AFL Tanking Debate

The snooze button came off when sacked Melbourne coach, Dean Bailey, held a press conference on Monday.

"I had no hesitation at all in the first two years of ensuring this club was well placed for draft picks," Bailey said.

"I was asked to do the best thing by the Melbourne Football Club, and I did it."

To the majority of AFL fans, this came as a sensible comment. An admission of a commonplace practice - tanking. Finally, talk from a coach untarnished by AFL-realpolitik.


An assistant coach, Tony Liberatore, had previously spoken of his clear belief that Carlton tanked in 2007. This was duly downplayed & denied - rehashed as bitterness at leaving the club the year after. Snooze button on.

The VFL draft came into full force in 1986. A toned down version was present from 1981. The contentious priority pick rule was introduced in 1993.

I vividly recall barracking against Hawthorn in 2004 (4 wins) & 2005 (5 wins). It was an empty feeling being at the MCG. Numbing. 2005 was exceptionally pointless. One less win would have offered the daft priority pick.


If incentive is to be accepted as the major motivation in many fields - it behooves the denier to enter into dreary semantics in order to side-track the conversation. There is no other recourse. This would be a fair summation of the official debate to this point.


It has taken 30 years to overcome stubborn, head in the sand denial. 25 years if one wishes to be finicky, in a reprisal of said behaviour. This may be an optimistic statement in itself. An AFL 'investigation' has 'uncovered' that players were utilised "out of their position as part of their development" and "they allowed senior players to leave the club and get draft picks in return". This is a pathetic re-mapping of Dean Bailey's comments. To expect more would be folly. 


The reasons for the AFL body refusing to acknowledge such an obvious reality are clear. The sports betting market. Protecting their ar$es, and the money made from the percentage of funds they legally skim from every bet made.

The Solution :


Firstly, get rid of the priority pick altogether. It is moronic for the AFL not to concede this point. It was ill-thought and has well outlived any usefulness it may have offered.


This should be done in 2 or 3 years time. Announced at this season's end.


Second, a draft lottery is only a partial solution. In an intentionally compromised system, it is a reasonable step. Unlike the NBA, do not offer the lowest finisher a greater chance of pick #1. Offer the bottom 4 or 6 an equal chance ie 25% or 17%


This will fix most of the problems. Tanking would still exist when a team was concerned about finishing fifth or seventh last.


Third, remove all betting on teams that are in tank contests. This should be forced on the AFL. Suddenly, they would then jump to fix the problem. (Haha, again incentive being the main motivator)


Lastly - do not place the blame at the feet of clubs/club administrators/club coaches. Accept that stupid rules produce stupid outcomes.

Aug 13 2011


Andrew Demetriou again denies the existence of tanking. Proposes life bans. What an absolute joke. This guy is made to look a fool on certain issues. Here's a very simple idea : Stop treating the fans of AFL as idiots. That would go a long way..... sigh

Chris Judd on the Football Media

Ben Cousins - In the Beginning

This Is Not Consent (Woman beds 200 AFL players)

The Royal Wedding - What it says about us

The Royal Wedding is upon us. Admittedly, a 'nice' event - the public union of two charismatic people, Prince William & Kate Middleton. Bigger than the wedding itself, is what the wedding signifies.

The clamour of attention the wedding is receiving is massive. We have seen umpteen reports in London of the lead-up. Hilariously, regular news is being reported from over there. Much like a fake background that often lies behind weather reporters. All in all, the stampede is a desired one. Eclipsing all other events. It is feeding the public taste for miniscule information regarding the wedding. A bit sad, really.

Suggestions have been made that the fascination is equal to a 'big-time' celebrity. Compare the response to the 'Coming of Oprah' to Australian shores. It is hard to disagree. Either way, it does make the country look second-rate. Indeed, the US appears equally fixated.

