BigFooty Discussion Thread: http://bit.ly/WADAAOD

In a statement issued last night, WADA (World Anti-Doping Authority) confirmed that as the drug AOD-9604 has not been approved for human use it is a prohibited substance.

Following a number of inquiries regarding the substance AOD-9604 available on the Internet ‘black market’ and possibly elsewhere, WADA has issued the following statement:

AOD-9604 is a substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world.

Therefore, under the 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List, the substance falls into the S.0 category which states:

“S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.”

For more advice and information regarding medication or supplements, athletes are advised to contact their national anti-doping organization or international federation.

Statement: http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-statement-on-substance-aod-9604/

Geelong did a strange thing in the footy world today. They were honest.

While the AFL and Melbourne continued to spin around the “not tanking but fined and suspended” debacle, and Essendon briefed journos that ASADA turning up to tell players there was a loophole they might yet squeeze through as a “good thing”, Geelong addressed one of the most important issues in the game, that of the growing inequality between rich and poor clubs and how league addresses it, head on. And they did it publicly.

Early in the afternoon, Geelong put the following document, entitled Geelong Cats Response To AFL On Equalisation (attributed to CEO Brian Cook and President Colin Carter) on their website. Some hours later the AFL put their own take on it – Cats call for salary cap re-think. For mine this is a very disingenuous take (from the AFL? Heaven forfend!) because contained in the document are far more interesting and telling observations about the state of the modern football political economy than merely one of the recommendations towards the back.

In this light, I’ve picked out my top eight points from the Geelong response and added some of my own take on each one. My view is by no means right, it is not pretending to be anything other than opinion. The words that really count are those of Cook and Carter.

As well, from an ‘equalisation perspective’ we believe that the strategy was flawed. Allocating funds to the most wealthy clubs was unnecessary but, more importantly, fuelled football inflation and actually increased the spending gap between rich and poor clubs

Having issued the perfectly reasonable but eminently expected complaint that they got a raw deal from the Club Future Fund distribution, Cook and Carter leap straight for the jugular early on page one with this gem. And they are right.

You don’t close inequality by giving poor clubs $10 and then rich clubs $2 and then claiming that with their extra $10 the poor clubs are $10 better off than they were.

No, in reality the poor clubs are only $8 better off. And, as the Cats explain in detail, a rich club is able to multiply every dollar it gets far more effectively than a poor club, so the “benefit” is lessened even further. This for mine is the salient point of the whole document. Everything else leads from it.

We also say that ‘supporter base’ drives sponsorship because decision-makers in firms will be influenced by their club allegiances.

Another fascinating admission and one that bears the voice of experience. Essentially, they are saying that the more supporters you have, the more likelihood some of those supporters will, instead of making rational business decisions, actually spend company/business money with their hearts. We all know this is true at a fundamental level – look at Pratt and Carlton for but one example – but to see it laid out in black and white is refreshing.

We also accept that ‘fixture’ and ‘stadium returns’ are important influences on revenue potential. We welcome the AFL’s acknowledgement that smaller clubs are being disadvantaged because of the AFL strategy to maximise attendances and TV audiences.

Heartening. This view is just the whinging of “small clubs that won’t help themselves”, it is the simple reality of how footy is governed.

The financial gap between clubs is driven by the revenue raised by the richest teams. They set the cost benchmarks and smaller clubs go broke trying to keep up.

Again, shouldn’t be that difficult a concept to grasp but one that seems to elude so many. Seeing as the best administrator in the game has put his name to that sentiment, I think we can now accept it as gospel.

If variable pricing is introduced to selected ‘blockbuster’ games and the additional revenues shared with other teams and, in particular, allocated to smaller teams, the equalisation objectives would be met

WAHEY! Cooky waves the hammer and sickle, loads the AK and charges that great citadel of late capitalist footy theory, the ANZAC Day game. You want the ANZAC Day game and all the associated benefits it brings, then you have to share the benefits. They don’t go into enough detail here as to what “variable pricing” could entail, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out where he is going. This would put your average Bomber fan in quite the pickle – would they still go to the ANZAC day game if they knew North or the Dogs were directly benefiting? Can they explain why other teams shouldn’t benefit if they are shut out of the time-slot?

