DirtyDees DDC

He is doing some rehab work. It's not as though he is on crutches or is just walking laps, but he appears to struggle to get his body right for the rigors of training. They are hoping he might be ready for round 3 at Casey.

Terlich was back in Adelaide - family issues. Bail was training with Trengove, Clarke and Gawn. I think he has a niggle but nothing serious, however Gawn is on the long term injury list. Neeld was there for the first part of training, then left. It was great to see so many players in the main group. That was the good news. It was such a long session ( at least 2 1/2 hours with match play and smaller drills) and I know mistakes will be made, but we have to get better at hitting targets and marking the ball. Nicho was in a three-way with Viney and Tom Mac, and dropped at least 3 uncontested marks in a short opening session. His kicking can be good, and he has a rare combination of speed and endurance, but he suffered from lapses in concentration today. To his credit he was one of the first three on the park this morning. A credit to Sam Blease too - omg he is quick.

In that article by Jake Niall, the second reason given is that McLean and Bailey both voiced the view to the media that the club intentionally lost. This was probably the main trigger for the investigation. If both have since backtracked on their statements, will Jake Niall review his article?

If the club has to respond to the alleged charges by Tuesday 29th, when is the next meeting of the Commission?

Good to see on the website that the monday training session at Gosch's paddock is an open session too. It's a public holiday and a great day to get a crowd there to see the team. I read somewhere that Mondays and Fridays are the two big sessions of the week.

Possibly drawing a long bow there D-L. It would be an easy argument for a lawyer to limit 19(A5) to players, coaches and assistant coaches. There must be some other regulations that cover draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute. Maybe they are on page 799 of the report.

I'm not sure if tanking is defined adequately by Regulation 19(A5). Assume tanking is related to draft tampering, bringing the game into disrepute, and not coaching the game on its merits (the three alleged charges). If Regulation 19(A5) can only apply to players, coaches and assistant coaches, and CS and CC are allegedly liable to possible charges of draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute, then regulation 19(A5) cannot refer to these two charges. Is there some other regulation/s that covers draft tampering and bringing the game into disrepute? Regulation 19(A5) does explain why only coach Bailey is allegedly looking at a third charge of not performing on his merits.

It's not just Denham that is the problem here. I'm sick of him and Bartlett playing 'good cop bad cop' with Denham spewing hatred of the MFC (calling us the Bears?!!!!) and Bartlett pretending to defend us. Bartlett has never forgiven CS for sacking him as Richmond coach. It wouldn't surprise me if Bartlett is feeding Denham the lines.

I don't recall you saying 'i believe Scully is gone'. I do recall the definitive line 'Scully is gone' - with never a shred of evidence to back it up. You were asked whether you had proof or was it just a gut feeling. And we got nothing. I don't mind adverse opinions. I think we need supporters who look at 'the dark side'. It keeps us informed. But please don't present opinion as fact.

In fairness to Jon Pierik, there are two articles by Jon in today's Age, and the first article seems to be a straight report of a part of the investigation that allegedly looks at Jack Watts' non selection. I don't think this is a major part of the report, but it's another example of how the investigators have focussed on actions taken (on and off the field). There seems little proof atm that officials and players were directed to tank certain games (apart from CC warning about zulus!!?). So we were 'tanking' because we didn't select Jack Watts in 2009? Surely someone from the club is leaking these stories to discredit the investigation. I also don't think Jon Pierik is responsible for the dreadful headline in the second article 'Tank or no tank, Dees sunk'. I'll blame a sub editor for this one. Jon's article is a little less emotional, and can be summed up here .."when this entire ugly episode is over, no one will be the winner". Amen to that.

Of all the selections in last years drafts and trades, the biggest surprise was probably Dom Barry. The club had skinned the 'skinnies' from our list and the recruiters were clearly after more mature bodies - guys who are ready to go. Yet out of nowhere we also picked up this slim kid from Ballarat. i heard he really pushed himself at draft camp and his results were outstanding. . He may not get regular games in the Ones till his body is ready, and that's fine. Byrnes and Rodan can do the job till Barry can take over. There's probably some mentoring going on there too.

yes apologies. Just shows how vague this is at the moment. I've done an edit that hopefully is more correct.

CS, CC and DB have also been asked to address the charge of 'bringing the game into disrepute'. Is this a specific regulation under AFL rules, or is this just a clause that can be applied when nothing else fits?

