AFL players to boycott Brownlow, post game interviews

[Forrest Gimp]

Where was this outcry when Braun had his name dragged through the mud?

Oh, my bad, I forgot it is different if the player plays for West Coast, carry on....

c'mon mate, to be fair, I think most people in the footy community took Braun's side in that incident. Aker was the one who was made to look a fool at the end for what he did...

 

[Murray]

Watson sounds boring, and is constantly negative.

Ox is just an idiot who can barely string a sentence together.

Ricky looks and sounds nervous and it's so amatureish.

Very accurate summation

 

[carps]

i think the bigger issue here is that once again the AFL has found a reason to attack someone for pointing out that there is a serious drug problem among AFL players. If there was a one strike policy rather than this stupid 3 strike policy then we would not have situations like this one happening.
The idea that players should be protected from public scrutiny because they are footballers is wrong because the players are happy to be in the spotlight and take the money (and other freebies) that comes with being well paid entertainers but are not happy when that same scrutiny sheds a bad light on them.
Ch7 did the wrong thing in buying possibily stolen medical records and broadcasting some details but the aFL has made a rod for its back by continuing with the 3 strikes rule.

 

[Murray]

Channel 7 Won't have the Footy Next Year

How do you propose to get around that very minor issue, which lawyers call, a contract?

 

[Bloben]

I can't believe people in this thread are saying these things with a serious face


If you believe, EVEN FOR A SECOND, that either 9 or 10 would not have done EXACTLY THE SAME thing if they were offered those documents then you are an absolute fool. Didn't 10 semi-break the story to begin with (they stole it off 7, but still).

Absolutely ridiculous, i hope this guy from the AFLPA gets canned. Doing far more damage to the game than 7 has. Players shouldn't be on drugs in the first place. Should be named and shamed.

Sorry Mattlowry...

I do believe that there were other media agencies out there that would have taken a different decision to purchase and publish stolen confidential information and I do not consider myself a fool.

In fact how can you think this is common behaviour in media when the AFL players for the first time ever are threatening to boycott a media agency when they are fully aware that they depend on media for their income. This is an extreme threat as the action by seven was extreme and went over the line in terms of common ethics.

 

[AsIfYouCare]

Brownlow is overrated anyway .I would prefer to watch footy replays or something else .

Yeah I only watch it to check what Rebecca Twigley is wearing.

 

[AsIfYouCare]

I can't believe people in this thread are saying these things with a serious face


If you believe, EVEN FOR A SECOND, that either 9 or 10 would not have done EXACTLY THE SAME thing if they were offered those documents then you are an absolute fool. Didn't 10 semi-break the story to begin with (they stole it off 7, but still).

Absolutely ridiculous, i hope this guy from the AFLPA gets canned. Doing far more damage to the game than 7 has. Players shouldn't be on drugs in the first place. Should be named and shamed.

You think all media organisations are happy to receive stolen goods?

 

[Tim the Toolman]

This is all very easily fixed. Just get Billy into the toilets between lines and the players will be up for anything... dancing, hi-jinx, laughing at the pretty lights...

 

[Bloben]

i think the bigger issue here is that once again the AFL has found a reason to attack someone for pointing out that there is a serious drug problem among AFL players. If there was a one strike policy rather than this stupid 3 strike policy then we would not have situations like this one happening.
The idea that players should be protected from public scrutiny because they are footballers is wrong because the players are happy to be in the spotlight and take the money (and other freebies) that comes with being well paid entertainers but are not happy when that same scrutiny sheds a bad light on them.
Ch7 did the wrong thing in buying possibily stolen medical records and broadcasting some details but the aFL has made a rod for its back by continuing with the 3 strikes rule.

Lets not argue the merits of the drug policy as a defence to the behaviour of channel 7. I agree that 3 strikes is too much however that has nothing to do with the disgust I have in Channel 7 for behaving the way they have.