Of course, good and bad management makes a difference but not enough to overcome entrenched inequalities. Even wealthy clubs have had periods of very bad management – but they can dig their way out of trouble because of the size of their supporter base.

In two short sentences, Cook and Carter “pwn” hundreds of big club supporting Internet trolls with the warhammer of decades of experience at the footy coalface.

There is little evidence that the relative size of supporter bases has moved much between clubs over the last 50 years. A few clubs may have lost a little ground after decades of poor performance and arguably only one club has gained due to a level of sustained on-field success 30 years ago that cannot be repeated.

Another fascinating point from the Cat hierarchy. I’m not sure how much I agree with this: surely the club they refer to is Hawthorn and I dispute that cannot be repeated. North’s surging membership numbers, which should take it into the middle bracket of Melbourne teams membership wise in the next two years, can clearly be traced back to the Carey Generation coming of age. Still, it is a point well made and one worth bearing in mind.

There is even evidence that some smaller clubs have done a relatively better job than some of the larger clubs – such as converting a higher proportion of their supporters to members and often getting a higher yield per member. As well, some of the smaller clubs have achieved better win/loss records over the recent decades than have some of the stronger clubs and it isn’t plausible to argue that they can do this consistently with inferior management.

Again, stating the obvious, but gratifying to see the point made by a footy luminary like Cook.

There’s a huge amount in the document that I haven’t picked up here, especially as regards the salary cap and stadium deals. I encourage everybody to read the document in full. It is as good an education into how footy is arranged right now as you will ever get.

I’m also unsure as to why the Cats chose to release their response publicly. Maybe they are just trying to prove a point about how a very well run sporting organisation manages its affairs?

Maybe?

Just when you thought the AFL couldn’t get any better, or more accurately, worse, they manage to outdo themselves yet again.

The official verdict from on high is that Melbourne didn’t tank.  But they have been fined $500,000, and former Melbourne coach Dean Bailey and then football chief Chris Connolly have been sanctioned for their words and deeds in the period under investigation.

So to reiterate, Melbourne didn’t tank, but the club itself and it’s most senior footy department employees did engage in “conduct prejudicial to the interests of the AFL” during the period investigated by former Federal Police. And that behaviour is worthy of a sum that amounts to about 1/18th of the Dees entire salary cap for the year to come.

What exactly could they have done that was so unbecoming as to cost them equivalent of what they’d probably be paying their best player this year if indeed it wasn’t tanking?

Let us interrogate the Jesuitical logic of Gillon McLachlan:

“The evidence suggests, and Dean Bailey agreed …. he made decisions to ultimately appease Chris. He made decisions to rest players. All three parties, Melbourne FC, Dean Bailey and Chris Connolly have accepted the sanctions.

“There is no evidence to suggest Dean Bailey or any players went out to lose games on match day …. Dean Bailey rested players who were available to play and played players out of position.”

Essentially McLachlan says that Melbourne did not deliberately lose games on matchday. That is, they didn’t all keep kicking it backwards and rushing it through for the opposition until the score was Opponents 256 – Melbourne 0.

But they do say that Melbourne engaged in “conduct prejudicial” in the LEAD UP to games. But according to McLachlan, this is not tanking. The mind boggles.

There are those Dees fans and hierarchy who will see this as a good result. I disagree. Either they tanked or they didn’t. This doesn’t clear their name. It is like that mystifying relic of history that remains in Scottish law: the “not proven” verdict.

It is my belief that Melbourne tanked in 2009. I’m hardly alone there. But the reality is that in the quasi-judicial process as entered into by the AFL belief is not enough. Proof is required.

As the AFL admits in its own statement, it cannot prove there was a directive at Melbourne in order to lose games and it cannot prove on matchday there was a plan to lose. Thus, Melbourne are cleared and walk out the front door. That’s how it is.

The mealy mouthed cowardice displayed by the AFL in trying to have its cake and eat it too – by fining the club and slapping sanctions on Connolly and Bailey they no doubt feel they will be seen to have done something – will only make things far worse down the track. Natural justice has not been served.

