News Gubby accepts 12 month ban and resigns

[jdpie]

Rigorous process? Do you really think it was anything more than Eddie wanted him and recruited him?

Mark,
I have zero capacity to plug in an emoji showing me being facetious. I think the appointment was an ill conceived, fly by the seat of your pants one. Eddie is not great at taking time to consider decisions or flippant comments.... Generally a trait of narcissistic behaviour.... but that is only my opinion.

 

[No SPIN]

There is a massive double standard here if GA is sanctioned.
As I have said previously WB officials protected Libba, when he was found in the gutter.
I can imagine their actions would have been very similar to those by GA.

I also question what additional evidence the QC/former judge who reviewed the case, and gave GWS the all clear, was not privy to.
And given the GWS would have alerted its 'AFL parents' about this review, and its outcome, surely the AFL failing to act then, will be seen to have been negligent, if it is subsequently forced to issue sanctions.

So I see that there is every possibility that AFL chooses to preserve it public image, and avoid these questions by not issuing sanctions.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

The Gubby of Gubbiness is yet on the gallows.
Let's not panic quite yet.
If he goes down for some time, we will manage anyway.
Pity by the way, this whole business.

Just to add to the pot, to the stresses of everything Gubby of Gubbiness....

Suggesting, Buckley and His Royal Gubbiness are working close enough together.

 

[MarkT2]

Mark,
I have zero capacity to plug in an emoji showing me being facetious. I think the appointment was an ill conceived, fly by the seat of your pants one. Eddie is not great at taking time to consider decisions or flippant comments.... Generally a trait of narcissistic behaviour.... but that is only my opinion.

Fair enough. I thought you were being a naive.

 

[MarkT2]

There is a massive double standard here if GA is sanctioned.
As I have said previously WB officials protected Libba, when he was found in the gutter.
I can imagine their actions would have been very similar to those by GA.

I also question what additional evidence the QC/former judge who reviewed the case, and gave GWS the all clear, was not privy to.
And given the GWS would have alerted its 'AFL parents' about this review, and its outcome, surely the AFL failing to act then, will be seen to have been negligent, if it is subsequently forced to issue sanctions.

So I see that there is every possibility that AFL chooses to preserve it public image, and avoid these questions by not issuing sanctions.

I don't think WB sent Libba to a third party to hide. Lots of clubs would have sent lots of players home from training suspecting alchohol or drug use. Some probably even did it in case testers arrived. This is beyond that if the allegations are true, which I peresume they are. This is a matter of deliberately hiding someone in case of drug testing. The whereabouts is required to be know/notified and it was concealed. That's not the same as sending someone home.

As for the AFL, I would not be at all surprised if they tried to have it swept under the carpet at the time.

 

[jdpie]

Fair enough. I thought you were being a naive.

Would love to have enough youth on my side to remember ignorance and naivety.....

 

[TW Sherrin]

It hasn't been overlooked.
It's no coincidence the impending decision is coming out now, (will be post Thursday for sure).
Gubby has done his work and will go on a break to somewhere that has good enough phone reception I'm sure.

he'll take a "plea" and get 3 months...see you Feb 2017.

 

[Ketchup]

Knew the rules. Will get what he deserves.

 

[legendstatus]

Whitfield out so WHE stays at GWS - like for like?

 

[76woodenspooners]

I am still struggling to comprehend how during a rigorous recruitment process this significant issue was passed over by competent people ? How did we end up in this situation ? How did the board and CEO allow this to occur ? Is this the transgression that leads to a tangible loss of faith amongst the clubs members (principle stakeholders) ?

This is the club's official position on that matter (from 1st Sept this year) ...

http://m.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2016-09-01/changes-to-football-department-confirmed

"...
In response to recent media reports, the Collingwood Football Club would like to note the following:

The Collingwood Football Club was made aware by Graeme Allan, prior to his recruitment, that he is one of the subjects of an AFL investigation that relates to his time with Greater Western Sydney.

Collingwood was also made aware at this time that both GWS and the AFL had concluded or were concluding separate investigations into the matter.

From our discussions on this matter with various parties, Collingwood found no reason standing in the way of employing Allan.

The club would like to make it very clear to all that if, at any stage, information received about any member of staff that brings into question their behaviour Collingwood will deal with that information with the appropriate authorities.

