Dr John Dee

So one sort of name-calling is ok, another sort isn't? As I said, strange standards.

And calling other posters clowns isn't giving it back? Strange standards you have.

There's a post not too far back calling people who've taken issue with Deegirl 'clowns'. Is it only postings you don't agree with that are arrogant and smart-arsed?

although usually a stipulated 21 day period wouldn't include public holidays, but what the AFL might do is another question altogether I suppose.

Are you serious? 21 days is a perfectly ordinary legislative/regulatory/conventional period in which to reply to lots of things, including allegations/findings.

As the original laconic message read: if.

OD, I'd agree with your suspicions about the AFL; they seem to be capable of any kind of capricious or illogical decision that preserves their interests. But in this case there is a rule (about attempting to lose games). If they can't find sufficient evidence to apply that rule, then 'bringing the game into disrepute' is going to look (quite rightly) like a hollow and desperate gesture, and one that will no doubt land them at the court room door.

Having done similar once upon a time, I agree entirely. What's also a problem here is that there's no rule etc prescribing a reasonable length of time for the conduct of an investigation. The useful thing at the moment is with the leaks seemingly having dried up and the harridan in the gallery having nothing much to screech about, there's really nothing much at stake in things not being finalised.

The curious shape of equations in Caro's even curiouser moral universe begins to emerge. They broke the rules without cheating. We cheated without breaking the rules. The latter is, obviously, by far the greater sin. I'm just not quite sure I could explain why. Or what rules are, for that matter.

Talk about bringing the game into disrepute. How they can seriously threaten anyone with such a charge after that travesty beggars belief.

Finally, a picture of the elusive Caro "Flathead" Wilson, Melbourne's clumsiest mobster. She knew all the tricks, hyperbole, hyperbole and ... er, hyperbole. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than meet Caro.

I'm not sure whether anyone can predict the full dimensions of their exit strategy (it is the AFL after all) but I think the Judd move is particularly interesting. They're obviously clearing the decks so they can take a bigger swing at the Crows. The sideshow to come on this might be the distraction they need as they start quietly burying the tanking debacle. Edit: On Fan's DL status (maybe this applies to Rhino's often caustic interventions, though some of these are quite enjoyable) perhaps we need two classes of moderation here: moderators and immoderators.

Patronising to the end. Not that you were ever interested in discussing whether Wilson is a good journalist, merely in asserting it.

If published as opinion. That's what op-ed pages are for, they make the distinction between opinion and journalism clear. She gets paid for her opinion, to boot. With that come certain responsibilities.

I like the way they seem to be trying to tell us they're after the disgruntled. Coz the disgruntled always make the best witnesses, after all.

To be honest, and as someone who has read most of what’s here, I don’t recall much in the way of panic about what Wilson has had to say. Contempt, as Elwood says, disgust, outrage, concern at journalistic and ethical standards and so on, but panic? Presumably that’s just you in Wilsonian mode. Imitation being the sincerest form etc. What you’ve glossed over entirely is that people here have largely been concerned not simply with the ‘facts’ Wilson’s has been claiming to report during her campaign against the MFC, but (a) that she’s taken it upon herself to conduct a campaign in the first place; and (B) the manner of her reporting whatever it is she’s actually reporting. Maybe responsibility here rests ultimately with her editor, but Wilson’s rolling philippic has had nothing to do with journalism and everything to do with the op-ed pages. I don’t think it’s just contributors to this thread who feel abused and defrauded by, or angry at opinion masquerading as journalism. All that’s been added here are various suspicions and concerns and occasional bits of information about what else may or may not be involved in that masquerade … and, of course, an entirely justifiable reaction to Wilson’s vitriolic and hostile bloviating. I think, by the way, that you flatter yourself just a touch by claiming some role in galvanizing (sic) opinion on this thread. If you’d read more of it you might have noticed how well people had been getting on without you. Any more galvanising and we’d be able to start a roofing business (nearly said a tank-making business, but it’s a touchy subject and most water tanks are plastic nowadays). Your interventions don’t seem to have contributed anything useful anyway. The recent descent into boys’ club claptrap about who knows whom and who doesn’t isn’t much more than a pretext for a bit of patronising of one poster (if not all of us) and abuse of a couple of others. It’s just plain tedious. Maybe that was your hope, though: to kill off the thread through boredom and irrelevance. Take another look, though. It’s off and running again, just as you’ve fallen silent. Interesting, that.

Neither would be my guess because even if it was the latter she should have learned how to take responsibility for her fictions.

I wouldn't worry, OD, you have now anyway

A lone agreement. Who would you agree with if you were alone?

I hear The Finks have to pay rent on the use of his nickname.

You've been watching too many spy movies. I hope Vlad has too. It's a great theory.

Me too. It doesn’t surprise me that Clothier is a former taxation investigator. Taxation legislation gives the ATO some pretty unusual powers of compulsion (and not just to make you hand over your money), so he’s probably used to being a power unto himself; and Haddad’s background no doubt has given him some pretty similar values. With the ATO, the first and continuing presumption is of guilt. Even when there’s incontrovertible evidence that you’re innocent, all it means to them is that you’re not guilty yet. So it’s no wonder Clothier’s ‘investigation’ is now turning out to have been nothing more than a star chamber. And it’s no wonder Don’s first shot was about ensuring natural justice. It won’t just be the MFC’s calling in Ray Finkelstein now that will give the AFL plenty of pause for thought, but what Finkelstein will do with evidence of intimidation, harassment, traducing of witnesses or whatever else has been going on in their own much more objectionable vault. Presumably any reasonably competent barrister could do so, but why stop there? It’s the way the MFC has upped the ante that I like. Don’t tread on us. And Wilson? She seems to have recognised that she’s not much more than a noisy bystander. This is where the real game begins.

It would be interesting to get observations on this from others who've seen Carolie* at reasonably close hand. It's not just a minor character issue; it goes to the heart of her ability to understand the team dimension of sport (and the team dimension of sports and club administration, for that matter). * apologies for the error. My keyboard 'n' keeps sticking whenever I try to type the name. It's fine the rest of the time.

Is that the sort of language a troll would use? Or a feral? I get so confused. And here in the darker reaches it's hard to tell the difference. Anyone got a torch?

A self-confessed Melbourne supporter at the Gabba. Looks like we really are in for rain today.