La Dee-vina Comedia

The Victorian gambling regulator has today put out a statement which says that the media stories earlier this year about Melbourne tanking provided no new information and the decision it made in 2009 still stands. The Herald Sun has whipped it up (paywall, so see below) by getting a comment from the State Opposition Leader (himself a former Gaming Minister) who has complained about the regulator's decision. Some stories should be left to die, but this one has some form of zombie appeal to the Herald Sun. Here's a summary of the Herald Sun beat up: (Mods, please merge with an appropriate tanking thread if necessary) The state Opposition says the gambling watchdog’s “nothing to see here” verdict on the Melbourne tanking scandal “beggars belief”. The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation this morning said it will be taking “no further action” against the AFL over the Demons saga. Five months after announcing a fresh inquiry into the affair, the VCGLR said it had determined that the league had not breached its obligations as a sports controlling body. A statement released by the VCGLR refers to the AFL’s actions in notifying it of a potential problem in 2009, but not the confessions given by club officials to the league integrity unit in late 2012. Liberal leader Michael O’Brien told the Herald Sun this morning: “There is a real question whether the VCGLR is doing its job when it comes to regulating sports betting. “No sporting code can simply regulate itself when it comes to gambling integrity. “Footy fans will be wondering, how can alleged tanking by football clubs be ignored by the gambling regulator? “The ‘nothing to see here’ response of the gambling regulator beggars belief.” The VCGLR’s handling of this matter does nothing for public confidence in the regulator or in the integrity of sports betting in this state, he added. Today’s VCGLR decision follows the Herald Sun’s publication of 80 pages of secret tanking transcripts in April. The documents exposed how multiple Melbourne Football Club officials confessed to a conspiracy to lose matches during the 2009 season. In a previously undisclosed admission, then Demons coach Dean Bailey told AFL investigators: “What was said to me was, if I win games I would get sacked. I was threatened. I didn’t like it. “I think it was a terrible thing to be bullying and harassing not only me but the rest of the staff. Absolutely, I knew if we won those games, I felt that I would get sacked.” But VCGLR director of compliance Adam Ockwell said this morning: “The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation has completed its review of media reports regarding the AFL and the Melbourne Football Club that were published in April this year. “The VCGLR found that the information and evidence published by the media formed part of its original investigation in 2009 which determined that the AFL had not breached its obligations as a sports controlling body. “As no breaches of Victorian legislation were identified, the VCGLR will be taking no further action. “In accordance with the Gambling Regulation Act 2003, the AFL as a Sports Controlling Body is required to notify the VCGLR in writing if it becomes aware of a breach or suspected breach of its policies, rules, codes of conduct or other mechanisms designed to ensure the integrity of the relevant sports betting event, as soon as practicable and in any event within 14 days of the breach or suspected breach. “The VCGLR is committed to ensuring the integrity of betting on sports events.” The Herald Sun report in April revealed for the first time that eight Demons football staff admitted they had been directed not to win more than four games; that players not seriously injured were kept off the ground during matches to stymie interchange rotations; and that the AFL’s investigators were provided with reports detailing “fake injuries” used to rule players out of team selection. After winning just four games in 2009, the Dees secured the first two picks in the national draft, selecting Tom Scully and Jack Trengove. The AFL announced the findings of its “tanking” probe in February 2013, declaring that Melbourne had not deliberately set out to lose games. The AFL’s then-deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, stated: “I actually don’t know what the def­inition of tanking is. In the AFL rules, it talks to performing on merits and the best of their ability. In my view, there was no tanking on match day

Is that what the story is about? I interpreted it as turning pick 2 (or 3) into two picks in the draft, possibly both in the top 15 to 20.

The two statements don't have to be mutually exclusive. It's quite possible that Langdon could say his plan was always to return to Victoria irrespective of who he got to pay with AND the team that he ends up agreeing to play with is Melbourne.

This is not just about Langdon, but can any contract be signed and any trade be formally announced prior to the official trade period, even if the clubs and players involved agree?

Nicholson enigmatic? Really? Phlegmatic...maybe. (I've assumed you're talking about Alistair, not Daniel).

Isn't it compulsory to include the word "allegedly" somewhere in that sentence?

A word I never like to see associated with the club in the same week as Mad Monday, particularly if it's preceded by the word "indecent".

