That the Melbourne Football Club were found not guilty of tanking yet still received a $500 000 fine shows that the AFL are confused over how to charge and punish its clubs.
Not willing to go all the way and say that Melbourne tanked, but also not willing to say they were completely in the clear, the AFL have fallen back on that classic catch all of ‘bringing the game into disrepute.’
The findings of the investigation satisfy no one, although inadvertently the AFL may have got the punishment right. The two men at the centre of the investigation (Chris Connelly and Dean Bailey) were suspended and the club – while not officially endorsing the views of their former football manager and coach – were the employer and deserved the hefty fine.
The innocent parties – the players themselves and the supporters – have been spared any further heartache that draft restrictions or loss of premiership points may have inflicted.
While many will be of the opinion that Melbourne have only received a slap on the wrist (despite being the recipient of the third largest fine in AFL history), the immediate future of the club has not been destroyed.
This is a good thing.
With the Melbourne saga resolved (at least in the eyes of the AFL), the sport’s controlling body can now focus on its next major issue – the Essendon ‘supplement’ crisis.
While somewhat hamstrung by the length of time that the investigation into Essendon’s alleged use of performance enhancing substances will take, the AFL will have already begun looking into ways to punish the Bombers if a guilty verdict is forthcoming.
The most obvious punishments include financial sanctions, loss of draft picks and loss of match points.
It is a gimme that the AFL will fine the Bombers, whether they are guilty or not. They’ll trot out the old ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ line and fine the club substantially.
Financially Essendon is a stable club, but with big money invested in the construction of its new headquarters at Melbourne Airport, fines would undoubtedly sting.
Banning the club from participating in the draft would also hurt. Poor recruiting several years ago left the Bombers with a hole in their list that is only now starting to fill. They had older stars and promising up and comers, but lacked talent across players in that mid-age range.
Draft sanctions may not provide immediate pain, but a couple of years down the track the hurt will start to kick in.
Is this fair then, to the next group of players coming through? Is it fair to punish future players of the club for past transgressions? Shouldn’t the punishment be felt by the perpetrators today and not the poor innocents of tomorrow?
Of course it should.
For that reason alone, the punishment has to be immediate. It must be severe, but not as far reaching as to cripple the club for generations to come. First year players such as Joe Daniher should not have to pay for the rest of their careers.
Taking draft picks off the Bombers, or any other club, is not the answer. The AFL wants an even competition. They want clubs to be competitive. An evenly fought season with one sided blow outs kept to a minimum, creates interest and support. Struggling clubs mean low attendances and ugly, boring games which supporters will lack the motivation to watch.
Playing the whole season without being awarded any match points also falls short of the mark.
The NRL went down that path with the Melbourne Storm after its salary cap breaches, stripping the club of its most recent premierships and forcing it to play a season without any points. The punishment was for amassing a team of players that it might not otherwise have been able to bring together, thus creating an unfair advantage.
History shows us that Essendon had no such success in 2012 when the alleged doping took place. Far from dominating the competition as the Storm did theirs, the Bombers’ season fizzled out completely and they played no part in the September action.
That’s not to say that Essendon, if found guilty, should go unpunished. But playing without the reward of match points robs the most innocent of all the stakeholders – the supporters – of a meaningful season. Our game thrives on passion, but how can the masses get passionate about games that mean nothing?
There are no easy answers to the punishment question, but a compromise of sorts may be the best solution. Outlined in the Melbourne Herald-Sun last week was an idea that, while punishing the team, also provided the spectators with at least some hope for the season and avoided future generations of players having to deal with the burdens of the past.
Under the scheme, a guilty club would start the season behind scratch, that is with a premiership points handicap. While all clubs start on zero, and start accumulating points four at a time with each win, the sanctioned club would start the season on minus 16 points (eg four games behind the rest of the field).
The following season they might start with a three game handicap, the year after that two games, then one.
If the club is good enough, it can still win its way through to the finals, providing its fans with at least some hope and giving the players something to play for. The club remains competitive, but faces an up hill battle for a decent ladder position, and the competition is not compromised by a broken, dispirited team.
