What They're Saying - The Bulldogs Media Thread

[Testekill]

I can tell you for a fact , the medical staff had already told him he would need another recontruction and could do no more damage. He insisted he wanted to go on for his team mates.
Probably sounds odd for all of us non medical people , but that's what happened.
I got this first hand from his family. They are extremely happy with the level of care and support the club and medical staff offered on the night .
If the family are happy , that is good enough for me , so who cares what these media leaches have to say .

You probably would have had to strap down Smith to stop him going back out there.

 

[dogwatch]

Its embarrassing to be a journo in this country. We really do scrape the barrel.

Below is one of the worst pieces of journalism ever created:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...529387751?sv=3447de6d99040216b14aff800034ad07

Fortunately that's behind a paywall so I won't be reading it (I've set up a paywall between me and News Ltd - I will only read their stories if they subscribe to me.)

 

[King Harold]

Fortunately that's behind a paywall so I won't be reading it (I've set up a paywall between me and News Ltd - I will only read their stories if they subscribe to me.)

I'm with you Dogwatch , other than the racing page , only good for wrapping fish and chips.

 

[immortalmike]

I can tell you for a fact , the medical staff had already told him he would need another recontruction and could do no more damage. He insisted he wanted to go on for his team mates.
Probably sounds odd for all of us non medical people , but that's what happened.
I got this first hand from his family. They are extremely happy with the level of care and support the club and medical staff offered on the night .
If the family are happy , that is good enough for me , so who cares what these media leaches have to say .

Will someone please tell all the sudden amateur medical professionals I've been arguing with since it happened.

 

[Fossie 32]

Bit of a cheapy from Barrett bringing up Clay's knee [prick act, actually] but I don't agree that he should have been sent back on. There were a couple of medical people brought forward who did not agree with it and I imagine there would be more to be found.
I would say there was further damage done after he went back on [as the severe pain would indicate]. Whether it would delay the healing process is another matter. But I think less damage is good.

 

[Beasley]

Where did Luke make these comments?

 

[Fossie 32]

Where did Luke make these comments?

TRiple M http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/sport/afl/best-bits/duke-fires-up-over-the-talia-brothers/

 

[paul scholes]

Interesting, Lenny Hayes played on with an acl Probably a mistake made bringing him back on, but draw an integrity sliding door is just utter bottom feeding click bait bullshit from Barrett.

 

[dogwatch]

Interesting, Lenny Hayes played on with an acl Probably a mistake made bringing him back on, but draw an integrity sliding door is just utter bottom feeding click bait bullshit from Barrett.

It seems there's a lot of click fish around here.

 

[immortalmike]

Bit of a cheapy from Barrett bringing up Clay's knee [prick act, actually] but I don't agree that he should have been sent back on. There were a couple of medical people brought forward who did not agree with it and I imagine there would be more to be found.
I would say there was further damage done after he went back on [as the severe pain would indicate]. Whether it would delay the healing process is another matter. But I think less damage is good.

There were also plenty of medical professionals brought forward who agreed wholeheartedly including our own, who are amongst the most respected in the league, were closest to the situation and knew the most about Clay's medical history. How about we back them instead of random medicos in the media?

 

[BEaston]

I'm with you Dogwatch , other than the racing page , only good for wrapping fish and chips.

And my rabbit's litter tray!!!

 

[Bemoreboyddog]

Surprised Barrett didn't somehow connect the Talia brothers, to clay and then connect it all to Tom Boyd.

 

[Bazza Bulldog]

Surprised Barrett didn't somehow connect the Talia brothers, to clay and then connect it all to Tom Boyd.

You might have just set him a challenge for next week.

 

[Fossie 32]

There were also plenty of medical professionals brought forward who agreed wholeheartedly including our own, who are amongst the most respected in the league, were closest to the situation and knew the most about Clay's medical history. How about we back them instead of random medicos in the media?

Or how about we have a moind of our own I like to back the club 99.9% of the time, just disagree here if that's ok
I was just pointing out that not EVERYONE who disagrees with the decision is an amateur dumbass or whatever.

 

[Fossie 32]

And my rabbit's litter tray!!!

Hah someone posted on Facebook about putting Norf's team photo as a liner for their rabbit cage

 

[Zgope1]

Or how about we have a moind of our own I like to back the club 99.9% of the time, just disagree here if that's ok
I was just pointing out that not EVERYONE who disagrees with the decision is an amateur dumbass or whatever.

