BS File #29: AFL Coaches have admitted not trying to win

[MarkZZZ]

again, he made the claim, and without evidence which is easily shown, was absolute BS. This case is simple. They either said it or they didnt, irrespective of whether tanking exists or not. And we all know they didnt say it because the AFL would have acted on an admission like that by now.

Waffle, waffle, waffle. make a decision. Use a bit of common sence. You know it has happened, TLPG knows it has happened the coach has said it (doesn't take Einstein to understand it), neither of you will accept it and make excuses. Make a decision. BS point or not?

if its happened then post it........

You obviously don't believe that coaches admit that they have tanked when they say they did not "try to win" and they "where experimenting". We understand what they mean but you don't believe it so issue the BS point.

[King-Eliagh]

Yes hand over my BS point. I want it now soTLPG doesnt have a stroke

I'm King-Eliagh, a healer of sorts.

[TLPG]

You obviously don't believe that coaches admit that they have tanked when they say they did not "try to win" and they "where experimenting". We understand what they mean but you don't believe it so issue the BS point.

At NO point did any coach say they did not "try to win". Those words were NEVER EVER used! They DID say they were experimenting, which is NOT an admission that they did not try to win! Trying to read between the lines is not equal to an admission, so stop trying to press it as one.

KE, you have two days to provide an exact quote from a coach that says "I did not try to win". Otherwise, the BS point is yours. You stated that there have been admissions, so where are the words?

[Xman]

Waffle, waffle, waffle. make a decision. Use a bit of common sence. You know it has happened, TLPG knows it has happened the coach has said it (doesn't take Einstein to understand it), neither of you will accept it and make excuses. Make a decision. BS point or not?

if its happened then post it........

You obviously don't believe that coaches admit that they have tanked when they say they did not "try to win" and they "where experimenting". We understand what they mean but you don't believe it so issue the BS point.

Well experimenting is not deliberately losing. Bailey was investigated after his comments and explained them perfectly well. Whether they are tanking is not relevant to this BS file. KE claimed coaches admitted to tanking. They never have.

[Striker]

Experimenting is deliberately losing.

[King-Eliagh]

Yep in the case of the melbourne FCs interpretation and use of experimenting that's right striker.

[TLPG]

Oh it is NOT! EVERY team at some point experiments! You two don't know what you're talking about!

[King-Eliagh]

No. Some teams 'experiement' to lose. As has been proven. Even Xman believes this now TLPG. You're the last one holding the no tanking flag.

[TLPG]

It has not been proven. At all. Your opinion and the opinion of some moronic journos means nothing.

[Xman]

No. Some teams 'experiement' to lose. As has been proven. Even Xman believes this now TLPG. You're the last one holding the no tanking flag.

BS. There is a massive difference between experimenting and intentionally losing.

No coach has admitted they deliberately lose. If they did there would have been sanctions taken by now. Have there? Theres your answer.

[King-Eliagh]

Sanctions? Didnt they redraft the entire draft policy?

[Xman]

Sanctions? Didnt they redraft the entire draft policy?

So youre suggesting they found Bailey guilty, changed the rule, but didnt deal with Melbourne or Bailey?

Why do you think they are investigating recent admissions by players and administrative staff?

[TLPG]

Re-drafting the entire draft policy (which they didn't do by the way - they amended one part of it only) is NOT a sanction!

[Striker]

It is, TL, because it has only one intent. Prevent tanking!

[TLPG]

Prevent the possibility of tanking you mean!

Xman, it's been a week. It's decision time if you wouldn't mind.