Melbourne will forever carry the stain of having engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the interest of the AFL” – whatever that may be, and most of us will just continue in our belief they tanked – in the 2009 season. Dean Bailey is suspended for 16 weeks and has professional name besmirched for  essentially doing what coaches will do every week this season, rest players or perhaps play somebody out of position. In AFL land anyway.

Chris Connolly cops a year long suspension for basically being a tool. According to the AFL he: “acted in a manner concerning pre-game planning, comprising comments to a football department meeting, which was prejudicial to the interests of the AFL.”

No, either he directed the coach to try and lose a game by his selections and coaching, or he didn’t. No grey area.

Everybody knows that the cover up always makes things worse. And this is what the AFL is doing here: engaging in a cover up.  They should either have found Melbourne guilty of tanking and whacked them hard.

Or they should have exonerated them fully, but been crystal clear about what would and wouldn’t constitute tanking, so no club could be under any doubt.

Instead, the AFL has merely extended the grey area on the matter unto infinity. If Bailey cops a whack for “resting players”, should Mark Harvey not get the same for his infamous decision to rest half the Freo team before the game against Hawthorn in 2011?

And if resting players who are fit is “conduct prejudicial to the interests of the AFL” and worthy of a 16 week ban, then surely running such a shoddy footy department that ASADA are forced to investigate what is being injected into your players, because you don’t know, is worth … who knows what?

Make no mistake, the AFL, in their attempt to be cute, have made things worse with this decision. Instead of facing up to the tanking saga, they have simply kicked it down the road to get bigger and uglier and lie in wait to pounce again, as it surely will.

Essendon have come forth in a press conference regarding a possible breach of Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority regulations.

The belief is that players were asked to sign waivers regarding the club’s fitness program and everything it entailed.

The former Essendon head of fitness, Stephen Dank, left the Bombers in late 2012 following controversy regarding the fitness program. Essendon players experienced a high number of soft-tissue injuries in the 2012 season, which was noted by senior officials including coach James Hird.

The implications are potentially horrifying for Essendon supporters. WADA guidelines are strict, and all performance-enhancing drugs are punished under these guidelines. Any individual player caught under PED regulations will almost certainly be subject to a 2-year ban, similar to the ban handed to former Tour de France winner Alberto Contador. Assuming the entire Essendon playing list from 2012 was involved, you’re looking at the Bombers having approximately a half-dozen players eligible for the 2013 season.

This goes further. Joe Daniher, the prized father-son pick in last year’s draft, could be implicated. If he was involved in an Essendon-run fitness scheme, which is not unheard of for father-son picks, then he could have been involved in a similar PED program as well, and would possibly fall under WADA guidelines as such.

There’s also Jobe Watson’s Brownlow Medal to consider. In the event that Watson is stripped based on events in the 2012 season, Trent Cotchin and Sam Mitchell would thus be awarded the Brownlow jointly. Nevertheless, it is very much a bittersweet affair; past Tour de France winners who were awarded the victory due to the “winner” being stripped due to drugs have said that it is simply not the same; the cheat received all the plaudits and the parades at the time.

The AFL would have to punish all involved. While the former fitness “guru” is no longer with Essendon, if it was found that the coaching staff had knowledge and gave approval to the fitness staff regarding this, you’re looking at a minimum of similar bans for the likes of James Hird and Mark Thompson, if not longer.

Finally, depending on what is found, there are implications that send shockwaves through the AFL. The likes of Angus Monfries and Sam Lonergan, no longer with the EFC but now with other AFL clubs, would also likely be banned if they had any involvement. Questions could be raised about Geelong’s 2007 and 2009 premierships if Mark Thompson is implicated. The legacy of one of the greatest to play the game in James Hird would be tarnished forever.

Discuss on BigFooty.com:

• AFL to investigate Essendon for controversial fitness program.
• Guess the next footy scandal!
• Bombers fans – keep your heads up

The AFL’s approach to illicit drugs was championed as a world leader of drugs-in-sport policy when it was implemented in 2005. It was fair, humane and had been effective in reducing match day and out-of-season positive test numbers, through better player education and frequency of testing.

In recent months however, some cracks have started to appear.

AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou has flagged that the 2012 data will show an increase in positive tests from the six detections made in 2011. And there are evidently wider concerns within some AFL clubs and sections of the media about levels of drug use among players, and the capacity of the current AFL policy to address this issue into the future.

