Brian Lake

[MC Extra Dollop]

Keep in mind he's as much a media man as he is a doctor now.

Larkins states that "I don't know how much force he was putting on....but I would be concerned [based on the footage]"

It was a fairly conservative statement from admittedly not enough info.

Then he puts on his media hat and throws out the worst case scenario (broken cartelidge in the trachea) for a bit of mayo.

Petrie didn't have a broken trachea. It was a hypothetical and an expression of concern.

But you're right that this article was part of the outcry. How can they ignore a doctor saying it looked bad? When part of their criteria for judging something is public image - an article like that from a media doctor must add a week or two at least.

Ok. So we take your assessment instead. Sorry, what are your qualifications, for the record? Larkins is universally respected across the industry. I wouldn't have thought that his qualifications and expertise are up for debate.

'Media doctor'...wow. Pretty ironic that recently you've been talking about an argument getting a bit 'circular'. He's in the media because of how good he is, for crying out loud.

 

[ziad]

Sure did!

And furthermore, I listened to the evidence submitted to the AFL tribunal last night, where the AFL tribunal agreed that, in school-yard terms, "Lake started it, not Petrie".

Eye gouging is a dog act and he should have got 4-6 weeks.
Lake 2--3

 

[romeoh]

Yep Leather Poisoning but with a punch there is a greater range of potential outcomes. It might connect, it might not. It might connect with a jaw or a temple or a cheek etc. I might stop it with my hand. It might be forceful, it might be soft. If I punch you I intend to hurt you. If I choke you I intend to what? The choke hold has a limited range of outcomes-if it keeps going the outcome is serious.
It is viewed more dimly for fair enough reasons.
I agree the bad look of it is probs why it was 4 weeks instead of 2 but think you are exaggerating the media and public influence.

 

[Psi-Roos]

You make fair points LP regarding the misconduct/striking. Personally I don't think there is a place for any of it on the footy field. By all means go hard but there is never any excuse for what is just downright grubby thuggery. Striking, biting, choking, spitting, smearing, pinching, pulling hair, eye gouging, hopoating.

Anything of that nature should just automatically be a week or 2 off then increase the penalty with the severity.

I expected Petrie to get 1, 2 if he failed the challenge. Luckily he won for us.

I expected Lake to get 3. He did. The 4 is only his bad record. At the end of the day it's done and dusted. At least he wasn't really required for 2 of the next 4 games. You players should be and are rightfully dirty at him though.

 

[Pessimistic]

Lets play devils advocate here for a second.

Lets say Barry Halls haymaker to Brent Stakers face didn't actually injure Staker in anyway. The punch still connected exactly the same, all the same force etc, but for some miracle of the human body, Staker was fine and he played out the game.

It's still an ugly incident, but no damage is done.

You're saying then Barry Hall shouldn't have had a case to face?

Barry halls ugly headlock on thompson ? Watch the vid, commentators judged thompson had it coming for.....the heinous crime of. ...... Pushing him over while he was doing his bootlace

Half the kangaroos then tried to bounce off hall trying to simulate a knock over. If anything the roos antics looked ugly. Tellingly they did the same to brian lake the bulldog and gained a 50m penalty

The mrp tribumal saw through the hype them, today they wimped out, and a precedent of 3-4 weeks has been set for not nice incidents on primetime football. No doubt the howling pack will be bushing for six weeks or more next time

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Ok. So we take your assessment instead. Sorry, what are your qualifications, for the record? Larkins is universally respected across the industry. I wouldn't have thought that his qualifications and expertise are up for debate.

'Media doctor'...wow. Pretty ironic that recently you've been talking about an argument getting a bit 'circular'. He's in the media because of how good he is, for crying out loud.

I don't have a medical qualification, so I relied on the medical report which said Petrie was fine.

No need to get all sarcastic and condescending. It doesn't help.
Also, being in the media doesn't make you a better doctor. They didn't have a doctor talent quest to pick him as a media guy - he's there because he's qualified and he presents well (and probably because he had the social connections initially to get interviewed for the job.)

