SALADA/VladFL: Slap on the wrist. - STRICTLY ESSENDON SUPPORTERS ONLY

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carpo, isnt that a fish, not a great tasting one

maybe there is some similarities..
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Two things in the commentary on the issue have really bugged me:

a) the suggestion, both on here and in the media, that somehow Essendon supporters have been uniquely rabid and defensive in their response. Guess what? What unmitigated rubbish. Any supporter group would be the same if they were in our position. Seeing your football club threatened by a saga such as this is not a pleasant thing; it, by its very nature, is likely to elicit a defensive response.

b) the attitude, that seems to be permeating through both on here and in the media, that Essendon fans can be talked down to in a moral context. Piss off. The football club we support may well have stuffed up; that, believe it or not, does not mean the supporters of that club are any dumber and any less capable of making moral judgements. And we sure as hell don't need self-aggrandising types telling us how we should be feeling.

/rant
 
Why aren't Fairfax calling for Neil Craig's head?
The text messages released seemed to indicate he was aware as to what was going on in the off season with the MFC.

If the AFL want to strip draft picks off EFC, aren't they then morally obliged to do the same thing to the MFC?
 
Doss said:
Two things in the commentary on the issue have really bugged me:

a) the suggestion, both on here and in the media, that somehow Essendon supporters have been uniquely rabid and defensive in their response. Guess what? What unmitigated rubbish. Any supporter group would be the same if they were in our position. Seeing your football club threatened by a saga such as this is not a pleasant thing; it, by its very nature, is likely to elicit a defensive response.

b) the attitude, that seems to be permeating through both on here and in the media, that Essendon fans can be talked down to in a moral context. Piss off. The football club we support may well have stuffed up; that, believe it or not, does not mean the supporters of that club are any dumber and any less capable of making moral judgements. And we sure as hell don't need self-aggrandising types telling us how we should be feeling.

/rant
Click to expand...

All part if making Essendon look guilty. By dismissing we have a legitimate reason to feel this way, it looks like Essendon don't have a side to their story.
 
gillies said:
shes the one who keeps carping on about us.dont you have that saying
Click to expand...
Caro + Harpie = Carpo. That's what it means to me.
 
121.jpg


images
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

D-Shackle said:
Anyone see this?

@ChrisStubbsFOX 33m
Heard the AFL's '1st offer' for Ess is no finals, Jobe loses Brownlow and no 1st rd draft pick for 3 years! Players escape. Imagine that!

That's an unequivocal embarrassment that a Fox Sports presenter would put that in the public domain. I seriously doubt the veracity of his statement.
Click to expand...

How can Jobe lose his Brownlow if the tweet says players escape? meaning players not guilty.

Another one of those flogs that wants Essendon punished and hoping it happens.
 
1st offer? What is this, Deal or no Deal?

Chris Stubbs, welcome to club farkwit
 
D-Shackle said:
Anyone see this?

@ChrisStubbsFOX 33m
Heard the AFL's '1st offer' for Ess is no finals, Jobe loses Brownlow and no 1st rd draft pick for 3 years! Players escape. Imagine that!

That's an unequivocal embarrassment that a Fox Sports presenter would put that in the public domain. I seriously doubt the veracity of his statement.
Click to expand...

It seems odd that these things are being thrown out as alternative punishments to banning players. The AFL have no say whether or not players get banned, if they don't ban them at the tribunal and WADA think a ban is needed they get the decision over turned at the CAS. So the AFL can't come out and say "oh the players will be fine but we need the club to give up this, this and this", because the players escaping bans isn't something they can offer.

And if the players escape bans then it is likely the club hasn't done anything illegal (unethical is a different debate) and it makes it hard to justify such harsh punishments. Especially seeing as governance issue were exactly the same at MFC and they won't want to deny Melbourne 3 years of 1st round picks.
 
BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!! said:
How can Jobe lose his Brownlow if the tweet says players escape? meaning players not guilty.

Another one of those flogs that wants Essendon punished and hoping it happens.
Click to expand...

They might get a reprimand, although I doubt WADA would settle for that given they wanted a guy banned for two years for simply buying something on the banned list. It all comes down to whether or not ASADA advised that those drugs were legal I think. If they said it was legal then no worries, if they didn't then Jobe's Brownlow and some 1st round picks are the least of our problems.

That said, Watson is the kind of guy who wouldn't think twice about giving the medal back if it meant the team escaped a sanction.
 
Humble Minion Launched at Jakes 'Dear Bomber Fans' too on Blitz.

Dear Mr Niall

It's ok, we understand. We know it's tough in the newspaper industry right now. Just yesterday I was talking to an old friend of mine, who is a journalist working in the same building as you, and he told me that the Age is employing only a third of the number of journalists as it did a few years ago, and that the pressure to produce more wordcount in less time and with less resources is continual.

