Roos under investigation (-> Cleared)

[CureTheSane]

This has probably been the biggest boost my post count has had for a long time.
I may have passed Des by now

[CureTheSane]

Have you been drinking on this very hot day?

Not yet, but I have a bottle of wine in the fridge.
I should put another in.
Or crack the vodka

[TheGrimReaper]

Not yet, but I have a bottle of wine in the fridge.
I should put another in.
Or crack the vodka

I see, can I have some of that vodka? lol

[CureTheSane]

I see, can I have some of that vodka? lol

Sure, come over in 15 minutes and you can finish what's left in the bottle

[CureTheSane]

This has probably been the biggest boost my post count has had for a long time.
I may have passed Des by now

Des is gaaaawn
Look out barry....

[TheGrimReaper]

Sure, come over in 15 minutes and you can finish what's left in the bottle

hmm...Will be nothing I'm guessing.

I'll just buy own vodka, and drink myself blind.

[BSA5]

Like I said before, I think the AFL were setting out the ground rules for occurrences like these.

Although the AFL handled it poorly (as they do with everything) when there is an actual accusation and possible evidence, they need to hold a formal enquiry. This was done and Roos was cleared. In the case of Carlton, despite lots of speculation and accusation, there is no proper evidence and no formal accusation hence they cannot hold a formal enquiry. One suspects they will be looking at it behind the scenes though (but don't expect anything to come of it).

I appreciate that the AFL were setting out the ground rules, but my point is that the ground rules they have now set out for this sort of situation are ridiculous. They should only hold a formal enquiry once they are sure they have evidence. If there is, to use NMWBloods' term, "possible evidence", then the AFL needs to look into that possible evidence, to see whether it really is evidence or not. IF it is something to go on, THEN they launch an enquiry. If they'd done this for this situation, a lot of time, money and effort would have been saved, as it would have been quickly established that the comment was in jest, no damage done, everybody can go on with their lives.

[Robbo]

Roosy on footy classified.

Roosy: We've just moved on
Caro: Well you haven't moved on Paul......

[JF_Bay22_SCG]

Several reasons:

The AFL is run by Melbournians who can't stand to see Sydney have success.
The Vics think that dud players like Jude Bolton and McVeigh are great players.

The list goes on...

Typical reply from a West Australia, going for the siege mentality when it couldn't be further from the truth.

I think you'll find that the truth is that Demetriou are very very against clubs like us constantly acting in a way that could be seen as demeaning to the credibility of the NAB cup, thus reducing its value to perspective sponsors wishing to invest on the comp & indeed the AFL. He is all about getting corporate involvement in the game; that is what he is obsessed by. As much as we all hate him, he does it well well as shown by the latest AFL TV rights deal (compare that the the NRL's! )

The fact that Roos was 'overheard' saying comments that could possibly be constrewed as inferring that a team willingly wished to lose was what Vlad & his cronies were itching for. He could make an example of one club & one coach & could bully the others into treating the NAB Cup more seriously as a result.

To be honest, it makes sense to lose in the NAB. You get away from the stupid rules & play normal games. You can rest players for a quarter or 2 & nobody really cares. You can build for Round 1 without distractions.

The question I want to ask is that Jeff Kennett was asked what he thought of the NAB Cup whilst at the game in Tassie. He said words to the effect that he hates it & it is rubbish. Is that not belittling & demeaning the product far worse than Roos telling McVeigh to not kick a goal.

The AFL has targetted us & Paul Roos deliberately. Because by having the Swans, the team in the biggest market with many large highly impressionable businesses & potential corporate partners, not taking one of their producvts seriously, they are making the push for the code into corporate Sydney all the more unappealing & unlikely.

I think you'll find THIS has more to do with Vld wanting to nail both Roos & the Swans rather than anything.

JF

[TheGrimReaper]

Can Western Australians stop with the paranoia BS!!!

They are so scared of Victoria it's not funny. They're quick to blame us Vics every bloody chance they get.

[connolly]

Perhaps Carlton just weren't fit enough to run the game out?
I didn't watch enough Carlton last year to comment effectively.
Maybe the club and supporters thought they were justified in throwing games given the sanctions the AFL placed on the for salary cap breaches?
Maybe I don't give much thought to something that can't be proven.

Let's talk about petrol prices.
Somebody tell me that investigating price fixing is a valuable use of our tax dollars?

It can be proven after an investigation. However Demetriou and Anderson have refused to conduct an investigation into Carlton match fixing. Thoroughbred and harness racing authorities probably have the most experience into result fixing investigations. It is absurd to suggest that they only launch investigations with direct evidence. They examine racing patterns, trainers tactics, jockey effort, connections motives and other circumstantial evidence such as the rating and charactersitics of the horse. For instance if Carlton are claiming unfitness as an explanation for for a 65% fade out rate in the last six games of 2007 they should be required to provide all biomedical and fitness data of the players who played in those matches. This would be examined by a panel of independent experts and reported to the investigating body. On the methodology of racing investigations and inquiries, Carlton would highly probably found to have engaged in result fixing and rubbed out (probably for at least six months). The AFL's approach and weakness in regard to Carlton's results in the last six matches of 2007 are a joke and discredit the code.

[connolly]

In the case of Carlton, despite lots of speculation and accusation, there is no proper evidence and no formal accusation hence they cannot hold a formal enquiry. .

There is enough prima facie evidence to hold an investigation into Carltom match fixing. For the rest see above.

[CureTheSane]

The AFL's approach and weakness in regard to Carlton's results in the last six matches of 2007 are a joke and discredit the code.

Seems everyone is claiming that the AFL has been week in regard to the seemingly 'blindingly obvious' match fixing that they participated in.
Yet I don't hear anyone saying that the AFL were weak with the salary cap infringement penalties.

I guess they all of a sudden went soft on the Blues.

Personally, I think that if the AFL thought that they had any sort of a hope of finding Carlton guilty of throwing games they would have gone for the jugular.
Based on their past 'slamming down' of Carlton, tell me why the AFL are giving Carlton freedom to do what they want as you are claiming.

[CureTheSane]

What lesson? To keep his mouth shut about something everyone can see but which Andy doesn't anyone to talk about?

No, to be so arrogant as to make a public comment such as he did.

Last night Roos said that he had learnt his lesson.
Good on him

[BSA5]

It can be proven after an investigation. However Demetriou and Anderson have refused to conduct an investigation into Carlton match fixing. Thoroughbred and harness racing authorities probably have the most experience into result fixing investigations. It is absurd to suggest that they only launch investigations with direct evidence. They examine racing patterns, trainers tactics, jockey effort, connections motives and other circumstantial evidence such as the rating and charactersitics of the horse. For instance if Carlton are claiming unfitness as an explanation for for a 65% fade out rate in the last six games of 2007 they should be required to provide all biomedical and fitness data of the players who played in those matches. This would be examined by a panel of independent experts and reported to the investigating body. On the methodology of racing investigations and inquiries, Carlton would highly probably found to have engaged in result fixing and rubbed out (probably for at least six months). The AFL's approach and weakness in regard to Carlton's results in the last six matches of 2007 are a joke and discredit the code.

You can't compare AFL to horse racing when it comes to the potential for corruption in gambling. In horse racing, they do all that because if they didn't, the "sport" would be rife with corruption, and a lot of people would be making money they don't deserve. In horse racing, those sorts of investigations are actually justified. In AFL, they simply aren't.