Roos under investigation (-> Cleared)

[BSA5]

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

I disagree. There was no evidence, prima facie or not. All there was was speculation that perhaps the coaching moves made by Ratten were carried out to lose the game. Speculation. That's it. Fev was pulled from the ground in the dying minutes. Maybe Ratten was tanking. Maybe Fev was injured. If the AFL asks, Ratten will simply say the latter. The Blues lost games they looked like they could have won. Ratten argues they aren't fit enough yet. Might be true, might not be. The point is the AFL will never be able to prove anything, and they know that, so why waste money on an investigation which won't go anywhere?

[connolly]

I disagree. There was no evidence, prima facie or not. All there was was speculation that perhaps the coaching moves made by Ratten were carried out to lose the game. Speculation. That's it. Fev was pulled from the ground in the dying minutes. Maybe Ratten was tanking. Maybe Fev was injured. If the AFL asks, Ratten will simply say the latter. The Blues lost games they looked like they could have won. Ratten argues they aren't fit enough yet. Might be true, might not be. The point is the AFL will never be able to prove anything, and they know that, so why waste money on an investigation which won't go anywhere?

Prima facie - a prima facie case is made out out if, on the material before the AFL, inferences are open which, if translated into findings of fact, would support the conclusion that match fixing occured. There is circumstantial evidence ( the pattern of losses, advantage to be gained from the losses, statements by persons close to the club e.g. Kouta and the fact that Carlton have a relatively young team) from which an inference can be made. Such an inference if later proven by further evidence gained from the thorough investigation would support a finding of match fixing. The very fact you say maybe is an indication that there is the possibility of an inference.

[connolly]

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.

I wasn't comparing horse racing and AFL as sports. I was drawing a comparison between the way that AFL and horse racing authorities approach result fixing investigations. If Vald and Ando were running horse racing presumably the horse (maybe Mr. Ed), the jockey (very smart little characters) or the connections would have to confess or be overhead discussing the fix. There would never be an investigation with this appraoch. We are talking about credibility and integrity of the competition not gambling although Vlad seems confused in regard to their relative importance.

[Flossie]

Sydney Swans coach Paul Roos cleared of match fixing - Melbourne Herald Sun

Sydney Swans coach Paul Roos cleared of match fixing - Melbourne Herald Sun


Sydney Swans coach Paul Roos cleared of match fixing
Melbourne Herald Sun, Australia - 6 Mar 2008
SYDNEY Swans coach Paul Roos has been cleared of match-fixing or breaching any AFL rules at a NAB Cup game against Hawthorn this month. ...

[connolly]

According to the Paranoia Board that is...

Dr. Pangloss?

[connolly]

Playing a young team and losing most of those games is not evidence of tanking.

A young team, on the face of it, (i.e. prima facie) should be fit enough to run out matches. An inference can be drawn prima facie that something other than fatigue is causing the pattern of late match fade outs from winning positions in the latter part of 2007. They is a 60% fade out rate in the last six games of 2007. Suspicious. Nup. Its Carlton afterall they would never cheat, lie or break the rules. (no tendency evidence)

[connolly]

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.

There are options:

1. Incompetence.
2. Arrogance. Demetriou made a stupid statement denying match fixing in the AFL without prior investigation or even thought. Not the first time this arse clown shot his mouth off and was proven wrong. Well that was us and Roosey wasn't it? Fear of loss of face and an arrogant refusal to back down is a Dmetrious management hallmark.
3. Lack of an alternative strategy. The draft system is open to abuse and Demetriou & Co. simply don't have an alternative system they are willing to implement.
Take your pick but it is probably a combination of all three in ascending order of importance.

[CureTheSane]

There are options:

1. Incompetence.
2. Arrogance. Demetriou made a stupid statement denying match fixing in the AFL without prior investigation or even thought. Not the first time this arse clown shot his mouth off and was proven wrong. Well that was us and Roosey wasn't it? Fear of loss of face and an arrogant refusal to back down is a Dmetrious management hallmark.
3. Lack of an alternative strategy. The draft system is open to abuse and Demetriou & Co. simply don't have an alternative system they are willing to implement.
Take your pick but it is probably a combination of all three in ascending order of importance.

That's all wishy washy crap.
You imply that the AFL are 'looking after' Carlton who are match fixing.
You imply that the AFL have a valid case for investigating Carlton and choose not to because of some sort of favoritism.
Since you seem to enjoy perpetuating conspiracy theories, I again ask, why?
Why does the AFL protect and thereby encourage Carlton to match fix?

[connolly]

That's all wishy washy crap.
You imply that the AFL are 'looking after' Carlton who are match fixing.
You imply that the AFL have a valid case for investigating Carlton and choose not to because of some sort of favoritism.
Since you seem to enjoy perpetuating conspiracy theories, I again ask, why?
Why does the AFL protect and thereby encourage Carlton to match fix?

I didn't imply any such thing. Ill make this crystal clear. Demetriou is an arrogant and incompetent sports administrator who leads a management group that is disasterously mismanaging AFL. They are not favouring any club per se. However systemic rule breaching (e.g Eagles - drugs and Carlton - match fixing) flourish due to sheer administrative and managerial incompetence. The only favouritism that Demetriou exhibits is self interest. The present administration of the game is dysfunctional and inadequate. The popularity of the code is a testament to its inherent qualities and cultural resiliance. If you reckon the present administration isn't incompetent I defend your right to belong to a dwindling minority of AFL supporters.

[Chow-Chicker]

Carlton are tankers and we are match fixers. Deal with it.

[CureTheSane]

I didn't imply any such thing.

Really?
Quotes from just this page......

However Demetriou and Anderson have refused to conduct an investigation into Carlton match fixing.

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.

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

Such an inference if later proven by further evidence gained from the thorough investigation would support a finding of match fixing

I defend your right to belong to a dwindling minority of AFL supporters.

Thank you.
I have issues with the competition, and at times the way it is run, but as a general rule I think that the competition is very healthy.

It could be better - less blockbuster games to secure teams like the Wobbles existence while others struggle, scrapping the priority draft pick, scrapping the NAB Cup, unrestricting the coaches commenting on the game etc etc, but these things take time, and I'd rather have a ruling body who are tough and stand behind their beliefs in the way the game should be run than have a group of people who cave in at every demand placed on them.

[connolly]

Well Libba has blown the whistle and the match fixers at Carlton will be investigated and punished. Serial cheaters

[connolly]

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.

A little jockey sized bloke has just dobbed them in. Can't trust small angry men

[ScottH]

Well Libba has blown the whistle and the match fixers at Carlton will be investigated and punished. Serial cheaters

He's such a knob, he was a knob when he was playing, and he seems to be a bigger knob as a non-player. All he's done in recent months is bad mouth the clubs he's been involved in. I can't take anything he says seriously.

[TheGrimReaper]

I doubt Carlton will be investigate. Andrew Dimwitriou himself said, that tanking doesn't happen during the home and away season. He said so himself. It only happens during the NAB Cup.