But how long do you think he would last in the media if he said the correct thing "I haven't examined him so I can't properly comment at this time". If he speculates on how dangerous things are he's doing a better (media) job, so that's what he does.

No need to get narky about it, or go down the "best doctor in the business" exagerration. He's there on the screen, in the paper and on the radio to entertain. He needs to keep his credibility so he doesn't go too far, but every doctor I know refuses to comment unless they actually examine a patient.

 

[AM]

The resistance to the use of precedence could make sense when you consider incidents that are of dissimilar type (your Judd and Lake comparison) and when there is a prolonged period of time between similar incidents (say Hall and Lake). The inability to use evidence (Petrie's testimony that he considered the impact on his throat was 'low') that was brought forward for the same incident less than an hour previously and heard by the same jury panel is where I think things are ridiculous.

But he's got the 4 weeks now and nothing can change that (unless Hawthorn were to appeal it in court, but they won't).

They don't have to go to court. There's an Appeals Board they can go to under certain conditions. The club would be foolhardy to pursue that avenue and I'm sure they won't.

Disagree entirely about the use of precedent. The lack of it is one reason why we get such inconsistent decisions from the MRP.

The AFLPA are very much for the use of precedent. Watch this space when Marsh takes the reins. It's inevitable.

 

[Pessimistic]

Yes everyone has been duped. Well, all except the well rounded, free thinking Hawthorn fans of course

Visible scratch marks on lakes face in eye are afterwards einsteins

In the vid, petries hands are over his eyes and the force moves lakes head visibly


By all means use the retaliation but why deny the attack on or near the eyes ?

 

[cryptor]

They don't have to go to court. There's an Appeals Board they can go to under certain conditions. The club would be foolhardy to pursue that avenue and I'm sure they won't.

Disagree entirely about the use of precedent. The lack of it is one reason why we get such inconsistent decisions from the MRP.

The AFLPA are very much for the use of precedent. Watch this space when Marsh takes the reins. It's inevitable.

I'm very much for the use of precedent as well, but I do understand why the AFL might not be in certain cases.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

I don't have a medical qualification, so I relied on the medical report which said Petrie was fine.

Have you got a link to it? Are we talking about 'fine' while he was being choked, or 'fine' after Lake had been dragged off him? Because those are two quite separate things.

No need to get all sarcastic and condescending. It doesn't help.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing, with regard to Larkins' opinion?

Just for the record:

http://au.linkedin.com/in/drpeterlarkins

Also, being in the media doesn't make you a better doctor. They didn't have a doctor talent quest to pick him as a media guy - he's there because he's qualified and he presents well (and probably because he had the social connections initially to get interviewed for the job.)

And presumably, because he's got a good track record of being on the money.

How many sports doctors would be keen to take the media roles that Larkins has had?

But how long do you think he would last in the media if he said the correct thing "I haven't examined him so I can't properly comment at this time".

The 'correct' thing?? Larkins was clearly speaking about the danger while Lake was choking Petrie, not the after-effects. How do you propose Larkins examine him at the time?

If he speculates on how dangerous things are he's doing a better (media) job, so that's what he does.

No need to get narky about it, or go down the "best doctor in the business" exagerration.

No? Much better to imply that he is incompetent and overstates things for shock value?

He's there on the screen, in the paper and on the radio to entertain.

No, he's there to inform.

He needs to keep his credibility so he doesn't go too far, but every doctor I know refuses to comment unless they actually examine a patient.

And what comments do you generally seek from them, out of interest?

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

Visible scratch marks on lakes face in eye are afterwards einsteins

Which proves that he was scratched. Not gouged.

 

[Leather Poisoning]

Have you got a link to it? Are we talking about 'fine' while he was being choked, or 'fine' after Lake had been dragged off him? Because those are two quite separate things.

He was fine straight after, which means the during can't have been too bad. Unless Petrie is a super healer.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing, with regard to Larkins' opinion?