 

[Ted Ed Fred]

i think the bigger issue here is that once again the AFL has found a reason to attack someone for pointing out that there is a serious drug problem among AFL players. If there was a one strike policy rather than this stupid 3 strike policy then we would not have situations like this one happening.
The idea that players should be protected from public scrutiny because they are footballers is wrong because the players are happy to be in the spotlight and take the money (and other freebies) that comes with being well paid entertainers but are not happy when that same scrutiny sheds a bad light on them.
Ch7 did the wrong thing in buying possibily stolen medical records and broadcasting some details but the aFL has made a rod for its back by continuing with the 3 strikes rule.

Yeah, the AFL should just disregard all the advise they got from drug experts when setting up the policy, and base it on the views of the Today Tonight crowd and grubby vote seeking Liberal pollies

F**k all this "name and shame the junkies " nonsense from the talkback mob. The police are there to punish people, the AFL can do whatever they want with the drug policy that they volunteered to administer in the first place.

Do polititions, judges, lawyers and doctors have a 3 strikes policy? Oh, that's right, they're not drug tested at all. I'm glad the public are focused on the real issue of football players, because every minute detail of their private lives is so important...

 

[oogac]

AFL players threaten Seven boycott


Monday Aug 27 18:00 AEST

By David Lowden
ninemsn
The AFL Players' Association has lashed out at Channel Seven for broadcasting details of the private medical records of two players and has warned there could be a black ban of the network.
The association's chief executive, Brendan Gale, a lawyer and former AFL player, was today scathing in his criticism of the television network.
Mr Gale said after speaking to members and the executive, made up of current senior AFL players, their reaction was one of absolute outrage and disgust.

var JS_SITE;var JS_SECTION;var JS_SUB_SECTION;var JS_AD_MEM_TAG;var JS_PAGE_COBRAND;function GetCobrandAdStr__633238385178671833() { if (JS_PAGE_COBRAND != undefined && JS_PAGE_COBRAND != '') { return '/COBRAND='+JS_PAGE_COBRAND; } else { return ''; }}spac_writeAd('/SITE='+JS_SITE+'/AREA='+JS_SECTION+'/SUBSECTION='+JS_SUB_SECTION+'/LOC=TOP/AAMSZ=MEDIUM'+JS_AD_MEM_TAG+GetCobrandAdStr__633238385178671833());document.write(' ');
"I want to formally register my disgust at Channel Seven's decision to purchase and broadcast private confidential medical records relating to a number of AFL players," Mr Gale said.
"In all the years in my involvement in football as a player and now in my capacity with the AFLPA, I can't think of a more serious issue that I have confronted."
Victorian Health Services Commissioner Beth Wilson said although media outlets were exempt from privacy laws, they had a duty to use that privledge ethically. The AFL also condemned the decision to publish the medical records.
"We just think it's a disgrace that confidential documents between a doctor and his client can be put in the public domain," the AFL's head of broadcasting Gil McLachlan said.
Victorian Police today executed a search warrant on Channel Seven in Melbourne for information which may assist its investigation into whether or not the medical records were stolen. Channel Seven gave the police the name of the woman who approached them on Friday with the records. At the time, she told Channel Seven she found them in the gutter.
A court injunction prevents all media outlets from publishing any details of the medical records but ninemsn understands the doctor in question contacted police on Saturday morning and reported medical records had been stolen.
Mr Gale said he felt strongly enough about the issue to join Supreme Court action taken by the players' doctor and the AFL.
"Is it right for an individual to have records of their private conversations with a doctor hawked or traded for profit?" he asked.
"Is it right for a media organisation to buy and then broadcast an individual's private medical records as well?"
"The AFLPA clearly doesn't think its right, we think it's unacceptable for our players and we think it is unacceptable for the community and the community should be absolutely horrified by the conduct of Channel 7 in this instance", Mr Gale said.
The AFLPA has not ruled black banning Channel Seven, which may include post-match interviews and even the Brownlow Medal telecast.

 

[oogac]

Sorry about that . . . didnt mean to cut and paste the whole page.

 

[Lidge]

AFLPA are threatening to boycott any post game interviews with 7 and most importantly, to not attend the Brownlow.