A republic. Seems further away in Australia than ever, indeed in Britain also. This is a glorious distraction that panders to the romantic tastes of many. Papering over the obvious problem of having an outmoded head of state.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". A difficult line to argue against as a dismissal of the republican idea. The Queen 

has little influence, if any, on contemporary politics. It is indeed the symbolism that many have problems with.

The succession of the throne. Prince Charles as the next king. Another attempt at a republic seems unquestionable with Elizabeth still on the throne.

His son, Prince William has vastly greater public appeal. Being reared in far less of the stiff-necked royal life than his father was. In addition, obvious public sympathy over the death of his mother, Princess Diana.

The 'royal plot' would perhaps be to pass straight from Elizabeth to William. Charles may have agreed to this directly. His marriage to Camilla Parker Bowles, a (shock-horror) divorcee, has precedent in making one unfit for Kingship. Edward VIII was forced to abdicate for such a 'crime'.

The public will adore the new Royal Couple, especially as King & Queen. Kiss goodbye for another generation, at least, to a republican push. Many will be pleased with this outcome.

The competition between femininity & feminism. There seems to be one clear winner here. The obsession with the wedding reveals much. Kate was famously urged to get a 'real job' in the long lead-up to the wedding. Quite understandably, the job of being a future princess was seen to be much larger. It surely eclipses many trivial pursuits.

The 'duty' of the princess is now clear. Although they have been in a relationship for a long time, the wedding means one thing to many. Time for breeding duties. 'An heir & a spare' is the primary goal.

Coverage of Kate has focused primarily on her sense of style & fashion. On how good she looks. It is hard to escape the belief this is foremost amongst considerations. Judging by Princess Diana & the coverage seen so far of Kate, it is indeed. Gossip magazines demand so - they are a vital feedback mechanism in keeping the royals relevant.

In conclusion, the Royal Wedding is a big tick for the status quo. Forget outmoded dreams of advancement, they are but pipe-dreams. What you see is what you get. It is in one way refreshing to have this confirmed, as dreary as the consequences may be.

Chris Judd on the Football Media

Can a footballer also be a thinker? This is a dishonest question, as the answer is clearly yes. It is admittedly on rare display. Again, it begs another question. Why put questions to a footballer that are greater than football? 
Here is why:

 "..it's good for the game to have football spread out so (the media) don't feel the pressure from Tuesday to Thursday to write dribble."

"The football public sometimes gets confused about what it is we do, and if you spread out the games, there is more time to spend talking about football and it reminds the public what the game is about." Chris Judd

The football media's job is to cover football. We all know this can only be the case on or near the weekend. Being immediately close to game time.

Look at 2011 and its pre-season. The lack of meaningful games to cover gives rise to gutter journalism & dribble. The months leading up to the begining of the season can be considered one colossal, mid-week belly scratch. Very little to be achieved, and even less is offered by the football media as a whole. This is a common trait between AFL & Rugby League coverage. Worldwide, the trend is identical.


The rise of 'investigative journalism', a by-word for sensationalist filth, naturally fills the gap with its lewd stench. Emanating from this pit of keyboard despair, each year the body count gets higher. The stories more far-fetched. The material ever more ghastly.

The 'St Kilda Schoolgirl' (Kim Duthie) story exemplifies all of the above traits. It has been ongoing for a year now. It shows no sign of disappearing into the horizon. The only time it does retreat into the background - when the damn football is bounced.

The notion of reporting trash as fact has been covered in past articles. This is a power that a third party of (considered) repute can easily exercise. Recklessly.

What is missing? In the case of football - the spectre of an imminent game. It is that simple. Its absence will cause events to spiral out of control. Please spare us. Bounce the football at more regular intervals. Parasites may only be cleansed with a regular bathing. Lest they grab a foothold.

A similar question (as asked to Chris Judd) would be fascinating put forth to Nick Riewoldt. The unfortunate captain of the St Kilda Football Club. A lamb to the slaughter. A retreat into cliche is the expected, and forced result of the barrage Nick Riewoldt has sustained. He may never utter another word about anything off-field. Even on-field happenings will be avoided in substance. It is the price to be paid for inferior coverage. Self-inflicted by the smattering of narcissistic football journalists.