No, I'm taking into account the fact he works for an entertainment network and that would skew what his input is. He said "I don't know how hard lake was pressing down". Fully acknowledging he didn't have the required facts, but still felt the need to add fuel to the fire of speculation and hypothetical outcomes.

How many sports doctors would be keen to take the media roles that Larkins has had?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you just on a mission to discredit everything I say? Larkins has the job as a media doctor and does it well. What does it matter if every other doctor in the world wants his job. Given he only speculates and doesn't examine the patients he comments on he doesn't need to. A the best doctor, just the best presenter that is a qualified doctor.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

The 'correct' thing?? Larkins was clearly speaking about the danger while Lake was choking Petrie, not the after-effects. How do you propose Larkins examine him at the time?

He can't examine the player, so he must speculate. It makes him more of a commentator than a doctor, which is why I referred to him as a media doctor. That's what he is.

No? Much better to imply that he is incompetent and overstates things for shock value?

Not shock value - entertainment value. He's not providing information he's providing speculation. Informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless. It's to provide a richer entertainment for people like me and you.

And what comments do you generally seek from them, out of interest?

I have a few friends who are doctors that I watch footy with. Usually ask them about sport injuries.

 

[Chadwiko]

Barry halls ugly headlock on thompson ?

No? I didn't mention Barry Hall's headlock on Scott Thompson.

But since you bring it up, i'll say this; Brian Lake's throat-choke was worse than Barry Hall's headlock;

Compared to;

Lake's is worse, and the AFL agreed. Barry Hall got a fine, Lake got a ban.

Justice served.

 

[TheFourPillars]

uh oh ...i'm scared just reading this

 

[Pessimistic]

No? I didn't mention Barry Hall's headlock on Scott Thompson.

But since you bring it up, i'll say this; Brian Lake's throat-choke was worse than Barry Hall's headlock;

Compared to;

Lake's is worse, and the AFL agreed. Barry Hall got a fine, Lake got a ban.

Justice served.

Not according to the testimony of petrie and thompson, i suppose you assume your teams players lie

 

[Pessimistic]

Which proves that he was scratched. Not gouged.

So thats ok ? Not potentially a career threatening injury ?

Was responding to you guys saying it was our imagination.

But petrie deserved the benefit, as did lake.

Lake didnt get it

 

[GoldenHodge]

Lake's is worse, and the AFL agreed. Barry Hall got a fine, Lake got a ban.

Justice served.

I have no doubt the AFL would have given Barry Hall a reprimand or a 1 week suspension had it happened this year. In the end, I'm glad that no one was seriously hurt out of the Lake/Petrie incident, Lake will cop his whack and never try something that stupid again.

 

[Pessimistic]

Lake's is worse, and the AFL agreed. Barry Hall got a fine, Lake got a ban.

Justice served.[/QUOTE]


Chadwiko, I dont normally search peoples post but you are very often critical of what the afl mrp dishes out, so lets not quote them as the be all and end all eh ?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-afl-as-a-brand-in-grave-danger.1008873/#post-28434311

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

He was fine straight after, which means the during can't have been too bad. Unless Petrie is a super healer.

Medical report, please.

You've got to be joking. He was choking him. This is where the comparisons to striking get a bit fuzzy. It's a much different type of attack. It is sustained and the longer it goes on the more dangerous it is. Larkins said from his vantage point, it looked like a significant level of force was being used (backed up, clearly, by the fact that Petrie was unable to extricate himself). Then he went into the rooms after the game and stated that Petrie indicated that he was 'obviously, was feeling pressure at the time ... on the throat pressure...'

Then there's Petrie's post-match comments.

No, I'm taking into account the fact he works for an entertainment network and that would skew what his input is.

Kind of like taking into account the 'team supported' and factoring in that that would potentially skew a poster's input?

He said "I don't know how hard lake was pressing down". Fully acknowledging he didn't have the required facts, but still felt the need to add fuel to the fire of speculation and hypothetical outcomes.

So he went into the rooms to get more info, yeah?