This prompted the AFL player welfare and drug summit held this week in Melbourne, where a number of key stakeholders and drug health experts gathered to take stock of the current AFL illicit drug policy (IDP), and consider options for change.

Judging from the rhetoric and reaction surrounding Wednesday’s AFL summit, the AFL IDP is about to change, and not necessarily for the better.

If the clubs get their way, they will be more involved in player drug testing and managing the outcomes of positive results. Depending on the model implemented, this could represent an impossible conflict of interest – club business pressures versus their responsibilities to player welfare and community, and inequities in club budgets available for drug-testing are just two factors that could create a real potential for abuse of the AFL drug policy.

The other likely changes to the AFL IDP include a tightening of the rules and ramifications around player self-reporting of drug use, and the expansion of off-season hair drug tests to inform the further target-testing of suspect players.

But the most concerning thing to emerge from AFL drug summit is the strong public message being given by many involved: that all instances of illicit drug use require correction or rehabilitation through mental health counselling and medical treatment.

One well-known psychologist at the AFL summit argued for the use of personality tests on players to measure their “addiction potential”, so they could be flagged as likely to have future problems.

Some clubs want earlier notifications if their players test positive, again because they want to help one way or the other. Tellingly, the Collingwood president’s take on it was that “Players with mental health issues need help and support. Those who are smart-arses need to be belted.”

And, former Hawthorn president, Jeff Kennett argued that clubs should be alerted earlier so they could support the player back to a “condition of good behaviour”.

It became clear this week that many in the AFL, and at least some experts, see drug use as a pathology needing a cure.

Such a stance makes sense from a community message perspective. When individual players inevitably test positive it allows the AFL and the clubs to say two things that the community wants to hear:

1. Player X made the wrong decision, is remorseful, and is receiving the counselling and medical treatment that is necessary to correct his problem.
2. The AFL drug policy is working.

However, the problem with the “drug use = pathology” message is that its simply not true. Not all instances of drug use reflect an underlying mental health or medical problem that requires counselling and treatment. We know from the available data that most people who use drugs never encounter major health harms from doing so, and never require treatment or rehabilitation.

But perhaps the biggest issue with the pathologising message gathering pace in the AFL setting is how the players currently using drugs, and perhaps those around them looking on, might interpret it.

As confronting as this will be for some, the experience of most AFL players using drugs has most likely been positive. They would find drugs exciting, pleasurable, fun, and may have also experienced perhaps unexpected enhancements to their performance in various areas (sexual, cognitive, physical, emotional and so on). That is why they do it.

We have to ask ourselves then, what real value is there in publicly framing drug use as a pathology needing medical treatment and cure, while the private experience couldn’t be more different in most cases?

The danger here is that such conflicting messages about drugs serve to teach the players and the community watching them that if you get caught doing something disapproved of like using drugs, you had better confess to having a mental health or medical problem that needs correcting, submit willingly to that rehabilitation you need, and all will be fixed.

Again, for the most part that’s not true, and it’s rarely that simple.

We should by all means put in place the best evidence-based policy structures and treatment options to assist those individual AFL players who do experience health and other problems caused by or related to drug use. A health and welfare focus like the AFL IDP is more effective than a punitive criminalising approach to illicit drug use.

But, we must also reflect on the credibility of the messages that accompany these health and welfare focused drug policies, in sport and in other domains of life.

The broader issue here is that we have a tendency to panic about drugs in our midst. Parents panic about their children using drugs. Teachers panic about drug use by students. AFL clubs panic about their star players using drugs and the damage to their brand and success.

We panic because we remember the terrible cases of lives ruined and lost through drug dependence. Such cases do exist.

We should also remember that drugs and other psychoactive substances have always served important spiritual, therapeutic, economic and cultural functions in our societies. We should remember that some of the most accomplished and celebrated people in history were drug users – authors, painters, poets, musicians, presidents and prime ministers, sportspeople, soldiers and generals and so on.

We must accept that drugs, illicit and otherwise, will continue to shape our society in the future too.

There is no doubt that the AFL executive, the AFL Players Association, and other community leaders have a responsibility to send appropriate messages about drug use and its potential consequences.

