Beveridge’s search for truth in Talia investigation turned up more questions than answers

WESTERN Bulldogs coach Luke Beveridge trusted his instinct when Kyle Cheney’s stunning claims first surfaced, but investigations turned up more questions than answers, Michael Warner writes.

Bulldogs head coach Luke Beveridge. Photo: Michael Dodge/AFL Media

• Western Bulldogs savage AFL over alleged Talia leak
• Kyle Cheney’s ‘joking’ defence deemed “implausible”by Dogs
• Talia investigation made the Dogs lose faith in the AFL

LUKE Beveridge’s gesture to hand his premiership medal to injured Western Bulldogs skipper Bob Murphy 17 days ago surprised no one who knows him.

The former Austrac officer who took the Dogs to their first flag in 62 years is universally loved and respected by players and peers he has encountered during his football career.

It’s why Hawthorn star Josh Gibson phoned Beveridge 13 months ago, triggering a probe into allegations that last year’s Bulldogs-Adelaide elimination final had been compromised by the leaking of game-sensitive information.

It’s why Bulldogs president Peter Gordon backed Beveridge’s instincts when Kyle Cheney’s stunning claims first surfaced, and demanded that the matter be “properly investigated and adjudicated, and not be sidetracked by extraneous considerations”.

Talia investigation timeline

But the emergence of a cache of secret documents at the centre of the league’s 63-day investigation into the pre-game conduct of brothers Michael and Daniel Talia throws up more questions than answers about the murky affair.

Questions such as: Why were the views of men such as Beveridge, who was prepared to testify on oath about his conversations with Cheney, cast aside when the AFL exonerated the Talias?

Why did the AFL give more weight to the word of a player who at first claimed there had been misdeeds before asserting 12 days later it had all been a giant joke?

Why were deleted text messages — from both the Talias and assistant coaches Steven King and Darren Milburn — not retrieved?

Did Hawthorn star Ben Stratton, whom Cheney first told of possible leaks, buy his mate’s subsequent explanation that the breakfast confession the morning after the Crows-Bulldogs match was actually a big ruse?

Hawthorn utility player Ben Stratton Picture: Wayne Ludbey

And what did Jake Lever’s dad tell the AFL about a conversation that Dogs list boss Jason McCartney was adamant took place?

Why did the investigators side with the Levers against Bali bombing survivor McCartney?

Why did the AFL withhold key witness statements from the Western Bulldogs?

And why was the AFL so determined to resolve the Talia affair in such a hurry?

At a meeting with league investigators at AFL House on October 12 last year, an officer put it to Bulldogs bosses — before withdrawing the claim — that the club had also requested a speedy resolution to the matter.

“We make it clear that we have not,” Gordon barked in a letter penned that afternoon to AFL legal counsel Andrew Dillon.

“Rather, we request and indeed insist on a proper investigation and a proper determination.”

According to the Bulldogs, neither desire was achieved.

Bookmakers have said that up to $5 million was wagered on the finals match, which the Crows won by just seven points.

The huge outlay serves as a reminder of football’s growing reliance on the gambling dollar.

It is enough to make you wonder whether an adverse finding against the Talias would have proved too costly for the game to handle.