So 3 people (CS, CC and DB) have possibly been charged with draft tampering, yet there is no actual regulation that defines this practice? Not even something like 'clubs shall not try to manipulate their draft selections to gain an unfair advantage'? Our legal guys will love this. There must be more in this report than has been released. The usual practice when reviewing decisions is: 1. gather the facts, 2. look at the law, and 3. apply the law to the facts. Surely the report couldn't recommend possible charges against CS, CC and DB without linking those charges to some specific regulation(s) of the AFL? And i'm not sure that good old regulation 19 (A5) covers draft tampering either, if only for the previously raised reason that CC and CS weren't on the coaching panel. The AFL Regulation 19 (A5) explains that: A person, being a player, coach or assistant coach, must at all times perform on their merits and must not induce, or encourage, any player, coach or assistant coach not to perform on their merits in any match – or in relation to any aspect of that match, for any reason whatsoever. No there must be something else.

Sadly i have far too much time on my hands. So i went looking for the AFL regulations. I thought that a good starting point would be the AFL website. So off i went....got there....and typed in AFL regulation 19 (A5). No result. But it did provide a link on the website to 'Laws of the game'. Sounded encouraging....so i opened the link, and it said 'THE AFL did not enforce any rules changes for 2012.' following a recommendation from the Laws of the Game committee. Wonderful!!!! So i thought i'd give it one last try - off i went to Google. I typed in 'AFL Regulations' and i found it!!!!! Rules of Australian Football - United States!!!! Do we need any more proof that the AFL is trying to bury this investigation? Rules? What rules?

So far the 'leaks' from the report have mainly focussed on actions - eg; Jurrah taken off the ground against St Kilda; the low number of rotations; odd match-ups against Richmond. I haven't seen a 'smoking' gun - that the club gave directions to the coaching panel or the players to deliberately throw matches (or not perform on their merits). I haven't seen evidence of an email or memo or deposition from a witness that says they were ordered or gave instructions to 'tank'. Maybe it's somewhere in the 800 pages. i don't know.

This is another example of misleading journalism by The Age. I'm certain the word 'Tanking' is not defined by anything in the AFL regulations. There is a regulation 19 (A5) which says the above, but even this regulation does not define the term 'perform on their merits'. I'd hate to be a prosecutor here. Q. Why did you play big slow Paul Johnson on Nathan Brown in THAT match? A. 'Cos big slow Paul Johnson was the second fastest person in our side!'.

I watched it and thought 'Is that all there is???' Surely they must have more than just a few odd positional moves.

Ch 7 has just 'exclusively' announced that the investigators have targetted 3 matches. 1. The match against Port (round 15? 2009). CS was apparently observed 'rebuking' players for winning the match. 2. The McMahon match. Strange player positionings (Frawley going down to the forward line) and odd match-ups (Johnson on Nathan Brown). Also the low number of rotations. 3. The St Kilda match - round 22. A focus on why Chris Connolly was on the bench as football manager during the game; why was Frawley taken off Reiwoldt and replaced with Dunn, and why was Liam Jurrah taken off after he kicked 3 goals. I can't remember it all...but that was the gyst of it. Oh and no charges or allegations against Jimmy.

The evidence is in their total lack of effort that day, and the knowledge - going into that match - that a Richmond loss could have left them with 4 1/2 wins and the first round draft pick.

It's the heart of the matter. If we were tanking in the McMahon game, (and the coach has denied we were) then what were Richmond doing?

If we were 'tanking' in that game, then why were we leading at full time? Why did Petterd and Grimes kick a couple of late goals to snatch back the lead in the dying minutes? Why did Miller kick a 50 mtr goal on the run from the boundary line in the last quarter? There was certainly a wish from a lot of MFC fans (myself included) that we were better off not winning that match. But using this match to prove we definitely 'tanked'? That will be very difficult.

Which story by Wilson are we talking about here? The initial bilious article where she slagged off the club, CS and CC, or the later article where she backtracked about CC's comments (that they could have been said in jest). She also initially construed that Melbourne FC secretly met to discuss the 'tanking' at a special place called The Vault. This is another part of her story she later retracted in the subsequent article. An excellent point about her blind spot for Richmond too, and and again i raise the argument - if Melbourne were 'tanking' that day in 2009 (and still leading at full time), what on earth were Richmond doing?!!!!! If they'd lost that match, and all other results for 2009 stayed in place, Richmond would have got the number one pick (and picked Scully haha) and the Dees would have lost their priority pick - finishing with 5 1/2 wins. Does anyone think that the Tigers were unaware of this possibility when they went into that match?

This may be another of those famous 'misquoted' quotes (like Play It Again Sam). According to the Green Bay Packers quarterback of the '60s - Bart Starr - the words as really stated by Lombardi were 'Winning isn't everything, but making the effort to win is".

Suspend them for round 1? Fine them? Naaaah. Make 'em really suffer. Send them back to Darwin for another full week of training. That's enough punishment for anyone.