Play Nice Still no evidence against Melbourne re: tanking

bing181

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Posts
1,906
Likes
1,410
Location
Paris
AFL Club
Melbourne
So put into context, McLean claimed Melbourne was deliberately losing, and was doing so for draft picks.
Where did McClean claim Melbourne were deliberately losing?

In your own words, all he did was "imply". Which is all he could do, given that he doesn't have any actual evidence or, you know, facts.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Trav 20

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
8,664
Likes
5,846
Location
The Corridor
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Dees
Asked on Fox Footy's On the Couch last night whether winning had not been a priority for the Demons in Bailey's second season, McLean, now with Carlton, replied: "Definitely, and I think you would have to be blind freddy to not figure that one out.
"When I sat down with Dean Bailey and made my decision [to leave], I brought that up with him. I told him what I really thought. We were both on the same page. I really felt for 'Bails' because he was put in a difficult position. I was part of the leadership group that year.We spoke among ourselves, and said: 'We just have to continue to toe the line, reinforce what the coaches are saying, not let Chinese whispers get into something bigger'."
McLean said the tanking issue prompted him to leave the club.
The allegations could rock the AFL, coming a year after an investigation by league operations manager Adrian Anderson found the Demons had no case to answer for their actions during Bailey's tenure, particularly in 2008 and '09.
Anderson investigated after Bailey, at his farewell press conference after being sacked, had come close to admitting he had tanked.
"I had no hesitation at all in the first two years in ensuring the club was well placed for draft picks," Bailey said at the time. "I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club and I did it. I put players in different positions."


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-tanked-mclean-20120730-23akv.html#ixzz2D7i3LegD


I had forgotten Bailey is on the record too.

Just to be clear, are you saying Melbourne didn't tank or 'they'll never be able to prove it'?

Nothing McLean said is "evidence" of tanking. His intuition, or 'gut feel' isn't evidence. It's nothing more than speculation, or hearsay.

The players are united in the fact that no player was asked to not perform on their merits.

Btw, if you think McLean's comments 4 months ago constituted "evidence" why hasn't the investigation concluded ? Is that your "smoking gun" ?

No disrespect, but you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.
 

tigers_of_old_08

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Posts
6,270
Likes
2,209
Location
Punt Road
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
RICHMOND
Where did McClean claim Melbourne were deliberately losing?

In your own words, all he did was "imply". Which is all he could do, given that he doesn't have any actual evidence or, you know, facts.
It's actually "McLean" who claimed Melbourne tanked, and this has been common knowledge for many months, why are you asking this now???

But just in case you're genuine here's the link, again: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-tanked-mclean-20120730-23akv.html#ixzz2D7i3LegD
 

Trav 20

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
8,664
Likes
5,846
Location
The Corridor
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Dees

LouisCK

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Posts
5,147
Likes
2,417
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
You’re correct if commenting on that line alone.

However it’s what McLean is implying when he states this.

The article continues: "Asked if Bailey had been under pressure from club powerbrokers to tank, McLean replied: "I would have thought so, yeah."

So put into context, McLean claimed Melbourne was deliberately losing, and was doing so for draft picks.
The AFL didn't even interview him during the investigation. Because its patently obvious McLean is talking about his opinion only, which is simply not evidence anymore than your opinion is.
 

IanW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Posts
13,503
Likes
9,833
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
#Exers
The AFL didn't even interview him during the investigation. Because its patently obvious McLean is talking about his opinion only, which is simply not evidence anymore than your opinion is.
The thing you have to remember about LouisCK is that he lives in a world where all things are the way he wants.

Regrettably for him, his world is not the actual world.

In the actual real world, the AFL did not interview him during the investigation because it had already done so.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/afl-to-interview-mclean-over-tanking/4166838
 

LouisCK

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Posts
5,147
Likes
2,417
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
The thing you have to remember about LouisCK is that he lives in a world where all things are the way he wants.

Regrettably for him, his world is not the actual world.

In the actual real world, the AFL did not interview him during the investigation because it had already done so.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/afl-to-interview-mclean-over-tanking/4166838
They'd already interviewed Bailey too, but they interviewed him again in the new investigation.

My world is the real world.
 

IanW

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 18, 2011
Posts
13,503
Likes
9,833
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
#Exers
They'd already interviewed Bailey too, but they interviewed him again in the new investigation.

My world is the real world.
Uhuh. If investigators feel the need to re-interview people, like for example if other evidence shows they were being less than completely forthcoming, then they re-interview them.

If, on the other hand, everything they said the first time was true, accurate and complete, then there's no need to reinterview them.

Your world, remember, is the one where the Melbourne Football Club didnt deliberately set out to lose games.

You better pray to god there is no evidence of persons associated with the Melbourne Football Club placing bets for the team to win four or less games.
 

boffo

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Posts
1,551
Likes
2,111
AFL Club
Adelaide
Nothing McLean said is "evidence" of tanking. His intuition, or 'gut feel' isn't evidence. It's nothing more than speculation, or hearsay.
It's quite amusing to see Melbourne supporters try to define 'evidence' so narrowly as to exclude circumstantial evidence (overwhelming and obvious in this case) and witness statements (which the AFL is collecting and obviously considers them evidence). These count in a court of law but not in Trav 20 world (where the only admissable 'evidence' would seem to be a written statement or a recorded conversation).

