Scandal Lyon and Brownless

[rocker_oz33]

Yup this thread moves at rapit rate of knots the hippest thread on BF.

 

[blue harvest]

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ious-and-complex-manager-20160216-gmvhx1.html

Well there goes the "he has never sought treatment or diagnosis, so it's a lie" logic

Where does it say he sought treatment before all of this blew up?
It's just a carefully worded statement 'continues to receive medical treatment'. So did this treatment start years ago or just when he realised he made a big boo boo?

 

[DemonTim]

Incorrect.

The reason people question it is because of the timing. The scandal breaks and then, lo and behold, Garry's got 'mental health issues' so everyone go easy. The timing is what fuels the scepticism.

As for the 'stigma', there might be one for the miniscule percentage of people who reveal their 'mental health issues' shortly after their relationship with their friend's ex-wife is revealed, but there's no issue for anyone else. Like I said, it's a canned line cynically deployed to short circuit any discussion.

So let's shelve the ridiculous argument that refusal to accept without question the line about Garry Lyon's 'mental health issues' is somehow an attack on everyone who has ever had or might have mental health issues. I would expect the public to be broadly supportive of these people and accept the expalantion in 99 per cent of cases. But the timing of Garry Lyon's 'mental health issues' creates a credibility problem.

Why can't they? Particularly under these circumstances?

Do you think no one has ever overstated an illness before for expedient reasons?

I have to admit, I didn't get the memo about these magic rules that you seem to be citing.

The critical thinking comes in when you don't just accept hook, line and sinker whatever you're told by Garry Lyon's manager when he's in the middle of trying to water down a scandal involving his client. Even if that line invokes 'mental health issues'.

Did you purposefully miss context or? I was referring to mental illness vs physical illness. Physical illness (especially of public figures) is just accepted, you don't hear people questioning cancer, stroke etc. I'm saying that if Lyons manager came out today and said "Look he's actually been receiving treatment for cancer, please give him space while he works through this", noone would've started saying "Oh I bet the cancer is just a cover so we don't bag him". Mental illness has the problem of being "unseen", this is part of the reason there's such a huge stigma around it.

I'm not saying it's an attack on them, i'm saying people can/do look at high profile people with issues that are similar to their own, and watch reactions. Lyon gets publicly condemned as a liar (not saying he is currently, just a lot of posters on here) because of 'x', it's not exactly comforting for someone hiding a mental health issue. They don't have to be in his exact situation at all.

You keep bringing up that it's critical thinking. It's really not. Do you think the posters here calling Lyon a liar (lol) are really weighing up all available options. Judging by the logic used, it seems they've decided something and search/make things match that thought. It would be critical thinking to go through the scenario and weigh up options for all the options. Not make a decision, and refuse to acknowledge other possibilities. If anything what's being shown is the opposite of critical thinking.

Who's inserting anything?

People are commenting in a public forum about a guy with a public profile.

Yes, they have 'the right' to do that. Do you think they don't?

Read the posts here, you've got posters saying he's using it to avoid the consequences, they feel the public need to be inserted into this, as a delivery of some punishment to Lyon. He is facing consequences of his actions, by the people involved

It's not an 'example against my points'.

It's an indication of how this mantra of 'don't criticise, he might suicide' can't be accepted because you'll end up having to apply it across the board. It's totally cynical and leads us into ridiculous territory.

Look at a guy like Mitchell Pearce from NRL. He got into trouble for, among other things, simulating a sex act with a dog and was predictably criticised. If his manager had come out and said 'Mitchell has mental health issues so don't criticise him or he might kill himself', would that be OK with you?

Would that be a game-changer that would compel you not to criticise his conduct or decisions?

If we're talking about making comments, then yes people have that right. Do you think they don't?

You seem to be confusing what i'm saying, you're responding as if i'm saying "He's got mental health issues, so noone can comment on anything to do with the story". I've stated it numerous times, comment on how wrong the behaviour was, comment on the act all you like, i'm just disputing that people should be going around saying someone who is said to be dealing with mental health issues is a liar. You've created some strawman where i'm saying his behaviour can't be criticised, it can. The same goes for cousins and pearce, both pretty clearly had issues (both have been/are going to rehab IIRC), there's no "proof" that this is the case, just what we've been told. But I would feel the same if people said "Nah cousins doesn't have issues, he's just making them up to get out of trouble"

No one is claiming they have the right to assault him. But discussing the situation is everyone's right in a free country. I don't really understand your assertion to the contrary.

What does this have to do with Gary Lyon if he's not your co-worker or friend?

And yes, people have 'a right' to make whatever comments they like. Are you claiming otherwise?

You keep talking about 'rights' as though there is some legal standard being breached here.

I think you're responding and think i'm carrying this further than I am. I only have an issue and feel noone has a right, to question his health status, for reasons i've stated. I'm not saying that health status excuses his behaviour or forbids people from commenting on his behaviour (That's a whole different story, I feel people shouldn't give a shit about celeb drama, and it's sad they do, but they can comment on it all they like).