Those at the club who were involved in the scandal must cope with the sanctions, but the new blood coming in will have the chance to forge their own career as the penalty diminishes over time.
While it is not an ideal solution, it seems a fair compromise. Punishment is immediate, the club is not destroyed beyond repair, and the young players coming into the side can see light at the end of the tunnel.
The roadblock to immediate punishment though is the length of time that the investigation may take. And it is here that the AFL faces its nightmare scenario.
Let’s assume for a moment that the Bombers are guilty, but the investigation stretches on for months, possibly years. They enter the season unsanctioned, play well, and end up winning the grand final, only to later be found guilty.
The situation is not without precedent and we may look no further than pro-cycling to see how farcical such a situation can become.
Alberto Contador, perhaps the climber of his generation, returned a positive test for clenbuterol during the 2010 Tour de France. His sample contained a minimal amount (just 0.00000000005g/ml) of the banned substance which Contador claimed had entered his system via a contaminated steak.
Initially cleared, the decision was appealed and as the case got tied up in the courts, El Pistolero continued to race, amassing further victories including the prestigious Giro d’Italia in 2011.
When the guilty verdict was finally upheld, he was stripped of his 2010 Tour de France title and all race victories following it, including the 2011 Giro victory, basically rendering the races null and void.
So would the AFL follow suit and declare the 2013 premiership null and void should a guilty Essendon win it? Would they lay waste to a whole season in a bid to curb future doping temptation?
They claim that they have contingency plans in place should action need to be taken after the season has started, but if the confusion surrounding the Melbourne case is any indication, then nothing will be cut and dried.
We will all watch on with interest.
Brewski
Guest
This tanking is stupid, i wonder how many clubs are playing their best team to win the NAB cup. Its about as stupid as picking on the swimmers ATM IMO.
TC
Guest
Two individuals don't comprise "the club".
Jack
Guest
Except the D's did't play in the Kreuzer Cup. Is there to be an investigation into these clubs? The Dem's were not the first team to list manage once finals were out of reach to maximize draft options. Everyone knows this. When will the wider review begin?
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
By "the club", I'd mean their coach and football manager. You know, the guys who are getting sanctioned.
Gordon smith
Guest
I think that west coast would have been happier paying 500',000 than having a good behavior bond with threatened draft penalties for an un determined time. Looking at it logically west coast were penalized more for a rogue player and his actions off field than a club sanctioned tanking. I think it is called moral hazard
Redb
Roar Guru
You're just parroting Smith & Wilson. The facts are yet to be known. There is the strong possibility that EFC were unaware of some of these dealings. Watch this space don't prejudge.
Bob
Guest
Maybe those other 17 clubs could 'punish' Melbourne by allowing them to win enough games to deprive them of a high pick. Then they can humiliate them in the finals. The AFL of course can charge everybody for bringing the game into disrepute.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
Considering the club I support? I didnt approve of my clubs actions then - and you'll note we were hit with the largest fine in AFL history AND draft penalties in 2001 and 2002. Further if the AFL had found the club guilty in 2009 - Libba retracted his statement and the AFL found no evidence at all to substantiate the initial claim - then the penalty would have been justified as well. I want my club out to win everything it plays in, be it the trial matches, premiership season, finals, lawn bowls tournaments...all of it. Many Blues fans are in the same position. The Club i support has nothing to do with it whether something is right or wrong. Wrong is wrong. If Carlton got done for it, we deserve to. Whether the pick existed or not, doesnt make it right to tank for it anymore than leaving the door of my house open means its permissible to rob the damn thing.
Me Too
Guest
The obvious penalty for tanking is a draft penalty. But given the AFL suggest no evidence has been found to support it (all hail Demetrio, who it seems was right all along...hah!) then they can hardly apply the penalty. So it's a farcical fine. Melbourne are happy, the AFL are happy and think they have saved face, the supporters are either perplexed or smug in their confirmed belief that the AFL continues to act as they always have - arrogantly making the rules up as they go to suit their own agenda.