The most credible message we can give here is that we have an AFL illicit drugs policy that can privately provide the appropriate health and welfare assistance to players if and when it is needed.

Saying that all people who use illicit drugs require rehabilitation through mental health counselling and medical treatment is not true, and it is not helpful.

Panicking is no basis for effective drug policy.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/adrian-anderson-quits-the-afl.982678/

Collingwood captain Nick Maxwell. Photo – http://www.flickr.com/photos/avlxyz/

Collingwood captain Nick Maxwell has been offered a two-match ban by the AFL Match Review Panel for engaging in rough conduct with Hawthorn’s Paul Puopolo during Friday Night’s First Qualifying Final.

The charge was graded as a level three offence which equates to 325 demerit points and a three match ban, but Maxwell can accept a two-match ban with an early plea. Puopolo sustained a broken nose from the incident which contributed to the severity of the penalty. This of course means that should he accept the ban, Maxwell will only play again this season if Collingwood make the Grand Final.

In other charges laid, teammate of Maxwell Chris Tarrant has been charged with a level two striking offence against Hawthorn’s Lance Franklin during the first quarter on Friday Night. Due to a previous good record, Tarrant can accept a reprimand and 70.31 demerit points to his record, which won’t mean anything unless he gets suspended from here until the end of the season as he is retiring.

Jarryd Roughead has also been charged, this time with a level one rough conduct charge against Collingwood forward Chris Dawes. For this, Roughead can accept a reprimand and 70.31 demerits towards his future record due to a previous good record.

Collingwood’s Heath Shaw and Hawthorn’s Brad Sewell have both been fined $900 with an early plea for a first offence for wrestling with each other.

Adelaide young gun Patrick Dangerfield can also accept a $900 fine for making negligent contact with umpire Justin Schmitt during Saturday’s Qualifying Final at AAMI Stadium.

Geelong veteran James Kelly has been charged with a level one bumping offence against Fremantle’s Tendai Mzungu during the third quarter of the Elimination Final at the MCG on Saturday Night. Due to a previous poor record, Kelly’s one match sanction must remain that way.

West Coast big man Quentin Lynch has been hit with a one-match ban that cannot be reduced due to a previous bad record after a level one charging offence on North Melbourne’s Scott McMahon during the Elimination Final at Patersons Stadium on Sunday.

Kangaroos veteran Brent Harvey has been hit with a double-ban. Firstly, he was charged with a level four striking offence against West Coast’s Daniel Kerr and can accept a three-match ban and due to a poor record it cannot be reduced. Harvey has also copped a one-match ban for a level three striking ban against Adam Selwood on Sunday. This also cannot be reduced and adds up to a total of four matches that Harvey will have to sit out next season.

Other incidents assessed include contact between Hawk Josh Gibson and Collingwood’s Andrew Krakouer, between Swan Jude Bolton and Patrick Dangerfield and contact between Eagle Sam Butler and North Melbourne’s Lachie Hansen, but all of these were thrown out.

Strange things are afoot at the Circle K.

According to Michaelangelo Rucci – I know – the AFL is set to purchase the licenses for the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide Power from the SANFL.

While a formal announcement has yet to be made, I think this will indeed come to pass. As regards what it all means, much like the French Revolution, well, it is far too early to tell.

What we do know for sure is that the simple fact that the Port license is coming for free due to the debts carried by the 2nd South Australian team shows us just how far behind the 8 ball that club is.

Again, that’s hardly news, but the implications are potentially huge. There’s a strong school of thought among Port fans that breaking free of the SANFL can only be a good thing.

There’s no denying that Port have been hamstrung, and given a regular kick in the jatz crackers for good measure, by their current (for now) license arrangement with the SANFL.

And given the horror show they’ve had to endure on and off field for the last few years, it is understandable that any change in their circumstances would be seen as an improvement on yet more of the same.

But the Port types should be very careful what they wish for. The deal, as reported by Rucci, effectively sees Port swap de facto SANFL control for AFL control. And just as the SANFL ran the club in its own best interests rather than Port’s, so the AFL will do what is best for it, not necessarily Port or its members.

There’s a few interesting things to remember here. The AFL is currently in a munificent phase. It is rolling in dollars and spending them freely. But the money that is being given to clubs, and there is plenty, comes with very tight strings.

