binman

A guilty verdict of what Ben? All three charges, one of the charges or just two of them. You obviously know we haven't been charged with tanking - no such charege exists. Leaving aside the likelihood of charges being successfully prosecuted i would expect severe penalties of the dees or any club found guilty of all three of the charges, particularly draft tampering. Draft tampering is a bloody serious charge.

I reckon this is spot on. No doubt in my mind AA left (or was pushed) because of the ridiculousness of this investigation. They will do a deal and good on them. Should have happened 6 months ago. As i've said before there are no winners going to court and whilst it might make some supporters feel all warm inside if we fight city hall pragmatism will win out (as it usually should). Avoiding court doesn't have to mean accepting guilt on tanking or offering CC up as a sacrificial lamb (or should that be sacrificial scapegoat). Good on Gil for looking for a way out (if true)

Touch a very big lump of wood but surely this is by far the best position we've been in terms of injury coming into a season for a long long time (touching wood again!)

When and how (ie twitter, website?) did Melbourne say it wasn't us?

Is that like one of CW's sources?

My take on cutting a deal to avoid court action? I reckon stand firm to any pressure to suspend or sack (or anything remotely similar) CC. But do a deal where we make it clear we haven't tanked but acknowledge that even though CC was just joking in the infamous meeting we understand that it is possible that some employees (but not key ones, in particular DB) may have thought he was being serious. We agree perception is reality blah, blah and we will certainly ensure CC is aware of that. So plead guilty to the charge of encouraging coaches not to perform to their utmost. But only that charge. All others withdrawn The penalty? Cop fine or even perhaps a fine and a second round draft pick. Why? Because at the end of the day we really don't want to go to court. No winners going down that route. Who cares about some coin (which is likely going to be far less than paying lawyers) and a draft pick?, well we know there is no guarantee you'll get an AFL player in the second round anyway. This way we avoid court, make it clear we haven't tanked an can move on without all the white noise.

Would people pleaaaaase stop replying to MJT - it's making a mockery of my ignore function!

Totally fair call Bob. That's your view and fair enough. But the moral question is a different one to the more black and white legal one of right or wrong. But that's my query about being disingenuous. It appears to me (and i'm happy to be wrong) that you are trying to make the above points indirectly or via a legal 'clarification" question of Redleg.

Woewodin hands back his Charlie? What about Cousins - if he had to hand back his Charlie it would be like that scene from Scarface!

Again i'm not sure if you are being disingenuous or not Bob. Perhaps i'm wrong, but to me your post (and several others in a similar vein) implied you believe we have transgressed or broken some rules. But i'll take you at face value and accept you were asking Redleg for a legal opinion. Now that he has given it, and you profess to respect his opinion, i assume you will move on and leave the notion of us breaking rules (or Carlton for that matter) alone.

Bob, I'm really confused by your stance on this, particularly your emphasis on whether we broke rules or not. The answer to your question above is, of course it isn't against the 'rules' for administrators or/and coaches to make decisions which don't give you the best chance of winning with the intention of gaining the best draft picks? We can't break a rule that doesn't exist. As Eddie said maximising draft position was and is standard business practice. Is it against the spirit of the rules or comp? Maybe. Is it, in the end a strategy that is worth the downside (eg not having a winning culture)? Probably not. But either way minimising the chances of winning by say resting players (such as GWS did just last year) for whatever purpose (draft position, chances of winning a final the next week etc) is not against the AFL rules as they stand now (which by the way i expect that they will be changed to make this clearer). You can see this can't you or are you being disingenuous? The whole point and problem for the AFL is there no specific rule that relates to this. The best that they have is the encouraging coaches, players etc not to play to their utmost, which is what i think they will try to pin on CC (and is perhaps the only charge they have a hope in hell of making stick). As i have posted before there is an official definition of tanking. The AFL's CEO gave it and made it explicit and until they clearly articulate another in their policies and procedures it has to be the one that every one goes by (including a court). By his definition we have not tanked. End of story.

And who is Thrice (anyone who knows e25 must have been around a bit)?

I don't know about the bolded bit - in lieu of a clear written AFL definition, the definition given publicly by the organisations CEO has to be the accepted understanding of what tanking means ie a player or players not trying their best to win. That has to be the definition used i reckon and by that one we are in the clear. Hence McClardy's choice of words. Perhaps if Demonland accepts AD's definition there will be greater consensus and less ridiculous semantic posturing. So i'll say that by the official AFL definition of tanking - we categorically did not tank! (ps i think i juts broke a record for the most number of times the word definition has been used in a DL post)

