I expect most coaches, no matter how smoothly they were sacked, would have said the same sort of comment given the AFL's/AD's public position on 'experimenting'. What else did we botch (more than other 'tanking' clubs) and in what way did it lead to us alone being investigated? While there may be no anti-MFC/individuals conspiracy and doubtless the AFL is only concerned with its image, the process has, as you say, been unfair. That doesn't do much for the AFL's image in the eyes of Demons supporters. We must make sure our friends and acquaintances see that too.

Amazing conflating of the question 'Did we tank' with 'Was Caro's reporting fair'. You seem so keen to paint yourself as oppressed by the majority here that you will tack the 'lack of tolerance' line onto a minor disagreement that popped up. Many here, probably the majority of whom you complain, believe we tanked but don't deserve any special punishment and think Caro's reporting was the pits. Many others say we didn't tank because tanking is not properly defined, and think Caro's reporting was the pits. And other variants. A small number think we tanked and deserve punishment regardless of what other clubs may have done or what Caro writes. Some think Caro is generally a good reporter but her putting the boot into the MFC (and no other club) was disgraceful. Some think she is a crap reporter and her putting the boot into the MFC (and no other club) was disgraceful. A small number think she is great and MFC deserves all we get from her. And other variants. I see a divergence of views on this forum. Just because most posters take a certain position on something doesn't make it 'groupthink'. It could just happen to be the majority view. And that may even be correct on occasion. (And the abuse the minority sometimes unfortunately suffer from some in the majority is no worse than the abuse some in the minority throw at others.)

I don't think many posters here are that critical of Caro's facts - they are precious few on this issue anyway. They are critical of her for the words I've bolded above in your post which apply to her recent efforts as much as any poster here. A random forum member may be biased and have 'agendas' etc, but I expect better from a professional journalist. Or at least, I used to.

Agree. Whatever people think of Healy's original motives and his standard of journalism at the Brock interview, and his club loyalty or otherwise, the statement above is something many of us have been desperately waiting to see in the media. And he has put it very bluntly. This sort of press should make the AFL think twice before deciding to clobber the Demons.

There is an interesting change in the accusation against CC in the last bit of todays Ageing article. Harming is not the same as 'stop winning'. It is a statement of fact. But I expect this is due to journalistic sloppiness, regurgitating stuff and not wanting to cut and past everything, than anything meaningful.

I'm certainly interested in the latter but I don't think the former is of much value. I might change my mind if someone can provide good evidence that the few people from that time who are still around the club, stuffed up in some way that led to us being the target of this witch-hunt. So far I haven't seen that evidence.

Like a dog with a bone.... The post was speculating if the AFL's is leaking to the media just to keep in the news. Wasn't asking 'did we tank'.

Given our record in recent years, are you implying that is a bad thing?

Interesting example. I agree. But I expect both sides were reading what was posted even if one side may have been foolish enough to not analyse it correctly. (Though I doubt if Gutnick and co were amateur enough to rely on the apparent support.) And that was in early days of forums etc. BTW, minorities are often marginalized - it's almost the definition of being in a minority. As long as they are 'howled down' without abuse and abuse is not returned, I don't see a problem. People in the minority often feel overly defensive and need to be careful not to feel too readily that they are being 'howled down'. Otherwise a flame war results, as I think we have seen here.

That may be the case, but I'm not convinced. If the AFL had decided to put other clubs under the same microscope (eg after Fev or Libba's comments) maybe we'd be saying that too many people knew the plan in those clubs too.

I agree - they would be mad to take more notice of a forum than well-conducted private research. And as you say, a forum, like talk-back radio is unrepresentative But we are arguing in circles - all I claim is that the MFC would take note of what its most footy-tragic members say on a forum, just like pollies take notice of the political-tragics who call talk-back radio, as well as doing their own private research. You say MFC wouldn't bother. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I didn't say MFC should do nothing other than read this forum. But have you ever filled out a MFC survey? In my memory they mainly ask questions like 'Would you like yet another scarf' -- not 'do you think CS should be sacked'. Do you think political parties don't take note of what's being twittered or on talk-back radio as well as doing their own polls etc.? You think Gillard is more concerned with what Abbot (for example) says on Jones program than with the public reaction to it? You think they turn off their recording as soon as Abbot leaves the studio and ignore what the callers say? (I wish they would personally.) Do you think they don't weigh the fact that the callers may not reflect the majority views? They do both and so I expect does the MFC.

Perhaps Fan could suggest where else the MFC might get a free feel for what its fans (including Fan) might be thinking?? There may be reasons to give what they see here appropriate low weight and do other surveys etc, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't keep an eye on these forums. I'd go further and say they were negligent if they did not. If you think that is pumping up our tyres, so be it. And yes, IVS, it is a bit like talk back radio. But name a political party other than maybe the Greens which doesn't take close note of the ranting that goes on there.

I can only assume from that, that like me, you don't know what it is or what they are trying to achieve.

People seem to be confusing 'making excuses for Jurrah' with 'understanding how he might have done this'. Clearly anyone whose judgment is so bad that they drive when totally p!ssed for whatever reason (drink, mental instability, psychopath, homicidal maniac, whatever) should be taken off the roads for the safety of the rest of us and in many cases thrown in the slammer. But you can still try to understand why things came to such a pass without in any way condoning it. BTW I am almost a tee-totaller and about as anti-booze and driving as any wowser you could hope not to meet.

I'll leave others who are confident there is one to answer that.

Fan, I'm not sure why you make that statement in response to me asking how anyone could be so certain there was no conspiracy. But since you raise it, I too doubt if the main conspirators (assuming they exist) would bother to use Demonland as a part of their plan, and it would be more than inept if that is what they relied on. But that is not proof positive that there is not a conspiracy. A lot seems to have happened independent of the writings of the wise and courteous contributors to this forum. And no, I do not look under my bed every night. But I'm not naive enough to think conspiracies never exist. My empty mind is open on this at present since there's no hard evidence either way. There are clearly some unhappy campers out there who may have resorted to putting the MFC in, or deeper in the [censored] for their own reasons. If they did, I can't think of a Keating phrase vile enough to heap on them. There are other ways of reforming the club or whatever needs doing. If there is no conspiracy, then I don't have to apologize because I've never accused anyone.

I'm not saying there was a conspiracy. I think there is no concrete evidence of one, and even if there was evidence may be hard to find. It sounds like there are a few people with axes to grind who may have conspired, so it is not totally unreasonable to speculate there was a conspiracy. Though I'm not sure it does the club much good to speculate on that. But how can you be so very absolutely sure there was not a conspiracy?