..."

http://m.collingwoodfc.com.au/news/2016-09-01/changes-to-football-department-confirmed

 

[No SPIN]

I don't think WB sent Libba to a third party to hide. Lots of clubs would have sent lots of players home from training suspecting alchohol or drug use. Some probably even did it in case testers arrived. This is beyond that if the allegations are true, which I peresume they are. This is a matter of deliberately hiding someone in case of drug testing. The whereabouts is required to be know/notified and it was concealed. That's not the same as sending someone home.

As for the AFL, I would not be at all surprised if they tried to have it swept under the carpet at the time.

Firstly no drug test was avoided - because no drug test was scheduled., and that is the most critical issue.

The player was not sent to a hideout, he was sent to Lamberts ( welfare managers) home, which is known to be the residence for young players. And an address I suspect that the testers know and have visited before.
Lambert was rightly protecting him from further contact with the irate girlfriend - again very sensible and understandable.

So the player welfare actions are very similar with WBs.
Officials of both club acted in the same way.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

If Allan was still at GWS nothing would come of this but the AFL will not miss a chance to hit us hard.

Lets see if Eddie grows a set all of a sudden or meekly rolls over and takes it (again). So the AFL is happy to investigate this but when medical records are leaked to the Hun re our players they do nothing. Did they ever investigate, did they take action? No, our players can be dragged through the mud and the AFL sits back and does heck all. To make it worse McGuire did nothing and it was left to the players to boycott the Hun.

Side by side hey Eddie.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Mark,
I have zero capacity to plug in an emoji showing me being facetious. I think the appointment was an ill conceived, fly by the seat of your pants one. Eddie is not great at taking time to consider decisions or flippant comments.... Generally a trait of narcissistic behaviour.... but that is only my opinion.

Gubby has worked for Collingwood before.

He also managed our "future acadamies" program for around six months this year - overseeing the setting up our netball, women's football and academy programs - before being appointed to his current role.

Hardly the stuff of "fly by the seat of your pants"

 

[Anzacday]

If Allan was still at GWS nothing would come of this but the AFL will not miss a chance to hit us hard.

Lets see if Eddie grows a set all of a sudden or meekly rolls over and takes it (again). So the AFL is happy to investigate this but when medical records are leaked to the Hun re our players they do nothing. Did they ever investigate, did they take action? No, our players can be dragged through the mud and the AFL sits back and does **** all. To make it worse McGuire did nothing and it was left to the players to boycott the Hun.

Side by side hey Eddie.

Hey Linda it's Anzac, your post just set off a thought bubble.
Rumour has it a CEOrtain person within our administration leaked that information.
Imagine if it went higher than that?
That would explain the silence.

Random thought I know - sorry.

 

[MarkT2]

Firstly no drug test was avoided - because no drug test was scheduled., and that is the most critical issue.

No it isn't. Players are required to ensure there whereabouts is know at all times for random testing puropses. This was a deliberte evasion of that requirement. It isn't abut avoiding an actual drug test.

The player was not sent to a hideout, he was sent to Lamberts ( welfare managers) home, which is known to be the residence for young players. And an address I suspect that the testers know and have visited before.

If it's that simple then there's no issue. They aer allowed to send him anywhere. It isn't about where he was sent it is why and the failure to notify his location. You are missing the (alledged) poijt. This is a specific requirement of the drug code.

So the player welfare actions are very similar with WBs.
Officials of both club acted in the same way.

Not even close as far as I can tell. Libba wasn't in club custody, he was found by police and went home. He was suspended and there has been no allegation that his location was not known or advised as far as I am aware. I'm only going from memory with Libba. The only thing in comon was drugs. It's not actually the drug use in that is even the issue in this case.

 

[76woodenspooners]

Hey Linda it's Anzac, your post just set off a thought bubble.
Rumour has it a CEOrtain person within our administration leaked that information.
Imagine if it went higher than that?
That would explain the silence.

Random thought I know - sorry.

Hey ANZAC, it's 76 here,

Swanny did discuss this kind of stuff in his book. Remind me sometime to dig the quote out.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Hey Linda it's Anzac, your post just set off a thought bubble.
Rumour has it a CEOrtain person within our administration leaked that information.
Imagine if it went higher than that?
That would explain the silence.

Random thought I know - sorry.

I don't think he would have the info. It is only meant to be shared with the club doctor (unless the rules have changed). The rumor I heard was that an AFL source leaked it to another club CEO who then passed it onto Slobbo. I would not put it past Pert, he is a nob, but I don;'t think he had access to the information.