Like you and Old Fity I'm also a dinosaur. Also like you i don't have an axe to grind with CW. However i dislike her style of journalism, which hovers between discussing the politics of the game and simple gossip mongering, which has always had a place in journalism but back in the day was more the provence of the Truth not the supposedly best newspaper in the state. Some people like this style as evidenced by the popularity of Footy Classified and for that matter CW. For me the politics of the sport are of interest sometimes but i much prefer analysis of the game itself or at the least some depth to the discussion that can help me understand things better ie it doesn't just have to be report the facts style only (though more of that would be good). For example CW (or for that matter few journalists) have explored what the actual tanking related charges mean, how they might be applied, how they might stand up in court and what the implications of any court case might have (eg a negative finding for the AFL may impact on other laws in the game such as the draft)? Another example: Essendon's fate largely hinges whether the substance used by them was prohibited', which given no one has tested positive would be difficult to establish i would presume. Why then was it not discussed in an hour of discussion on Footy Classified if it is possible for ASADA to test any of the substances. Is there any of it still at Essendon? Are there records? How will they determine if the supplements contained banned substances? Can they be found guilt of contravening policy in terms of how the supplement was administered? What are the next steps? These are the questions i am interested in. CW is not alone in not asking or answering them - hundreds of journalist and so little clarity! The other thing i find amazing is that whilst CW and others were focusing on tanking the biggest story in AFL history was unfolding. How come no one knew about what was happening at Essendon - off site injections?, 40 odd player signing multiple forms? rumors swirling about possible use of Peptides?, the increase in size of the don's players?, the huge run of soft tissue injuries that apparently are often associated with use of growth hormones? the sheer scale of it? What about the ACC investigation - how come no one broke that I mean come on - where were the sources? Wha didn't this get out? Kudos to Damien Barrret for triggering this and interviewing Reimers but he said last night he was going to sit on this till the first footy show in March. Healy alterted the AFL about the Peptide issue 12 months go? And still it didn't make the news. Crazy stuff.

Is deanox a banned substance. Apparently if you mix deanox and redbull you get a nice high

I assume she meant that the clip was from the AGM. My take is that she has no clue if we will be charged but is trying to put pressure on the AD to charge us.

Its a pity that no questions were asked of CW about why she is so certain charges will be laid against the dees in the next few days or indeed why she thinks its 'silly' of McLardy to make the comment that we reject any suggestion players did not try their best to win at all times. The obvious questions for me would have been: The decision to charge or not will be made by AD and GM alone. Have either told her the dees will definitely be charged and if not how can she be so certain that they will be She was absolutely unequivocal about the club, bailey and CC being charged, wasn't sure about CS - strange given if the board was being charged you'd assume its a governance issue, in which case why wouldn't the CEO be charged? Finally, the club or CS, CC, or DB can really only be found guilty of the charges that have been laid if it can be established they 'tanked' (with the possible exception of encouraging a coach or coaches not to perform to their utmost - which makes me concerned for CC). Now, they haven't been charged with that as there is no relevant specific charge or indeed written definition of tanking. However the CEO of the AFL made a very public statement defining tanking as players not trying their utmost to win (or words to that effect). Given that, any reasonable view would be that that becomes the working definition of tanking (which i reckon is how a court would see it). Given all of that the question i'd put to CW is: why she thinks McLardy's comments are silly? I mean he is simply making it clear that by the definition of tanking given by the AFL CEO we are not guilty of tanking and therefore the other charges cannot be sustained

No she hasn't

CW's latest view on the progress of the AFL investigation into the dees: 'Or maybe your son played for Melbourne in 2009. At first you thought it a little strange when, despite showing good form in the midfield or up forward, he was moved to the back pocket. Perhaps he told you what the club was trying to do. That the club could not afford to win any more games because they needed to secure Tom Scully and Jack Trengove in the draft. Or perhaps you simply saw it with your own eyes and then heard the coach, who was later sacked, virtually confirm it. In the coming days you will learn that your son's club - or former club - has been charged with attempting to manipulate the draft and perhaps even perverting match results. The coach, the footy boss and maybe even the chief executive could also be charged.' Read more: Would you want your son playing AFL footy?

Yep. Coincedntally that nealtly sums up AD's definition of tanking

I wonder if this issue is that they may be at risk of testing positive on match day?

I don't think that's entirely true actually. The AFL might impose their own sanctions but according to someone on radio this morning (ex head of ASADA?) any one proven to be involved in the supply, use etc of a performance enhancing drug can be sanctioned by ASADA. Also whilst the sanction for a first strike is 2 years the penalty under certain circumstances, can be halved (it can also be increased, if for instance it involves a player distributing)

They're flying.

Half of Melbourne's list!

Whilst its nice to have another club in the gun other than Melbourne this is a shocker for footy and i sincerely hope they are cleared of wrongdoing. The potential ramifications are mind boggling. For starters it would appear that if it was proven a player used a banned substance the minimum they would get would be 12 months out of the game but more likely 24 (even though the base penalty under WADA is 2 years there appears to be some scope for mitigating circumstances to reduce that?). If multiple players are banned they will struggle to field a side which apart from anything else will smash revenues (no ANZAC game for starters) and you'd imagine Channel 7 and Foxtel will be wanting a refund on the billion they paid for tv rights. We can forget equalization payments if that happens and the money they are pouring into GWS might slow to a trickle. The AFL have taken a massive financial gamble with GWS and a big drop in revenue could threaten the financial viability of the league. This is just one of the many potential terrible outcomes of all of this - the fall out will not stop at Essendon's door. All clubs will suffer, the AFL brand will suffer, it would be harder to get sponsorship into the game (think back to the hit on NRL when its reputation was smashed 20 odd years ago -its only recovering now) and on and on.