What does that have to do with anything? Are you just on a mission to discredit everything I say? Larkins has the job as a media doctor and does it well. What does it matter if every other doctor in the world wants his job. Given he only speculates and doesn't examine the patients he comments on he doesn't need to. A the best doctor, just the best presenter that is a qualified doctor.

Not sure what you're getting at here.

I noticed that you left out the bit where I mentioned that he's probably in such high demand because he has a good track record of being spot on. Funny, that.

He can't examine the player, so he must speculate.

No doctor can examine someone, while he is being choked. He spoke about the action that Lake was engaged in and spoke about the massive risks involved. I really don't see the problem.

It makes him more of a commentator than a doctor, which is why I referred to him as a media doctor. That's what he is.

If you read the quotes, he's putting himself in the shoes of the club doctor, who was probably standing/sitting no more than 10m away from where he was, as the incident was occurring. From that perspective, he's more than qualified to give his expert opinion.

What do you think his reaction would be, out of interest, if someone like Dermott Brereton was publicly calling into question his analysis of this incident, as you are?

Not shock value - entertainment value. He's not providing information he's providing speculation. Informed speculation, but speculation nonetheless. It's to provide a richer entertainment for people like me and you.

Yeah, there you go. He's there to inform us. Which is handy, because he's usually spot on.

I have a few friends who are doctors that I watch footy with. Usually ask them about sport injuries.

Sports doctors?

Care to put their LinkedIn profiles up against the doc's? In all likelihood, your friends have neither the access, nor the connections to be anywhere near Larkins' in making an assessment of their injuries. That's how he works. He sees the injury unfold, probably sees a few replays, makes an initial assumption, then follows up after the game. In many cases, he probably speaks directly to the player, or the club doctor (I know he does with Geelong).

 

[Long Live HFC]

Brian Lake's throat-choke was worse than Barry Hall's headlock;

lol. thompson almost went out.

 

[MagpieJo]

Gees hawks fans stop taking the bait, although it makes for entertaining reading!

 

[QuietB]

needs 100 pages

 

[Chadwiko]

I wanted to introduce some outside perspective for our Hawthorn mates here who still seem to be suggesting that Lake is the victim, the club is under attack by the AFL, and this whole mess has been an injustice. (If you think i'm making this up, go read the "Chokegate" thread on the Hawks board).

The full video of the incident was posted on Reddit yesterday. If you don't know what Reddit is, i'm not going to explain it fully now. Suffice to say, it's a huge community, based in America.

Here are just some of the top comments on the Lake/Petrie video (each dot point is someone elses comment);

• I don't know, man. My favorite sport is ice hockey, which is equally tough and physical and sometimes violent. This incident would get someone banned for a long time. A month seems weak.
  
  
• He looks like he is really trying to kill the guy.
  
  
• I know it's different sports, but if Suarez's ban holds, it seems like this guy should be banned from entering stadiums for life.
  
  
• I'm starting to understand why the British sent people like that to Australia.
  
  
• Interesting that you somehow think people have to know about Aussie Rules to understand one dude trying to choke out another dude. There's nothing at all athletic or game-based going on here.
  
  
• Not super familiar with Aussie rules, but I know enough to know that two guys wrestling on the ground, one having the other in a choke hold, isn't part of the f**king game. I don't care how "physical" the game is supposed to be, you're not meant to go around choking dudes out. It's not MMA out there when somebody pisses you off.
  
  
• Definitely deserves to be treated criminally.

Also worthy of noting, not ONE person in that big comment thread looked at the video and said "Oh, well that guy in the blue and white clawed his face first!" Not one. To completely, truly, unbiased watchers from overseas, all anyone sees is one guy trying to choke another guy.

The thread was here for those interested: http://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/2a7isq/aussie_football_player_literally_tries_to_kill/

 

[robaba]

So are the Hawks condoning what Lake did? Should juniors playing footy think it's OK to sit on top of an opponent and strangle them? Stop being recalcitrant and cop your punishment. Even your own coach and players admitted the crime.

 

[Gasometer]

Come on, lets get to 100 pages please....!