Ehh. It doesn't take any type of extra strength of mind to see it either way really. You believe the medicos with all the info or you believe the medicos drummed up by Barratt who can ask them selective questions in chasing a story. He's been pushing for a unwarranted view on this since the outset. And that before about him feeling more pain the second time is because that's when it collapsed on him.

You actually have to WANT to believe it was mismanagement to have any basis to believe it. Because there's no more that can be done than the transparent explanation the clubs already given. Which is definitely more credible than blokes who come in for a bit of fame without all the info and answer leading questions from Purple. Which would've been like "do you agree it looked bad?"

 

[Fossie 32]

Ehh. It doesn't take any type of extra strength of mind to see it either way really. You believe the medicos with all the info or you believe the medicos drummed up by Barratt who can ask them selective questions in chasing a story. He's been pushing for a unwarranted view on this since the outset. And that before about him feeling more pain the second time is because that's when it collapsed on him.

You actually have to WANT to believe it was mismanagement to have any basis to believe it. Because there's no more that can be done than the transparent explanation the clubs already given. Which is definitely more credible than blokes who come in for a bit of fame without all the info and answer leading questions from Purple. Which would've been like "do you agree it looked bad?"

Not really. There is also the possibility that people who believe it have some logical basis for their views. I formed my view well before hearing from Barrett's medicos - if that's where they came from - and would generally find it distasteful to agree with him in his muckraking.
The pain involved in the final incident would be caused either by stretching or tearing of tissues in the knee joint. Hard to know how much of either occurred. I would have thought a bit of tearing would be possible [other than the ACL itself which needs to be replaced anyway]. Then, as I said, if other tissues are torn it may not prolong the recovery period anyway. However, I would have thought best to avoid the possibility of unneccesary damage - and pain.

 

[BRWB]

Ehh. It doesn't take any type of extra strength of mind to see it either way really. You believe the medicos with all the info or you believe the medicos drummed up by Barratt who can ask them selective questions in chasing a story. He's been pushing for a unwarranted view on this since the outset. And that before about him feeling more pain the second time is because that's when it collapsed on him.

You actually have to WANT to believe it was mismanagement to have any basis to believe it. Because there's no more that can be done than the transparent explanation the clubs already given. Which is definitely more credible than blokes who come in for a bit of fame without all the info and answer leading questions from Purple. Which would've been like "do you agree it looked bad?"

Sorry really disagree this. There are clear and legitimate question marks on the clubs management of Clay. It's not a matter of wanting to believe something either way.

I was one of our club's biggest supporters re how they handled Clay. However to suggest that there is not a risk of further injury in a destabilised knee (and therefore a question of mismanagement is not right). Also, the club itself came out and said they wouldn't repeat their actions (which suggests an implicit admission that there are legitimate question marks on the management of Clay)

However I believe our medical team judged the risk to be acceptable and worth taking in light of Clay's psychological state, and I still support them. But that opinion is no better or worse than those with an opposing view.

 

[Zgope1]

Not really. There is also the possibility that people who believe it have some logical basis for their views. I formed my view well before hearing from Barrett's medicos - if that's where they came from - and would generally find it distasteful to agree with him in his muckraking.
The pain involved in the final incident would be caused either by stretching or tearing of tissues in the knee joint. Hard to know how much of either occurred. I would have thought a bit of tearing would be possible [other than the ACL itself which needs to be replaced anyway]. Then, as I said, if other tissues are torn it may not prolong the recovery period anyway. However, I would have thought best to avoid the possibility of unneccesary damage - and pain.

It could also be the significant strain on support muscle- which is evident in the immediate bruising of the lower quadriceps. I'd have thought that'd be relevant in the pain.

I'm in touch with a dogs players family, and this is exactly what was described to me. That his supporting muscles were so well trained from his rehabs that they were bearing the whole task of holding it up. Clay begged the doctor let him go out and run around on that grass again and to hear the crowd for the last time in a long time so they assessed it and saw no/insufficient risk of further damage. They were proven right.

I don't see how the knee joint (meaning one of the other ligaments I'm guessing?) could be at any more risk than before of this straining or tearing you suggest.

 

[Eastwood577]

Sorry really disagree this. There are clear and legitimate question marks on the clubs management of Clay. It's not a matter of wanting to believe something either way.