Mate, you may be simple but the world isn't.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bing181

Club Legend
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Posts
1,906
Likes
1,410
Location
Paris
AFL Club
Melbourne
It's actually "McLean" who claimed Melbourne tanked, and this has been common knowledge for many months, why are you asking this now???

But just in case you're genuine here's the link, again: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/demons-tanked-mclean-20120730-23akv.html#ixzz2D7i3LegD
You have your answer already: Post 1852.

Going round in circles here. Reread your own link: McLean (got it right this time ...) didn't claim that Melb deliberately tried to lose matches. What he responded to was "whether winning had not been a priority".
 

Trav 20

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Posts
8,664
Likes
5,846
Location
The Corridor
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Dees
It's quite amusing to see Melbourne supporters try to define 'evidence' so narrowly as to exclude circumstantial evidence (overwhelming and obvious in this case) and witness statements (which the AFL is collecting and obviously considers them evidence). These count in a court of law but not in Trav 20 world (where the only admissable 'evidence' would seem to be a written statement or a recorded conversation).

Mate, you may be simple but the world isn't.

Of course courts look at circumstantial evidence. McLean's comments weren't circumstantial evidence. They were unsubstantiated opinion.

You're embarrassing yourself.
 

boffo

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Posts
1,551
Likes
2,111
AFL Club
Adelaide
Of course courts look at circumstantial evidence. McLean's comments weren't circumstantial evidence. They were unsubstantiated opinion.
'Unsubstantiated'? You must be joking. There were heaps of things his comments were based on. More like victim testimony.

The only embarrassment here are the Melbourne supporters who think Melbourne didn't tank and there is nothing to suggest they did. Laughable really.
 

dee64

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
1,366
Likes
673
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
'Unsubstantiated'? You must be joking. There were heaps of things his comments were based on. More like victim testimony.

The only embarrassment here are the Melbourne supporters who think Melbourne didn't tank and there is nothing to suggest they did. Laughable really.
Ok boffo, what's the difference between "tanking" and "bottoming out/rebuilding"?

If the definition of "tanking" is deliberately losing games, we've got no case to answer given our form of 2008/2009.

Many a club have reached the stage of the year where they couldn't make the finals, and have experimented with kids, much to the annoyance of senior players (McLean). There is nothing in the AFL rules that prevents a club from rebuilding via the draft.

This is a witch hunt, nothing more.
 

LouisCK

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Posts
5,147
Likes
2,417
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
'Unsubstantiated'? You must be joking. There were heaps of things his comments were based on. More like victim testimony.

The only embarrassment here are the Melbourne supporters who think Melbourne didn't tank and there is nothing to suggest they did. Laughable really.
What were his comments based on? Nothing more than 'the vibe'. That's it. He felt that we weren't playing to win (I felt like that too btw). He didn't have ANY first hand knowledge of FD meetings, or whether or not we were playing for picks.
 

dee64

Club Legend
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Posts
1,366
Likes
673
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
What were his comments based on? Nothing more than 'the vibe'. That's it. He felt that we weren't playing to win (I felt like that too btw). He didn't have ANY first hand knowledge of FD meetings, or whether or not we were playing for picks.
And the AFL have Dennis Denuto running their investigation.
 

boffo

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 7, 2006
Posts
1,551
Likes
2,111
AFL Club
Adelaide
I don't blame the Melbourne FC for what happened (whatever we want to call it).

With priority picks on the table losing was an entirely logical thing to do. You would have been stupid to have won a fifth game that year (and MFC supporters would no doubt have been disappointed!). I don't blame Melbourne at all, I blame the AFL for creating a system that so handsomely rewards teams for - shall we say - not making winning a priority.

Melbourne, by the way, shouldn't be the only club being investigated.

I'm glad the AFL has watered down priority picks (sanity at last!) and now they are confronted with some public statements on the issue they can't just sweep it under the carpet. We can all watch with interest to see if it's a serious investigation or they just want to be seen to be investigating. I'm sure the AFL would love to move on.....'nothing to see here folks!'.
 

LouisCK

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 11, 2011
Posts
5,147
Likes
2,417
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
The similarity with "The Dark Knight" is in the realms of denying reality, no matter how painful and obvious it might be.
Quite the opposite.

Melbourne fans acknowledge we played experimental football knowing full well picks were going to be a by-product. What we are stating is that the rules state that to have 'tanked' we must have been playing games not 'on our merits'. And there is no evidence that we didn't play every game on our merits.

if you've got something substantial to add, I ain't stopping ya
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Posts
4,465
Likes
6,158
Location
Sunshine Coast
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Mitta United, Tapalinga, St Marys
Quite the opposite.

Melbourne fans acknowledge we played experimental football knowing full well picks were going to be a by-product. What we are stating is that the rules state that to have 'tanked' we must have been playing games not 'on our merits'. And there is no evidence that we didn't play every game on our merits.

if you've got something substantial to add, I ain't stopping ya

LouisCK, well done, I am very impressed. "Experimental football" is not a term that I had heard before, but is GOLD.

Appreciate now that you were playing "Experimental Football" and not tanking. Do you think there is any possibility, that part of this experimentation, was constructing a game outcome, in which you were experimenting with not winning?
 
Top Bottom