I just assume his title and official role have not been made public out of courtesy to those assistants whose jobs, or parts thereof, he'll be taking. It would be rude, disresepctful and unprofessional to say his job is to do "X and Y" when those roles have been done by someone else who is still at the club and hasn't yet been told that he won't be there after this season.

I just want to recruit him for nostalgic reasons. The world's first recognised rock music supergroup was Cream with Ginger Baker, Jack Bruce and Eric Clapton. I'm prepared to compromise and have Baker, Bruce and Petty. (The club can be the Heartbreakers.) Of course, I can understand that we should probably pick our recruits on their footballing roles, shouldn't we?

That bit's correct. The problem, though, is that he has to get the ball before he kicks it and that's the bit that was his problem.

That's 18 players, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't mean all 18 at once. Even after free agency and trading, that would still likely leave us with about 12-14 picks at the draft. I'm not sure there's a lot of elite talent for the 6-8 picks we'd have in the 100s.

I didn't get to watch the game but listened to about two-thirds on SEN. According to the callers (Peter Donegan, Terry Wallace and Tristan Fernanda), Gawn was not just clearly the best player, but also played one of the most dominant games of the year. Demonland agrees. So can anyone who saw the game explain why The Age in its votes, where they give five players votes out of ten, gave Higgins BOG with 8 and Max equal second BOG with 7? It just seems inexplicable to me based on the radio coverage, both that he wasn't BOG and also only got 7 out of 10.

If we lose, I expect the AFL to claim we were tanking even though that's an illogical conclusion; and if we win, I expect the AFL to say we were tanking up until this week. Good luck to the team. Yes, it's been a disppointing season, but I still can't resist following the day's events and hope, if not for a win, at least for a decent contest. A number of players, not just Lewis, might be playing their last game for the club today. I hope they can finish with smiles on their faces.

You don't think this will self-correct? Clubs will realise that athletes who can't hit a target aren't that valuable and will go back to skilful but less athletic types. Of course, this relies on the AFL leaving the game alone for long enough to let it evolve naturally, something I'm not confident will happen.

What about those that run second last? What are they? Moderately fine guys with an interrupted pre-season?

I expect being a senior coach can sometimes be a lonely job. Having someone around who has actually been there (and not in a caretaker role) gives Goodwin someone he can talk to who can empathise with those darker moments.

Your mates need to talk to each other and get their stories straight. It's very unfair of them to mislead us so.

The issue that needs addressing is the difficulty for umpires to make decisions with so much subjective interpretation. While I understand where you're coming from, I doubt umpires at ground level will be able to be certain about the first point and the second idea will be very much open to interpretation. Your last recommendation I agree with. If it does waht we think it will do, there should be fewer players consistently around the ball which should make it easier for the umpires to adjudicate.

Here are the three things I would replace: the deliberate out of bounds rule even though its purpose is sound. It's too subjective. Go back to out on the full only. the ruck nomination rule. It slows down the game substantially as the umpires wait, not just for the nomination to be made, but for the lumbering ruckmen to make it to the point where the ruck contest is to take place Stephen Hocking

Call me crazy, but I expect a result. Interesting that Keilty is an emergency. Should Max not play, which has to be a possibility, I'd expect Keilty to come in for what I assume will be his last game. If that's the case, good luck to him.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that (metaphorically puts head between legs and leaves the room).

So Tom Saprrow is only out for one more week and not the rest of the season. That's a bit of good news.

Having thought about this a bit more, doesn't every club receive funding from the AFL?

The last line in the article confirms it. It also shows that AFL media is just as sensationalistic as the mainstream media it feeds. The article implies that the Suns and Melbourne are meeting with the Commission because of their positions on the ladder. That's not the case. I hope we'll be explaining that 2019 was an abberation and that we expect to be back in finals contention next year. We need the AFL Commission to believe that if we're to be given good timeslots, lots of free to air TV games and a draw which will attract spectators to the MCG.

What I'd really like to see is players who dominate at Casey play in the seniors in the same positions in which they dominate the seconds. In other words, I'd like to see what ANB and JKH might do as proper on-ballers rather than being played in different positions. I'm not sure who else, but I've never understood why they aren't given that opportunity or, conversely, why they don't play at Casey in the role they are expected to play in the seniors.