Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

[markm106]

He was over a cup of coffee, now with ll the other statements that the afl has collected, it is seen in a new light.

Out of curiosity what did you get from his statement about ensuring that the club was well positioned for draft picks?

Did you think that maybe he was manipulating the games to ensure you got them?

That's what any reasonable person would conclude.

I have said multiple times I think we tanked. Of course he was talking about manipulating results. A I have also said he now denies this.

 

[se17enteen]

It takes a lot of balls to cheat unless your Lance Armstrong.

 

[EasternTiger]

It will be interesting to see if the AFL dig their heels in, or just let this one slide with a stern warning the next team to do it will get a good whack. Pretty obvious tanking occurred. Haven't exactly covered yourselves in glory, have you melbourne.

 

[Higgs Boson]

It will be interesting to see if the AFL dig their heels in, or just let this one slide with a stern warning the next team to do it will get a good whack. Pretty obvious tanking occurred. Haven't exactly covered yourselves in glory, have you melbourne.

I don't like your comments, but I DO like your avatar!

 

[Baldur]

Seem to be quite a few different camps of Melbourne supporters

1. We didn't tank, we managed our list like anyone else.

2. Yeah we clearly tanked but try and prove it. Neener neener!

3. Yeah we tanked, but it's the AFL's fault for providing the incentive, not ours.

4. Yeah we tanked, but so did *insert club here* so the AFL are hypocrites if they come after us.

5. Yeah we tanked, but we were genuinely crap and deserved a priority pick anyway, so it's all good.

6. Yeah we tanked but we've suffered enough over the last 40 years, leave us alone.

7. Yeah we tanked but it won't hold up in court. The Melbourne FC is an institution and a juggernaut that will destroy the AFL in Court.

Hard to remember who you are argueing with at any one time.

Most seem to change from one to another depending on what rant they wish to make at the time. To me there is only one camp, the "How dare they even consider punishing us" camp. The rest is just how they try to justify this.

 

[EasternTiger]

I don't like your comments, but I DO like your avatar!

You don't like my comments because they are true. I also like your aviator. Bill would be handy for your mob right about now. He once denied his presence in a room. "I am not here. What is here anyway, it's 'there' without a t."

 

[Achilles Heel]

The incentive to tell all has now been put o the table by the govt, D day is fast approaching

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...olved-in-tanking/story-e6frecm3-1226556104160

 

[mellowyellow]

You don't like my comments because they are true. I also like your aviator. Bill would be handy for your mob right about now. He once denied his presence in a room. "I am not here. What is here anyway, it's 'there' without a t."

Both fought to cover up a lie so avatar is pertinent and ironic

 

[coryne]

The incentive to tell all has now been put o the table by the govt, D day is fast approaching

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...olved-in-tanking/story-e6frecm3-1226556104160

You do realize that only refers to CRIMINAL charges regarding tanking being classified as MAX FIXING FOR PROFIT, apposed to charges by the AFL regarding the tanking ..........

 

[Achilles Heel]

You do realize that only refers to CRIMINAL charges regarding tanking being classified as MAX FIXING FOR PROFIT, apposed to charges by the AFL regarding the tanking ..........

If they admitted to it, it would be labeled as match fixing under the old legislation that would mean jail time as well as any penalties imposed by the afl.

It opens the way for a deal with the afl,"no penalty if we come clean", and if we come clean no jail time as outlined in the new legislation.

The AFL would offer a deal to avoid the stench of covering up what amounts to match fixing.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

The incentive to tell all has now been put o the table by the govt, D day is fast approaching

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...olved-in-tanking/story-e6frecm3-1226556104160

Wow, more laws.

Just what we need.

 

[LeverPuller]

Wow, more laws.

Just what we need.

Well it means that those AFL players who have previously been charged under AFL regs (eg Heath Shaw) could now actually be charged in a court with match-fixing depending on the events on the day.

More important for cricket though.

EDIT: Sorry, of course I mean for any future match-fixing scandal. Shaw can't be charged.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

Well it means that those AFL players who have previously been charged under AFL regs (eg Heath Shaw) could now actually be charged in a court with match-fixing depending on the events on the day.

More important for cricket though.

Yeah, you're twanging the wire there champ.

Retrospective criminal legislation is a no no.

 

[LeverPuller]

Yeah, you're twanging the wire there champ.

Retrospective criminal legislation is a no no.

Unclear, sorry. I know it means for future offenses.

Although if stupidity was a crime, we should charge Dean Wallis.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

If they admitted to it, it would be labeled as match fixing under the old legislation that would mean jail time as well as any penalties imposed by the afl.

You didn't actually read the article did you?

 

[Achilles Heel]

You didn't actually read the article did you?

So what did i missunderstand? The fact that they wouldnt do jail time if penalised by the afl? or was there something more sinister?

Oh thats right the legislation was drafed for melbourne sake.....please

 

[Purple Suit]

If they admitted to it, it would be labeled as match fixing under the old legislation that would mean jail time as well as any penalties imposed by the afl.