Floyd Calhoun
Guest
I haven't been following the tanking thing all that closely, but was the after the siren Richmond win the 'one that nearly got away' from the Demons?! At what point of the season did they go into tanking mode? I'm not saying now that it didn't happen, but can anyone offer a game by game analysis of how this master plan unfolded during that season? Half a million dollars is still a lot of money.
amazonfan
Roar Guru
Considering the club you support, I find it incredible that you would make such a comment. I don't know how you can write it with a straight face, considering that the only difference between Carlton and Melbourne is that Carlton hasn't been caught. I must say, one of the extraordinary things about this is the level of hypocrisy. One would think that Melbourne is the only club to have tanked.
Australian Rules
Guest
Yep. But again, the Melbourne FC did NOT tank for draft picks, it merely "brought the game into disrepute"...whatever the hell that means.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
It is simply unbelievable that there was no draft penalty for an offence aimed at getting an advantage from the draft. I wouldn't have removed the picks entirely, but I would have banned them from the first two rounds of the draft. It might have done them some good to recruit from the state leagues for a year.
Mendip
Guest
Again the cricket sanctions were interesting unless you accept there was betting on a noball at a certain ball in an over - obviously there is direct evidence of an individual doing something like bowling a no-ball - how do you prove a coach lost a game just because he was alleged to have said something - it could have been banter or being rhetorical or joking around. To compare with orther sports you would have to prove every move in the match was designed to lose the game - impossible to prove.........I remeber ina crtical Test match in SA when Australia were 6 down and 40 to win and Cronje bought himself on to bowl (a part-timer and best and Healy put him over the fence) and Australia won - thats reasonable evidence but still doesnt prove he threw the match but we know now he may well have...At best it could be said his tactics were sub optimal but he may clainmm that healy was weak against certain bowling - hoe do you prove all this. The MFC has enough legal eagles to have the AFL in court for years. You dont live in the real world.
The_Wookie
Roar Guru
no offence redb, but how any Essendon supporter or player is ok with the top end of the Bombers staff not knowing what their players were taking astounds me. Its reckless at best, and negligent at worst.
langou
Roar Guru
The full back may not be able to influence a game but the coach sure can and it is him who was under investigation. As for your alternative punishment that won’t end up in court – I think that is a terrible concept. The AFL should give a punishment that they see fit and if it ends up in court, so be it. Otherwise you have a situation where a club can cheat and as long as they threaten to take court action against the AFL they will be dealt a lessor punishment From my understanding the AFL decided that Connolly and Baily had spoken and planned to lose matches but there was no evidence that they went through with those plans. Luckily other sporting bodies don’t take this approach. If it where the case then the Pakistani cricketers caught on camera saying that they were going to throw matches and bowl no balls would have been let off as there was no proof that they went through with the plans (the no balls could have been a coincidence).
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
Mendip I am not trying to lecture. Just that the boot is often on the other foot but in this case the penalties for Connelly and Bailey are a lot lighter than they would have been in Soccer. I don't see why avoiding court action is important when deciding on a just penalty. You are limiting the AFL's ability to penalise to whatever the perpetrator would accept. I couldn't tell you what penalty wouldn't involve court action as you would have to ask Mr Connelly what he is happy to accept :) I actually think the penalty is probably fine because it was a while ago, the system was stupid and in the end the Demons still have an awful team.
Redb
Roar Guru
Becuase you can't grasp the topic doesn't mean others wont. I'm not defending tanking, the priority pick or the way the AFL has handled this. Have a read you nuff nuff.
Diablo
Guest
"When a team deliberately floods its defence in an attempt to force a Nil all draw is that not attempting to ‘fix’ the result." That's called TACTICS RedB and AFL teams have been known to flood their defence as well. It must be hard to defend the indefensible though but I'm sure you and TC will find a way. This is why no one takes your comments on other sports seriously.
Mendip
Guest
A goalkeeper in soccer is one player (Grobbelaar) but a key one obviously - if a AFL Fullback is getting beaten often he would be moved or a full forward fumbling and missing would be moved - there are more avenues to goal in AFL. Soccer cant lectrure the AFL on match fixing or have you missed the papers.... I asked for your alternative punishment that wouldnt end up in the courts and I'm still waiting...