Adelaide Crows player Kyle Cheney’s ‘joking’ defence deemed “implausible” by Western Bulldogs

EXCLUSIVE: KYLE Cheney’s belated claim to have only been “joking” about his knowledge of leaks of finals tactics was an implausible “invention” designed to protect himself, his club and his teammates, the Western Bulldogs argued.

Adelaide Crows player Kyle Cheney. Pic Mark Brake

• Talia investigation made the Dogs lose faith in the AFL
• Search for truth turned up more questions than answers
• Western Bulldogs savage AFL over alleged Talia leak

EXCLUSIVE: KYLE Cheney’s belated claim to have only been “joking” about his knowledge of leaks of finals tactics was an implausible “invention” designed to protect himself, his club and his teammates, the Western Bulldogs argued, in a stinging rebuke to the AFL.

Cheney instigated a major probe last September when he confided to Hawthorn mate Ben Stratton and Dogs coach Luke Bev­eridge that Michael Talia had passed on “game-sensitive information” to his brother, Daniel, before an elimination final against the Adelaide Crows.

Twelve days later, he declared it was all just a “practical joke”.

But documents obtained by the Herald Sun reveal the Bulldogs did not accept this explanation for a moment.

In a submission to AFL chiefs last November, Dogs president Peter Gordon argued it could not have been a joke: it had been “inherently unfunny” and had been left “uncorrected and unrevealed”.

“There was never a ‘gotcha’ moment in any conversation between Cheney and (Ben) Stratton,” Gordon wrote.

Western Bulldogs President Peter Gordon. Picture: Michael Klein

“Cheney never told Stratton he had set him up as a practical joke to suck him in, or in any other way.”

Instead, the Bulldogs claimed, the “joke” explanation was a fabrication, “dreamt up” to avoid serious consequences.

“The fact that Cheney felt and conveyed stress and ­anxiety as to his position to several people provides an ­explanation as to why he would change his story to the practical joke explanation, which, if accepted, gets him and the Talias out of trouble,” Gordon wrote to the AFL.

“It is an iteration of the time-honoured tribunal practice of players protecting each other through disingenuous evidence.

“It should have no credence or place in a 21st century AFL integrity investigation.”

Gordon further said: “That the AFL has countenanced ­accepting the joke explanation as a basis for discounting ­Cheney’s admitted original ­allegations is, in all the ­­circumstances, embarrassing. The joke suggestion first emerges … after Cheney had the opportunity for counsel with a number of interested parties as to the best line of ­defence.”

Gordon asserts: “It is hard to discern any way in which it could be part of a humorous interchange between Cheney and a Hawthorn player who had no role in the game ...

Talia investigation timeline

“It should therefore assist the AFL to conclude that ­Cheney was prepared to say anything to get himself out of the difficult position he perceived himself to be in.”

The Bulldogs submitted that the AFL was “entitled to rely upon Cheney’s original ­allegations as told to Stratton and then confirmed to ­Beveridge”.

“Cheney’s later recantation of his allegations is replete with contradictions and seems, as a recent invention, tailor-made to address Cheney’s admitted fears of reprisals from his club or his teammates over his disclosures,” the Bulldogs alleged.

@heraldsunmick