It has been an absolute misery of a lead up to the football season. The worst on record. End the pain now. We beg of you.

--------

In all likelihood, football played 5 or 6 days per week will be difficult to function. It is important not to take Chris Judd's message as literal. The void in between the weekend does need to be filled with on-field matters. Possibilities include delaying the post-match conference of the last weekend/Monday game to the next day. Pushing forward a Friday pre-match conference to Thursday etc. Perhaps the banning of questions related to non-football matters during these events as well.

All efforts need to be made to keep the content on topic. The men are mere mortals who play a sport. That is all. Other matters are irrelevant and pervasive. In a sense, the football body has to parent the media coverage in addition to its other concerns. Basic acknowledgement of this would be a huge step forward.

The problem with off-season coverage is a huge headache. I scratch my head here. It can be said that tackling the mid-week content issue may provide solutions applicable to the off-season (to some extent) also.

----------

3rd Aug 2011

A 4-day football weekend is the best solution. A few have been scheduled this year, and they work the best.

In saying that, since the football season actually started - the coverage has been excellent. ie minimal concentration on junk issues not to do with the on-field performance.

This is not Consent (Woman beds 200 AFL players)
  

Sex Scandal - NRL - Matthew Johns

Ben Cousins - In the Beginning

Internet Censorship in Australia

Welcome to the internet. Home of the free. Land of the brave. Um, I can't use that. Allow me to start afresh. Here resides all & any information that may be desired. Right at your fingertips. Ahem, most information. Come surf the rich ocean waves of the world wide web. Well, paddle between the flags. Let us not quabble over semantics. All this & more ....

A salesman would get nowhere with this pitch. Hamburgers with no meat. Doors would slam endlessly in his face. Something else is missing. A bit of magic & exuberance. To fill the empty bun in one hit.

Enter - the touchstone of anal politics - Family Values. Ah, things have become a whole lot easier now. Family values can mean pretty much anything the speaker wishes. The tone of voice. A pump of the fist. So many possible interpretations. Family values covers all bases. Most importantly, home base. No need to push any further for ideas.

What is scary? This is actually how simple the debate has occurred. It is over and has been won. 1995 saw the introduction of garbage laws to this end. Australians far and wide have a vested interest in over-turning this hideous refereeing decision.

Protecting children and families is a vital matter for coalition senators, and it is also something that Senator Fielding, the Leader of Family First, has raised with me on a number of occasions. The government has a three-pronged approach: we legislate, we regulate and we educate to protect all Australians, and particularly young Australians, from inadvertent dangers of the internet.
Senator Helen Coonan 2005

It is quite reasonable that the vast majority have not noticed the effect of censorship. It covers 'Australian-hosted sites' only. Overseas websites are not legislated against, yet. Thus, it is typical for Australian content to be posted on overseas sites. The whole situation is very Monty Python. As well as being a total joke, it is deadly serious. And economic stupidity.

Under the WA Act, police do not even need a warrant to search the premises of Internet Service Providers, which obviously includes all records, logs, private E-mail messages and other data contained on the provider's system.

The opposite of family values? Freedom of expression comes close. It is a workable answer. Merely that. Freedom of expression needs a juice-up too. A trick of words will not suffice.

Freedom of expression is vague. Everything is covered, like with family values. All the negatives are included, also - the freedom to be offensive, explicit or shocking. FV conveniently ignores the same pitfall, it is more personal.

Offensive, explicit & shocking are not entirely negative. There is one clear upside to being so. Money or fame. Yep, it is okay to be any of these as long as you are not a useless nobody (by public estimation). Radio DJs, singers & artists are easy examples. The family crowd will sneer viciously at the individual. Equally, be in awe of the cash potential that dwarfs their own. The sneer will match the envy.