Despite the received wisdom of many footy fans, the multi-million dollar disequal money given to Melbourne clubs is not simply dumped into bank accounts to be spent as the clubs desire. It is – quite rightly – very clearly tied to specific purposes which the AFL oversees. Another corollary is that the AFL take a far greater role in the day to day running of clubs.

This is not to say they make financial decisions, but they do demand to be kept informed of the clubs financial plans and have made explicit that the disequal funding, to be reviewed after three years, is reliant on clubs meeting targets and requirements set by the AFL.

Unimaginative mid-article image.

Port are already big recipients of AFL cash and are about to find themselves even further under the gimlet eye of The Organisation. This restricts Port’s ability to act independently at a number of levels: AFL directors will push a certain line and the dependency on ongoing AFL support means that Port will have to swallow some stuff the AFL wants that the “native” Port types might not.

It is also worth remembering that the good times are not guaranteed to last. The AFL is embarking on a generational change in its revenue raising. It has made clear that it sees the future of media rights not in big set piece deals with broadcast networks, but in a new paradigm, one centered around selling direct to consumers.

The AFL is not a stupid organisation and all the current trends indicate it is right to pursue this path. But it is still a risk and even if the AFL gets all its end of things right, economic circumstances may change and political circumstances may change.

Most importantly, the AFL’s own circumstances may change. Demetriou will not be there forever. The AFL may find that take up of its new revenue raising model is stronger in some parts of the country than others. The South Australian economy, already weak, may falter further. The Olympic Dam decision, while hardly the catastrophe painted by certain politicians, is not what the state wanted or needed either.

It’s worth recalling the AFL is only committed to having two South Australian teams for the life of the current broadcast arrangement. After that, if it controls the licenses, all bets are off.

It is unlikely, but not impossible, that circumstances may change to the point where the AFL decides it can get better value by having an 18th team in another location. Or by drastically changing the make up of the second team in South Australia to the point where Port fans to not recognise it. If the AFL had directors on the North board in 2007, we’d be the Gold Coast Kangaroos now.

And finally, Port should remember the grim economic reality that underpins the lack of a Tasmanian team. Tasmania is a small low growth economy that is already a rusted on footy state. The AFL knows that people there will watch footy anyway. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the league might calculate that long term, there’d be very little, if any, net loss, in removing Port in favour of say, a third WA team. Yes, some of the current generation would abandon AFL footy, but their kids, knowing nothing else and soaked in footy culture, would come back to the fold.

This is by no means a prediction. It is just a series of possibilities. But things are changing drastically for Port, one of the oldest and proudest clubs in the history of our game and change is not always for the better.

Port should not forget the old adage: beware of Greek Cypriots bearing gifts.

Jordan Lewis. Photo – http://www.flickr.com/photos/themalones/

Hawthorn hardman Jordan Lewis doesn’t have a case to answer after being cleared by the AFL’s Match Review Panel for a heavy tackle on Sydney Swan Luke Parker during the first quarter of the Hawks seven-point win at the SCG on Saturday Afternoon.

The Match Review Panel declared that the tackle was not a reportable offence, due to the force of the tackle being insufficient. Lewis is now free to play this Friday Night against the West Coast Eagles at the MCG.

In other cases assessed, Melbourne duo Colin Garland and Rohan Bail were charged with level one engaging in rough conduct offences against Kurt Tippett and Michael Doughty respectively, but both can accept a reprimand with an early plea.

Port Adelaide’s Brett Ebert has been charged with a level two striking offence against Brisbane Lions midfielder Daniel Rich during the final quarter of Saturday’s match at AAMI Stadium. Due to a five-year good record, Ebert can accept a reprimand with an early plea.

Other incidents assessed were the match day report against Tiger Shane Edwards for striking Essendon’s Angus Monfries, contact between Saint Jarryn Geary and GWS Giants co-captain Phil Davis, contact between Gold Coast’s Campbell Brown and Carlton’s Brock McLean and more contact between Cat Paul Chapman and Bulldog Dylan Addison, but all of these were thrown out.

The first time I ever heard the word “tanking” in relation to sport was in the early 1990s referring to the then enfant terrible of tennis, Andre Agassi.