In these circumstances, it's understandable that increasingly papers publish comment, opinion and speculation under the guise of 'expert commentary', rather than the rigorous and creative (and time-consuming and expensive) investigative journalism that your industry prided itself on in its glory days. We understand that you are at the mercy of market forces and technological change - many of us have had similar experiences in our various lines of work. It's just a shame that this process leads to the promotion of opinion as fact, the reporting of leaks and press releases without verification or skepticism, and an sad propensity to circle the wagons and adopt a defensive and uncritical attitude to the failings of your own industry and members of your own profession.

Unfortunately, the reporting of the Essendon supplement investigation has demonstrated all too clearly many of these negative trends in the practice of journalism. And as Bomber fans, and as such deeply invested in the outcome of the investigation, these flaws have been terribly conspicuous for a long time. It is the manner of coverage, not the investigation itself, which is the reason we are pissed off, as I suspect you know full well. I know as a fact that many football journalists regularly browse online football forums such as this one - I don't believe it is possible that you have honestly failed to realise that our anger is aimed at the inadequacies of your coverage rather than the process of the investigation (which EFC welcomed, invited, and has been praised for their cooperation with) itself. The investigation is necessary - whether it be to clear the names of the Essendon football club, its players, and its staff, or whether it is to impose an earned and rightful punishment for drugging offenses. But we, as fans, want the investigation to proceed properly, thoroughly, accurately, and for the process to be of unquestioned integrity and for the results to be respected by all parties after the report is handed down. This is necessary no matter what the verdict - if EFC is found to have doped players illegally, then there must be punishment and the evidence must be clear and unambiguous enough that Essendon fans - even the most one-eyed - can accept the necessity. If the club is exonerated, the process must be clear and unambiguous enough to lay to rest permanently any campaign of whispers, rumours and innuendo that somehow the club were let off by the AFL/ASADA for financial reasons, or that there was a whitewash, or that there were facets of the issue that the investigation didn't delve into, or any other conspiracy theories.

It is in everyone's interest that the investigation be of the highest quality, and that its verdict be accepted by all.

I suspect the above is one of the reasons for ASADA's public request that all parties to the investigation refrain from commenting on how the investigation is proceeding. If partial, misheard, or slanted coverage of the investigation goes public before the full report, then it will inevitably taint how the final report is received by the football public. Unfortunately, yourself and your colleagues in the media have had absolutely no compunction about ignoring this request from ASADA from day one. I don't know why this is the case. Perhaps you feel, as a journalist, that you are above such matters. Perhaps you feel the circulation boost that your paper can obtain by publishing rumours and crumbs of information to a stressed footballing public is more important than ASADAs request that the investigation not be compromised. Perhaps it is a deliberate attempt to ensure the report is NOT received and accepted with any degree of unanimity - controversy sells newspapers, and so it is in the interest of media outlets generally to ensure controversy continues as long as possible.

In any case, this is a matter very near and dear to our hearts. You say that you have no emotion invested in the outcome. I have my opinions on that, but I'll get to them later. As Essendon fans, we ARE invested, and as such we pay a great deal of attention to what is written about it. If you had chosen to respect the integrity of the investigative process, we would be even more starved of information than we are now, but at least we could understand and respect your attitude and would not have to endure the continual dripfeed of sensationalist factoids, anecdotes and speculation. But the dribs and drabs you have chosen to release paint such an incomplete picture that it generates more questions than it answers, about your own agenda as well as about the investigation as a whole. A few of those questions you might want to clarify:

- You say that "[AOD] is banned, contrary to the confusion created - some of it deliberate - by vested interests." But then directly afterwards you say players will get off without suspension for using it. How is this possible? What rules or extenuating circumstances allow this?

- You have a great deal to say about Thymosine-Beta, and the 'strong circumstantial evidence' that players took it. Why do you choose not to mention the other evidence (Hird's email prior to the program starting that said all supplements must be WADA/ASADA-approved, for instance) that it was not taken? Furthermore, is it your prediction that EFC will be punished based on circumstantial evidence?

- EFC have repeatedly stated that they will not comment on the progress of the investigation. Do you think it is entirely honest to insinuate that there is something irregular about their refusal to comment on your Thymosine story, when they have commented on so little and when their public committment is one of not commenting? Is it the Age's opinion that EFC should ignore ASADAs confidentiality request?

- You obviously have been speaking to someone deeply involved in the investigation (unless of course you are making everything up entirely, which I doubt), which means someone at the AFL, at ASADA, or at EFC. All of these bodies are committed to respecting ASADAs request for confidentiality regarding the investigation, yet someone is still leaking to you. Fogdog says it's Gillon McLachlan and while foggy has frequently been correct in the past on these matters, I have no way of confirming or refuting this. Regardless, isn't it a story that someone is breaking the ASADA embargo on comment, when they have publically committed to it? What possible reason or agenda could they have in doing so? Why are they compromising the investigation in this way? And why (other than because it's personally convenient for yourself) are you letting them off the hook for doing so?