Freedom of expression now has a very rigid definition. A real oxymoron. The only acceptable reason to pursue freedom is to make money/fame/both. Failure to correctly walk the tightrope will result in expulsion. Chalked up as a win for the clattering imbeciles. This cannibalistic act will not be registered as such.


Money, in particular, matches family values pound for pound (pardon the pun). For the most part, they share the same dressing room. FV is nothing without the influence to spread it. Also, new toys/technology for the kids etc only heightens the risk of new content that may violate FV holy law.

From a completely circular argument, the counterpoint to family values is defined.



Get on the phones, the match to family values has been found.



From the figures in China, most internet users do not actively try to get around their country's well known policies. I read it as 'could not be bothered'. This is not a criticism of Chinese internet users. The point is that legislation/dictatorship of this kind, allowed sufficient time, will fester. It will drastically reduce the citizen's interest in a free internet - even if it could be switched on overnight. This is far more horrible than the censorship itself.



Publication or transmission of objectionable material

    (1)     A person must not use an on-line information service to publish or transmit, or make available for transmission, objectionable material.

Penalty:     240 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years.

Right now, spin doctors and their ilk are getting big dollars. Of taxpayer's money. The advertising is coming. The early talk campaign has been waged.


Ah, no delete that comment. I never said it



Internet censorship is well and truly on the cards. 



Internet censorship is a ghastly apparition.

Going Public Ahead of Time - Monahan & Bingle

A former TV star, Sarah Monahan, has come out claiming improprieties. The stories have been doing the rounds on current affairs programs. Monahan was a regular face on the below-par (though it ran for at least 7 years, in primetime!) TV show, Hey Dad. Robert Hughes played her father. Cast members have backed up the story, also in the press.

Therein lies the problem. The police have reported they are yet to receive a formal complaint. Despite my personal beliefs, which say Hughes is as gulity as sin, the legalities of the matter have been ignored. If everyone, or a great majority have the same inclination, a fair trial cannot be undertaken. The making public of claims has destroyed the possibility. The judiciary would be biased from the beginning and unable to make impartial decisions.

The claims of other Hey Dad actors seem to clearly back up Monahan's story. Another of Monahan's claims is that she wanted other victims to gain the confidence to come forward. This appears to have happened. A string of other claimants have jumped up. Whether formal complaints had been made previously is unknown to me.

Alas, another problem has come about from this. Newspapers etc have been rushing to interview the other claimants. This could damage their individual cases. The same pattern could be repeated.

As a tactical move, it is possible Monahan was advised she would have little chance of a conviction - pursuing the matter directly. In taking the action she did, the hope may have been to gather a phalanx of accusers, making life impossible for Hughes. That is all well and good if they too did not put themselves up for media interviews. It seems most have, including their names in press reports.

I can't see any possible legal ramifications for Robert Hughes. I believe he will get off scot free in this instance. The damage done will be purely to his reputation. I am unaware of any acting work that he has done recently. He also resides in Singapore. From his point of view, as long as he does not come back to Australia, the damage is limited.

This allows a flimsy segue into the Lara Bingle imbroglio. Bingle was photographed in the shower, nude, by her former shag, Brendan Fevola. This appears without doubt. The photo was subsequently distributed far and wide. Fevola claims he lost his (camera) phone.

The problem with the Bingle/Fevola affair is precisely the same as with the Hey Dad pitfall. Bingle gave an interview to a 'leading' women's magazine, Woman's Day. For a reported $200k! She lost most or all credibility immediately. The same magazine had published the photo, publicly, for the first time but a week before. Her agent, Max Markson, pumped out some pre-rehearsed lines, which went down like a lead float. The police were also sidestepped - a huge motivation appears to be sheer profiteering by Bingle & Markson.