The suggestion was that Agassi had developed a tactic whereby if he realised he was losing a set, he would effectively give up on it in order to conserve his energy for the next one.

This was seen as a rather chiselling move by tennis traditionalists and somehow very American.

Agassi would go on to claim he “tanked” an Australian Open semi final against Michael Chang so as to avoid Boris Becker in the final for personal reasons (he believed Becker had been flirting with his then girlfriend Brooke Shields).

In his autobiography, Agassi reaches the kernel of the whole issue of tanking: “It’s (tanking) almost harder than winning. You have to lose in such a way that the crowd can’t tell.”

Carlton’s Brock McLean re-lit the tanking debate in the AFL with his comments on On The Couch on Monday regarding his departure from Melbourne. As is so often the way with these matters, those watching live, as I was, could be under no impression that McLean was talking about anything apart from deliberately losing games in order to get better draft picks when he made those comments.

You can watch the Brock McLean interview here.

They may not appear definitive in print and McLean will struggle to provide watertight proof – this is the crux of the matter as Agassi alluded to – that the Dees deliberately threw games even if he stands by his view when interviewed by the AFL.

The problem Melbourne, and by extension the AFL, have, is that the perception is widely held that while Melbourne may not have deliberately lost games, they certainly didn’t do their best to win. And argue many, including former players and presidents, if you are not going 100 per cent to win, then effectively you are happy to lose.

Are Melbourne the only team to tank if we define the act as not doing everything possible to win? No. North Melbourne in 2006 sent key players for surgery once it became mathematically impossible to make the finals three rounds out from the season’s end. It didn’t help the Kangas get a priority draft pick but certainly made it difficult to win the remaining games, which ensured a high draft pick.

If North had been fighting tooth and nail for a finals spot that year, would the likes of Shannon Grant have been sent to have persistent injuries cleaned up? Certainly not. The proof of that is in the pudding sitting before us. If North were bottom four, Leigh Adams would probably be off having surgery on his dodgy shoulders in order to be cherry ripe for next year.

Instead Adams is moving heaven and earth, and a lot of painkilling injections, to get up for every game as his team strives to make the eight.

The crucial issue for Melbourne is that there is a widespread view, reinforced by a huge range of factors, that the club made a strategic decision to “bottom out” in order to scoop up a series of high draft picks and build a side that would contend for premierships from there.

The so-called model for this is Hawthorn. But Melbourne forgot that while Hawthorn did indeed trade for draft picks and wear a few years at the bottom, they’d already brought in the nucleus of their currently white hot side before taking that decision.

We can argue whether delisting the likes of James McDonald constitutes tanking or not until the cows come home. The reality is that there’s few who disagree, up to and including the coach who oversaw much of the period, that Melbourne did not have winning games as it’s number one priority for a period of at least two years. That is tanking plain and simple.

Questions need to be asked about this and the AFL says it will ask them. It should too, and in the form of a proper inquiry, conducted by an independent agency. That the Victorian gambling regulator has again indicated it is taking an interest in the matter should alert the league to the seriousness of the situation. The number one responsibility of the league is not to maximise revenue, but to ensure the integrity of the competition.

This inquiry cannot be a re-hash of the recent internally run exercise that cleared clubs, and the league, of tanking allegations. Self regulation is fine up to a point. That point has now been reached.

Hard questions need to be asked, of Melbourne especially, but not exclusively. And for Melbourne fans, the key question, and potentially most painful, is how far up the chain of command the strategy went. Did Jimmy Stynes know? Or approve?

It is hard to believe that a man who worked so tirelessly on behalf of his beloved Demons could not have been at least aware that the onfield plan involved rebuilding via the draft, albeit at turbo speed.

Obviously Stynes is not here to defend himself and his legacy. And it is hard to believe a competitor as fierce as Stynes would have sanctioned simply throwing games. But, and here we are back to the murk of the grey area, if by delisting senior players and using others out of position a team is not fielding its best possible side and using the best possible tactics to win, can it really be said to be trying 100 per cent?

The grim reality is not that the Demons tanked. The system was set up to implicitly encourage them to. The problem is that they forgot Agassi’s dictum and let on to the crowd that they weren’t trying 100 per cent to win.