It opens the way for a deal with the afl,"no penalty if we come clean", and if we come clean no jail time as outlined in the new legislation.

The AFL would offer a deal to avoid the stench of covering up what amounts to match fixing.

Not sure this article offers up anything except that "tanking" as we have been discussing will not be a criminal offence, either in the past or future because the "gain" is not monetary and only gives you advantages within the game. Therefore the AFL will have to enforce it's own laws rather than rely on the government to punish Melbourne officials or any other team in the future.

It appears that you've misread the article as I can't see it paving the way for anything new. I also misread the headline and thought that Melbourne had gotten off, wonder how many Dee's fans did the same?

 

[Achilles Heel]

Not sure this article offers up anything except that "tanking" as we have been discussing will not be a criminal offence, either in the past or future because the "gain" is not monetary and only gives you advantages within the game. Therefore the AFL will have to enforce it's own laws rather than rely on the government to punish Melbourne officials or any other team in the future.

It appears that you've misread the article as I can't see it paving the way for anything new. I also misread the headline and thought that Melbourne had gotten off, wonder how many Dee's fans did the same?

No i suspect the AFL would have been reluctant to find anyone guilty as it would have paved the way for match fixing charges to be laid and as they were somewhat complicit then, i can understand their reluctance to investigate, Given the outcry from the press they were forced into the investigation.

Now wit the spectre of Jail terms removed, they may be more willing to deal and hand out appropriate penalties.

I can undersatnd their reluctance to dealwith anyone regaring this given the possibble outcomes. it has allowed them to penlalise and dal with the issue in house, unless of course someone within the AFL takes in into the legal sphere, where perjury and other things apply.

 

[Higgs Boson]

I also misread the headline and thought that Melbourne had gotten off, wonder how many Dee's fans did the same?

*puts hand up*

Excited for a moment. Ho hum

 

[Demonic Ascent]

So what did i missunderstand? The fact that they wouldnt do jail time if penalised by the afl? or was there something more sinister?

Oh thats right the legislation was drafed for melbourne sake.....please

You said;

under the old legislation that would mean jail time...

which is the complete opposite of what the article you linked to stated.

Don't know what the hell you're getting at with your last sentence but hopefully when you're back in remedial English classes in a couple of weeks we'll be spared your ignorance.

 

[Mofra]

Still no evidence?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-01-18/byrnes-dawes-named-as-new-demon-leaders

 

[RandB]

Still no evidence?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-01-18/byrnes-dawes-named-as-new-demon-leaders

On the main board? Really?

 

[LouisCK]

Still don't get why people even think tanking is bad.

Its common practice in a bunch of different leagues, even those with lottery systems for drafting.

 

[Purple Suit]

Still don't get why people even think tanking is bad.

Its common practice in a bunch of different leagues, even those with lottery systems for drafting.

It's bad because it's cheating and teams gain an unfair advantage over a side who tried to win the whole time even if it cost them come draft day. How do you view Lance Armstrong? As a cheat, winner or victim?

Here is a quote from his interview "I went and looked up the definition of cheat," he added a moment later. "And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field." Just because it is perceived that everyone is doing it, it doesn't make it right and the winners are the ones that are made examples of. The Dee's "won" tanking in 2009 so they have become the target.

 

[LeverPuller]

Still no evidence?

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2013-01-18/byrnes-dawes-named-as-new-demon-leaders

I read the article and don't know what your point is.

It's bad because it's cheating and teams gain an unfair advantage over a side who tried to win the whole time even if it cost them come draft day. How do you view Lance Armstrong? As a cheat, winner or victim?

Here is a quote from his interview "I went and looked up the definition of cheat," he added a moment later. "And the definition is to gain an advantage on a rival or foe. I didn't view it that way. I viewed it as a level playing field." Just because it is perceived that everyone is doing it, it doesn't make it right and the winners are the ones that are made examples of. The Dee's "won" tanking in 2009 so they have become the target.

This is interesting. Baseball is going through a similar problem, albeit years later. The roided-up baseballers, including Barry Bonds, were eligible for the Baseball Hall of Fame this year for the first year. None of them got close.

The problem is, it has been widely recognised that, at the time, you pretty much had to be on roids to get anywhere. The MLB didn't do a thing (hell, they've only JUST brought in random in-season testing) and everyone got away with it in terms of the games themselves.

Now, people are blaming the players. But who is to blame in this cultural situation? Is it truly the players, many of whom were forced along with the hive? Or is it the administration for allowing it to occur? This is where the MLB and the AFL differ; in the MLB, the media ignored the problem as well, while in the AFL the media repeatedly made mention of the benefit sides gained by losing. Still, you can't have one without the other.

FWIW, cycling is different, has been ever since '98. If you got busted after '98 and the farce of that Tour, everyone knew you were stuffed. The UCI lost their shit after that. No mercy is expected there.