Sarah Monahan has been receiving a large amount of hate mail, in the same vain as Lara Bingle. The method of public dissemination needs to be seriously questioned. As a tactic for direct action, it is one of the poorest moves available. This is entirely seperate from the actual facts.

------------------

Have thought a bit more on the issue. My only conclusion is that in both cases, it was decided the legal avenue was a dead-end. The tactic decided on was public shame & humiliation in place of legal recourse. It severely undermines the message. It makes it too hard to really care about from a distance, as harsh as that may sound.

Copenhagen. A Failure?

The Climate Conference in Copenhagen appears to have been a failure in the eyes of many. Indeed it was, with this important disclaimer. For those who expected too much; or for those who willed it to fail: Copenhagen was a failure.

Firstly, to those who willed Copenhagen to fail. Any & all possible outcomes would have been picked over and degraded by this mob. That is a given. Dialogue/debate is next to worthless in this arena. Logic barely exists. An emotional outlook has been fabricated and rigidly adhered to. Oh, of course there is back-pocket logic. The only reason we have to care about these fools is due to their stultifying influence. For activists, the path is clear. Conversation with this mob is a waste of time. It can be crudely boiled down to a generational divide. Activists must simply wait until a large quantity of objectors curl up & die. Other paths could well be futile. I am reminded of the republican debate in Australia. Trench politics. The absolute opposite to the ideal of democratic practice (also one of it's major constants).

To those who expected too much. Diplomacy is a slow, pondering beast. Try getting 190 people in a room for a discussion on the same topic. Within, numerous environmental bigots will do their utomost to keep proceedings at a stillpoint. International diplomacy is no better. The minimal (and yes, non-binding) agreements set are all that could possibly be expected. Posturing and influence are far greater components than the actual content of speech. Politics is human. Again, another point that logic is secondary.

The greatest question to be asked (and answered) at any meeting of this kind is : 'What's in it for me?' A clear and obvious demonstration of the negative effects of climate change is sorely needed. In a nutshell, this impetus does not presently exist. International leaders, mindful of their own constituency, have little choice but to push the 'What's in it for me?' line to it's extreme. At the present stage of scientific uptake (minimal), it would be naive to expect anything better. It is a low-grade game of Simon Says. For one to act without the appearance of similar action by others is largely fruitless. I do not agree with this one bit from a personal level. However, at a different level it is a no-brainer.

Which brings me to the major point. Climate change action is the responsibility of the individual. To expect government (elected democratically, for this example's sake) to take collective action is a misnomer. The 'debate' in the US & Australia is truly woeful. A bunch of organisations with vested interests have a massive influence. Governments may try to make the right noisess. It barely matters in the crunch. Every single scheme I have seen proffered in the political environment is terrible. Permits to allow the large polluters to continue polluting etc. So flawed that I didn't care whether they were voted in or not.

There is a tougher part for people who have decided on individual action. How does one communicate one's deeds? This is crucial. A middle line must be taken. One must be wary of 'preaching'. This will quickly go nowhere. The movement needs to be led by action, not rhetoric. Rhetoric must play it's part. It has to be a substantially smaller part than many would like. Lead by action. Talk is cheap. Deniers are scum who cannot be converted by talk. They require a parental approach, without the requisite finger-wagging. An almost impossible line to take, I agree. I lose my patience very quickly on these matters. A religious figure, of sorts, is needed. Hey, I'm unaware of a religious figure who didn't continually shoot his mouth off. So, I am calling for a non-human to lead a very human problem. It could be safe to say that will never happen. All we can control is the individual level.

Self interest clearly trumps all other interests. Following this, I expect no meaningful action from government (en masse) until the situation is dire & obvious. Until that point, individual action is the key. The best hope I can offer is that a new stream of politicians may emerge from this movement. It will be at a very late stage in the 'debate'.

Ah, Piffle. I give up. Copenhagen was a failure.