Surely Dylan Howard must be sacked.
He's no Hutchy when it comes to breaking stories.
Wost career move ever.

**** the AFLPA - bunch of ambulance chasers.

And why all the Dylan Howard hatred? Just a young journo doing his job. He didn't invent a story. He didn't lie. Didn't report rumour. Didn't slander defame anyone. Seemed to report some facts - which is a refreshing change in the AFL media circles.

He actually snagged a real exclusive and reported a very very hot news story.

Now - if you don't like cheque book journalism (i.e. Beaconsfield, 60 Minutes, ACA, TT) take up your argument with the news editors & directors.

Actually - good career move (if being despatched by your Chief of Staff to cover a breaking story counts as a career move). Everyone now knows him. Ratings through the roof.

Channel 9 now kicking themselves that they didn't shell out the few thousand clams (but will fire off pot shots to their cross town rival, because, well that's what they do best). Can guarantee you that if Kerry Packer was still at the helm, there's no way in the world that they would have allowed 7 a free hit by running with 'that' story.

 

[Vigour]

.. I only watch it to check what Rebecca Twigley is wearing..

indeed. and you're not alone! so what would really hurt the broadcaster (I assume the players and clubs may have obligations to appear) is if they say, yep, but no girlfriends! ratings would plummet!

 

[Bloben]

**** the AFLPA - bunch of ambulance chasers.

And why all the Dylan Howard hatred? Just a young journo doing his job. He didn't invent a story. He didn't lie. Didn't report rumour. Didn't slander defame anyone. Seemed to report some facts - which is a refreshing change in the AFL media circles.

He actually snagged a real exclusive and reported a very very hot news story.

Now - if you don't like cheque book journalism (i.e. Beaconsfield, 60 Minutes, ACA, TT) take up your argument with the news editors & directors.

Actually - good career move (if being despatched by your Chief of Staff to cover a breaking story counts as a career move). Everyone now knows him. Ratings through the roof.

Channel 9 now kicking themselves that they didn't shell out the few thousand clams (but will fire off pot shots to their cross town rival, because, well that's what they do best). Can guarantee you that if Kerry Packer was still at the helm, there's no way in the world that they would have allowed 7 a free hit by running with 'that' story.

I disagree Lidge

Checkbook journalism is the purchasing of an exclusive and is often the result of a person or persons that auction off their story for personal gain. The nature of the story though is irrelevant.

The auctioning off of this information is not the issue. The issue is that the network paid for illegal information that is protected by doctor client privileges. The decision to purchase the information, even if not illegal is at best incredibly unethical.

I do not think that Channel 7 are happy with the reaction from the football public, the AFL, the players association and other bodies such as the health industry. I hope that jobs are lost over at 7 for their decision.

 

[West Coast 06]

c'mon mate, to be fair, I think most people in the footy community took Braun's side in that incident. Aker was the one who was made to look a fool at the end for what he did...

Maybe, but what was ALPHA's stand on it?

They had the fence wedged a fair way up their arse. They are both our members and we will do what we can for both of them. Please.

 

[Murray]

I disagree Lidge

Checkbook journalism is the purchasing of an exclusive and is often the result of a person or persons that auction off their story for personal gain. The nature of the story though is irrelevant.

The auctioning off of this information is not the issue. The issue is that the network paid for illegal information that is protected by doctor client privileges. The decision to purchase the information, even if not illegal is at best incredibly unethical.

I do not think that Channel 7 are happy with the reaction from the football public, the AFL, the players association and other bodies such as the health industry. I hope that jobs are lost over at 7 for their decision.

Assumptions

 

[Burzum]

The Brownlow is boring anyway.

3 votes go to...
2 votes go to...
1 vote goes to...

I don't need to hear that for 3 hours.

 

[Bloben]

Assumptions

The first highlight is not a statement but an explanation.

The second states that the information is illegal. I perhaps should have worded differently however they did pay for the information and the information was protected over privacy laws. Whether the "finding it in a gutter" is reasonable protection from privacy laws are up to the courts however I am sure sevens lawyers would have gone over this. The police are investigating and they may have a different view.