I was one of our club's biggest supporters re how they handled Clay. However to suggest that there is not a risk of further injury in a destabilised knee (and therefore a question of mismanagement is not right). Also, the club itself came out and said they wouldn't repeat their actions (which suggests an implicit admission that there are legitimate question marks on the management of Clay)

However I believe our medical team judged the risk to be acceptable and worth taking in light of Clay's psychological state, and I still support them. But that opinion is no better or worse than those with an opposing view.

At the end of the day, all relevant medical research would suggest the action the Bulldogs took with Clay was appropriate, however, as I was sitting in the front row... It was an awful look... It would be nice if Clay came out and explained the situation, but I think we should be trusting medical personal with there assessments and advice

 

[BRWB]

It could also be the significant strain on support muscle- which is evident in the immediate bruising of the lower quadriceps. I'd have thought that'd be relevant in the pain.

I'm in touch with a dogs players family, and this is exactly what was described to me. That his supporting muscles were so well trained from his rehabs that they were bearing the whole task of holding it up. Clay begged the doctor let him go out and run around on that grass again and to hear the crowd for the last time in a long time so they assessed it and saw no risk of further damage. They were proven right.

I don't see how the knee joint (meaning one of the other ligaments I'm guessing?) could be at any more risk than before of this straining or tearing you suggest.

You are guessing IMO, the biggest risk is to cartilage damage as the knee moves in ways it's not designed to. The muscles by themselves aren't strong enough to support the knee for elite athletes in a contact sport and an example of this was Clays knee collapsing.

 

[Zgope1]

Sorry really disagree this. There are clear and legitimate question marks on the clubs management of Clay. It's not a matter of wanting to believe something either way.

I was one of our club's biggest supporters re how they handled Clay. However to suggest that there is not a risk of further injury in a destabilised knee (and therefore a question of mismanagement is not right). Also, the club itself came out and said they wouldn't repeat their actions (which suggests an implicit admission that there are legitimate question marks on the management of Clay)

However I believe our medical team judged the risk to be acceptable and worth taking in light of Clay's psychological state, and I still support them. But that opinion is no better or worse than those with an opposing view.

Your last paragraph is a factor that for some reason you omit in your first point. That's the whole point, they had the info, they knew the risks and they did it. And they were proven right.

And the ways in which a destabilised knee could've actually caused more injuries is what I want to hear. The majority would be the same injuries as caused by other players carrying niggles that leads to compensation. His pcl was fine and independent of his ruptured acl, that would've been as likely as breaking an arm, and a leg is fine on a ruptured acl, it's that movement is reduced, his leg muscles were handling that for him until they gave way when he tried to pivot.

 

[Zgope1]

You are guessing IMO, the biggest risk is to cartilage damage as the knee moves in ways it's not designed to. The muscles by themselves aren't strong enough to support the knee for elite athletes in a contact sport and an example of this was Clays knee collapsing.

But when the muscle gave way pain kicked in, which is designed to absolutely not allow the whacky movements that would cause cartilage damage. Until then, as it was assessed, he had strong enough support to run around. Once that support was gone, the risk you speak of entered, luckily by then the poor guy was in dire pain

 

[BRWB]

But when the muscle gave way pain kicked in, which is designed to absolutely not allow the whacky movements that would cause cartilage damage. Until then, as it was assessed, he had strong enough support to run around. Once that support was gone, the risk you speak of entered, luckily by then the poor guy was in dire pain

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Cartilage damage could have occurred when knee gave away the 2nd time. The amount of risk of this occurring is debatable but the fact the risk is present is not. I suggest you go read up on it or talk to an orthopod if you still disagree.

 

[Zgope1]

I'm sorry but you are wrong. Cartilage damage could have occurred when knee gave away the 2nd time. The amount of risk of this occurring is debatable but the fact the risk is present is not. I suggest you go read up on it or talk to an orthopod if you still disagree.

Haha righteo. Not proclaiming to know it all of course.

Doesn't change the fact that, as you said, it was a set of risks that the professionals weighed up.

If I ever denied that there was some risk, I'm a goose. What I should've said is they were informed and satisfied with them. And rummaging up a differing opinion, of which we know there are plenty- even in the medical world, was typical of a bloke who was manufacturing a story.

That he hasn't let it go is more disappointing.