The Problem with the Climate Change Debate

The Problem with the Climate Change Debate

Facts are the clearest problem in the Climate Change debate. Theories are almost impossible to prove without directly observable events. The point at which this direct observation occurs could be well into the future. However, I wish to largely ignore the (Earth-based) facts in this article. I would like to talk about the fatalistic mind-frame that accompanies such debate.

Fatalistic thinking is a massive bugbear for Climate Change activists. It matters not whether the fatalism is correct. In the eyes of deniers, the mind-frame itself is problematic. This area sorely needs addressing. The same thinking was prevalent with the Millenium Bug, in the year 2000. The Millenium Bug turned out to be a massive public scare with little or no basis. This is important. A precedent has been followed. A bunch of people spoke up, essentially proclaiming the end of the (digital) world. For people who are not involved heavily with computers - it was a bunch of crazy tech people speaking far out of their station. Their prophecies could be safely ignored.

The same is true with the Climate Change debate. The tendency to exaggerate (in whatever fashion) disastrous events is a well-established norm. The invariable winners are the people who ignored such fatalistic claims. The calculated end of civilisation by the Mayans, in 2012, is an oft-spoken of event. No-one (I know) would believe such an ancient prophecy directly. However, couple that with other things, such as Climate Change, and one can easily merge the two. One could easily ascribe to the Mayans a 'green' brain that was able to see the effects of Climate Change. This process is the problem that I am talking about.

In the eyes of deniers, a fatalistic mind-frame is a problem in of itself. It smacks of depression and self-loathing. A person who is so unhappy with their own life, that they begin to ascribe their viewpoint to the wider world. Whether or not any of this is true is irrelevant. The overtones are clear. To a great degree, many deniers may feel like they are debating with children. Children who invoke the bogey monster from the closet. The Climate Change activists must address this issue. It is critical. It may take years to get this public relations point right.

I have 2 points I wish to directly address to sceptics. The first is the nature of the word sceptic. To be a sceptic is a completely natural turn of events, as highlighted above. Historically, sceptics have contributed much more than authority, one may safely surmise. The definition of the word sceptic (amongst others) is ' Philosopher who questions the possibility of knowledge.' A very powerful position. However, related to the Climate Change debate, it is clear that most knowledge talked about can never be proven. Or never be proven in sufficient time. Proof is an incredibly dicey area. One may continually reject proof for reasons other than the data. Wittled down, scepticism at it's extreme is also nihilistic. In the same fashion that Climate Change activists are (to the extreme). A perfectly acceptable line of scepticism (and not a new one) is to deny that anything could ever be known. In a philosophical sense, it is impossible to 'prove' this viewpoint incorrect. It is correct simply because one has taken the position. It must be noted that one can never move from such a position, if one's aim is to be 'right', once it is taken.

As a sceptic, having taken the position, it is one's duty to examine evidence. The sceptic must at all times keep an open mind. To do otherwise would be selective scepticism, ie everyday 'logic'. Taking of a position purely for personal reasons. A sceptic must not take this option, to continue to call themselves a sceptic. Clearly, most who label themselves so are not sceptics. They are merely deniers. Deniers are impossible to debate, on any topic. The pre-formed view is that which one is left with. This is not a Sceptic.

I urge all sceptics to examine the atmosphere of Venus. Venus has no possible man-made interference in relation to it's atmosphere. I believe this sidesteps another of the great problems with this debate - Fault, or lack of it. In discussing Venus, the debate will have much greater clarity. Please examine the current data on the atmosphere of Venus and make your own conclusion.

Thankyou for taking the time to read this article.

P.S. In speaking of deniers/sceptics/activists/(believers), I entirely acknowledge that no 1 person is 100% either way. The sceptic (in everyone) can, and should be appealed to directly to further this debate.

--------
In conclusion. 1 month after writing the article. The whole debate is far more stuffed than I imagined. This post has convinced no-one. At no stage did the discussion move on to Venus. Most just read the first few lines and teed off. They had no idea what the article was about.

Copenhagen. A Failure?