 

[76woodenspooners]

I don't think he would have the info. It is only meant to be shared with the club doctor (unless the rules have changed). The rumor I heard was that an AFL source leaked it to another club CEO who then passed it onto Slobbo. I would not put it past Pert, he is a nob, but I don;'t think he had access to the information.

I think that's the way normal testing works, but this wasn't normal testing.

It was some kind off off-season testing program that was submitted to voluntarily by the players on the condition that their data was de-identified and that they couldn't be punished for a positive result.

 

[No SPIN]

No it isn't. Players are required to ensure there whereabouts is know at all times for random testing puropses. This was a deliberte evasion of that requirement. It isn't abut avoiding an actual drug test.If it's that simple then there's no issue. They aer allowed to send him anywhere. It isn't about where he was sent it is why and the failure to notify his location. You are missing the (alledged) poijt. This is a specific requirement of the drug code.Not even close as far as I can tell. Libba wasn't in club custody, he was found by police and went home. He was suspended and there has been no allegation that his location was not known or advised as far as I am aware. I'm only going from memory with Libba. The only thing in comon was drugs. It's not actually the drug use in that is even the issue in this case.

Per second point - its no issue.

If the QC looked at all the evidence and said there was no case to answer, then I think its clear he covered all the bases.

Unless there is an obligation by Clubs to report players who they see under the influence of drugs then there is no issue here.

We know this is not the case as many club have sent players home under such circumstances - so the obvious question is, what happens if players choose to go to the pub instead? Is the club negligent for not knowing the whereabouts of the player?

In this case the whereabouts of Whitfield was known, and had avoiding contact with the irate girlfriend, not been a justification for a change in Whitfields location, then you could argue the location change was suspicious.

 

[jdpie]

Gubby has worked for Collingwood before.

He also managed our "future acadamies" program for around six months this year - overseeing the setting up our netball, women's football and academy programs - before being appointed to his current role.

Hardly the stuff of "fly by the seat of your pants"

I appreciate where he was at Collingwood for the 6 months prior to he accession. What about his reappointment (bit of a stretch given period between drinks) to Collingwood in the first instance ? The early September Statement (spin) was suitably professional. If , as most believe, the appointment was as a precursor to the subsequent moves what was the rigour applied to that appointment ? Just because someone has worked in an organisation previously does not alleviate the need to go through a diligent process for the new role. Remember there was a decade plus lag. To give my comments a little context i have always been an Eddie advocate even through his foot in mouth disease. I am now starting to question a few of the most recent decisions and i believe there needs to be a pretty transparent approach from the club (and Ed) in dealing with this matter. I cannot imagine i am on my own in having a little crisis of confidence in regards to my faith in the Board and the CEO.

 

[Anzacday]

Hey ANZAC, it's 76 here,

Swanny did discuss this kind of stuff in his book. Remind me sometime to dig the quote out.

Hey 76, can you did out that quote please.
Cheers,
Anzac

 

[Anzacday]

I don't think he would have the info. It is only meant to be shared with the club doctor (unless the rules have changed). The rumor I heard was that an AFL source leaked it to another club CEO who then passed it onto Slobbo. I would not put it past Pert, he is a nob, but I don;'t think he had access to the information.

So it DID go higher!
Gee Wonder who the Source was?

 

[Schraderbrau]

It wasn't the best decision by Allen, but at least he was looking after his players.

On Whitfield can't help wondering why he was hiding from an illicit drug test. Players get two slaps on the wrist before sanctions.

One reason is because he could of already had a few strikes and another infringement would see him named in the media. From a player welfare perspective that makes sense and if it's the case then good on them for thinking of the player first.

 

[Schraderbrau]

I also question what additional evidence the QC/former judge who reviewed the case, and gave GWS the all clear, was not privy to.
And given the GWS would have alerted its 'AFL parents' about this review, and its outcome, surely the AFL failing to act then, will be seen to have been negligent, if it is subsequently forced to issue sanctions.

.

The QC didn't have access to the deleted text messages I believe.

 

[doodles98]

Hey Linda it's Anzac, your post just set off a thought bubble.
Rumour has it a CEOrtain person within our administration leaked that information.
Imagine if it went higher than that?
That would explain the silence.

Random thought I know - sorry.

Hey Anzac, it's Doodles.
That seems a weird thought. But in the context of the dogs dinner decision making around our rebuild of the last 4 years anything is possible. So what, in your hypothetical, was the thought process and motivation for the club to leak that information about the playing group on the eve of the season? Did they know we'd be sh@t again and wanted this as an excuse.. "it's not our fault ... it's the players ... they keep taking drugs!"??