- There were many dramatic claims made in the media in the early days of the story, which have significantly increased the hostility and skepticism directed toward media outlets by the Essendon fanbase. Many of these claims are no longer being made. Do you stand by these claims? Do you have any comments on the claims by your paper that the club compelled players to sign waivers absolving the club of responsibility for what they players were being injected with? Do you have any comment to make on the whole "pig brain and tree bark extract!" line of reporting taken by your paper with respect to this and only this issue, when in reality animal and plant extracts are common ingredients in medications as common as asprin and routine vaccinations, yet somehow your paper does not find it newsworthy when a player takes any of these preparations? Do you believe that you, your colleagues, your newspaper, and the media in general have provided quality, insightful, restrained, and sensationalism-free coverage of this issue?

You say yourself, you do not have emotion invested in the outcome of the investigation. That is incredibly revealing and incredibly depressing, because it is another way of saying that you - as a football witer covering one of the biggest football stories in recent history - simply don't care about what happens to football. If the worst of the doping allegations against Essendon are proven true, then it is a stain on the integrity of the competition as a whole and a terrible act on the part of a powerful club and one that will have massive and lasting repercussions. If Essendon is exonerated, then a proud old club, and several legands of the game - Brownlow medalist and premiership captain James Hird, multiple premiership coach Mark Thompson, and Brownlow medallist Jobe Watson, to say nothing of others, have had their names unjustifiably dragged through the mud for the best part of a year. But you say you don't care about this. You are 'not emotionally involved'. You don't care about the integrity of the game or the competition, you don't care about the reputation of the club, you don't care about the livelihoods of the players and coaches. As an observer to the whole process and the media coverage, it seems clear, and reinforced by your own words, that all you care about is getting the next story and protecting your own interests, no matter what damage you might do in the process.

Journalism has responsibilities as well as rights. Please start living up to them better than you have been thus far.

And as a final word, don't be a patronising s**t. Don't talk all matey to us, using short words and blokey jokes so those silly bogan Dons fans will know you're just one of the boys. Get stuffed. You are not our friend. You are not one of us, you don't know how we are feeling, and from where we sit, you are thoroughly responsible for making the situation worse rather than better in every possible way. You are not an impartial conduit for facts. Your professional and financial interests lie in promoting controversy, in defending your colleagues, and in protecting your sources (no matter how unprincipled or dishonest) to ensure they will unscrupulously leak to you again in future. When you say 'for every happy story about Carlisle, Daniher or Michael Hibberd, there's about 10 on Stephen Dank and AOD-9604" - that's not an accident. You are the one that has written them, so spare us your greasy faux-sympathy. You are the one who is, by publishing this speculative horseshit all the time, by arrogantly placing yourself above the ASADA investigation's request for confidentiality, by being a willing tool of agenda-driven leakers, and by your refusal to call out the extremes of those of your fellow journalists whose coverage of the issue has decended into absolute frothing mania, has ensured that this issue will fester long after the report has been handed down.

Hang your head and be ashamed.

Greg
Click to expand...
 
D-Shackle said:
Anyone see this?

@ChrisStubbsFOX 33m
Heard the AFL's '1st offer' for Ess is no finals, Jobe loses Brownlow and no 1st rd draft pick for 3 years! Players escape. Imagine that!

That's an unequivocal embarrassment that a Fox Sports presenter would put that in the public domain. I seriously doubt the veracity of his statement.
Click to expand...

And it is this kind of inuendo that gets a whole lot of Essendon supporters down and worried. When you come out with things like this in the media and start it off saying"Heard......" people believe it could be true because you might have a good source.

So Chris, WHO did you hear this off? It is a substantial claim to make?
 
I wish everyone speculating on 'punishments' would get to grips with the fact that this is a legal issue first and foremost. That is, any offence considered punishable would need to pass muster at any appeals process and that any punishment metered out must be fair and just.

We do not live in North Korea. The AFL are not a dictatorship that can hand out any punishment they want without fear of recourse.
 
Should we decide to appeal any decision the AFL hands out to the club (as opposed to players) what is the process? Do we go to the CAS or is straight into the civil courts? And then what happens, does a judge decide what the revised punishment might be or do they just tell the AFL to go away and think up something a little less harsh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Lore
Coaching Staff Kevin Sheedy elevated to Immortal of the Essendon Football Club
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Howard Moon
Howard Moon
eth-dog
Retired #45: Anthony Munkara - Leaving the club, returning to Tiwi - 7/9
13 14 15 16 17
Replies
405
Views
42K
fishardansin
fishardansin

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top