The third highlight.... Well I don't think that anybody here is claiming that the behaviour was anything but unethical... silly statement

Finally yes the last part was an assumption... which I clearly indicated by the words "I do not think" as in not claiming as fact but my opinion

 

[thatswhatimtalkinabout]

**** the AFLPA - bunch of ambulance chasers.

And why all the Dylan Howard hatred? Just a young journo doing his job. He didn't invent a story. He didn't lie. Didn't report rumour. Didn't slander defame anyone. Seemed to report some facts - which is a refreshing change in the AFL media circles.

He actually snagged a real exclusive and reported a very very hot news story.

Now - if you don't like cheque book journalism (i.e. Beaconsfield, 60 Minutes, ACA, TT) take up your argument with the news editors & directors.

Actually - good career move (if being despatched by your Chief of Staff to cover a breaking story counts as a career move). Everyone now knows him. Ratings through the roof.

Channel 9 now kicking themselves that they didn't shell out the few thousand clams (but will fire off pot shots to their cross town rival, because, well that's what they do best). Can guarantee you that if Kerry Packer was still at the helm, there's no way in the world that they would have allowed 7 a free hit by running with 'that' story.

Mate, I have just taken possession of all your medical, criminal & taxation details as well as your passwords for all your banking details and passwords and details to every thing that you have ever done on the internet.

Should I publish it here in the 'public interest' because I reckon the public has a right to know, seeing you are trying to influence public opinion?

Grow up Lidge.

 

[Murray]

The first highlight is not a statement but an explanation.

The second states that the information is illegal. I perhaps should have worded differently however they did pay for the information and the information was protected over privacy laws. Whether the "finding it in a gutter" is reasonable protection from privacy laws are up to the courts however I am sure sevens lawyers would have gone over this. The police are investigating and they may have a different view.

The third highlight.... Well I don't think that anybody here is claiming that the behaviour was anything but unethical... silly statement

Finally yes the last part was an assumption... which I clearly indicated by the words "I do not think" as in not claiming as fact but my opinion

The point I was making (that you seemed to have missed twice) is none of what you wrote is factual.
It is speculation on your part or in other words it is "opinion".
I don't have any problems with people giving an opinion, just don't pass it off as anything more than that.

 

[Griffo66]

Channel 7 Won't have the Footy Next Year

I hope so, I cannot stand watching a football game on Seven it's excuritating. I guess this means I will have to watch the Brownlow with the sound off because I bet we get the extreme quaility team of Mcavaney, Ox and Watson commenting on the votes.......

 

[mr_cellotape]

It's pretty silly of the AFLPA to agree to this flawed policy, then complain when said policy has its inevitable negative consequences.

It's obvious that these types of records can't be guaranteed to be private (this is at least the second leak). They should never have agreed to this ridiculous wowser-placating testing system in the first place.

 

[Bloben]

The point I was making (that you seemed to have missed twice) is none of what you wrote is factual.
It is speculation on your part or in other words it is "opinion".
I don't have any problems with people giving an opinion, just don't pass it off as anything more than that.

I don't think you understand.

The point I was making Murray is that two of the highlights were not passed as fact.

I also stated that I should have worded my point differently over claiming it was illegal. I wrote that there are privacy laws that govern this issue and that these will be looked at by people with a much better understanding of the law than me.

Further me saying that it is at best highly unethical is in fact an opinion. One though that is not in dispute to my knowledge. If you would like to claim otherwise feel free. In fact the very nature of ethics are always open to interpretation and are never clear fact. This one comes close though

 

[benny1712]

I hope so, I cannot stand watching a football game on Seven it's excuritating. I guess this means I will have to watch the Brownlow with the sound off because I bet we get the extreme quaility team of Mcavaney, Ox and Watson commenting on the votes.......

exactly. hate the coverage from seven as (1) its boring and (2) it always on delay.

bring back live footy on friday night and sunday arvo with INTERESTING commentators