Also, I think you'll find that saying someone is lying about having a mental health issue could pretty easily fall under defamation. As long as he can prove he does have issues it'd be pretty easy to show reputation damage (assuming that's why the media aren't saying he's lying). Obviously it's not going to get to a case of Lyon suing big footy poster x, but i'd say it is a breach of a legal standard, yes.

 

[Joey longshadow]

Did you sign up and then never come back onto this site? Even less relevant topics have got to a hundred pages, these people here are really not trying.

Just out of curiosity ...is your user name relating to the movie The fifth element ?

 

[rhythmandblues]

Crisis management 101, make the perpetrator a victim too.

As soon as depression is mentioned now it's impossible for anyone to publicly criticise that person for their actions.

If you have depression, but that doesn't clear you of any wrong doing. You're still responsible for your actions. Man up and accept it Garry instead of hiding behind an excuse.

So far the facts are that he had a relationship with Mrs Brownless who may or may not have been married to/committed to Billy at the time, depending on who you want to believe, and that he is undergoing treatment for mental health issues.

What exactly do you want him to accept responsibility for? And what would that even mean? He's done nothing illegal (unless it was in wedlock in which case he's committed adultery, which I guess is illegal in the eyes of the Lord ). So what should he accept responsibility for? Wronging a friend? Fine, I think that will happen when all parties involved are in the right state of mind but that's not anything that requires him to put out a statement or front the media. That's something that is none of our business. Should he lose his job? Absolutely not. Whether he continues is up to him and Ch9/MMM but he hasn't wronged them in any way. I don't think there would be a "Bro Code" clause in any of those contracts so he's fine there. If his biggest crime is violating the Bro Code (which, to be honest I think is kind of stupid anyway) then he's fine, the loss of his friendship with Billy, and maybe others is punishment enough.

 

[Nightowl]

This thread has been well moderated. Am surprised and
somewhat impressed.

 

[NotTheDees]

Did you sign up and then never come back onto this site? Even less relevant topics have got to a hundred pages, these people here are really not trying.

Leeloo while from time to time I've looked in at Big Footy, mostly I'll admit in Scandals and Rumours, the St Kilda schoolgirl, etc, look at my handle "Notthedees"... as a Melbourne supporter there's not been much joy since 2008. Was quite surprised when signing in today to find all these year badges waiting for being a member. Yes might have one of the lowest number of posts for a member of nearly 8 years..

 

[Chameleon75]

Did you purposefully miss context or? I was referring to mental illness vs physical illness. Physical illness (especially of public figures) is just accepted, you don't hear people questioning cancer, stroke etc. I'm saying that if Lyons manager came out today and said "Look he's actually been receiving treatment for cancer, please give him space while he works through this", noone would've started saying "Oh I bet the cancer is just a cover so we don't bag him". Mental illness has the problem of being "unseen", this is part of the reason there's such a huge stigma around it.

I'm not saying it's an attack on them, i'm saying people can/do look at high profile people with issues that are similar to their own, and watch reactions. Lyon gets publicly condemned as a liar (not saying he is currently, just a lot of posters on here) because of 'x', it's not exactly comforting for someone hiding a mental health issue. They don't have to be in his exact situation at all.

You keep bringing up that it's critical thinking. It's really not. Do you think the posters here calling Lyon a liar (lol) are really weighing up all available options. Judging by the logic used, it seems they've decided something and search/make things match that thought. It would be critical thinking to go through the scenario and weigh up options for all the options. Not make a decision, and refuse to acknowledge other possibilities. If anything what's being shown is the opposite of critical thinking.



Read the posts here, you've got posters saying he's using it to avoid the consequences, they feel the public need to be inserted into this, as a delivery of some punishment to Lyon. He is facing consequences of his actions, by the people involved



You seem to be confusing what i'm saying, you're responding as if i'm saying "He's got mental health issues, so noone can comment on anything to do with the story". I've stated it numerous times, comment on how wrong the behaviour was, comment on the act all you like, i'm just disputing that people should be going around saying someone who is said to be dealing with mental health issues is a liar. You've created some strawman where i'm saying his behaviour can't be criticised, it can. The same goes for cousins and pearce, both pretty clearly had issues (both have been/are going to rehab IIRC), there's no "proof" that this is the case, just what we've been told. But I would feel the same if people said "Nah cousins doesn't have issues, he's just making them up to get out of trouble"



I think you're responding and think i'm carrying this further than I am. I only have an issue and feel noone has a right, to question his health status, for reasons i've stated. I'm not saying that health status excuses his behaviour or forbids people from commenting on his behaviour (That's a whole different story, I feel people shouldn't give a shit about celeb drama, and it's sad they do, but they can comment on it all they like).

Also, I think you'll find that saying someone is lying about having a mental health issue could pretty easily fall under defamation. As long as he can prove he does have issues it'd be pretty easy to show reputation damage (assuming that's why the media aren't saying he's lying). Obviously it's not going to get to a case of Lyon suing big footy poster x, but i'd say it is a breach of a legal standard, yes.

Yes nobody is doubting cardinal pell is too sick to fly?

 

[NotTheDees]

This thread has been well moderated. Am surprised and
somewhat impressed.

Agreed Nightowl.. question 4 at the CrazyHorse was beyond the realms of good taste...well done to the mods..

 

[Foxx]

Everyone's ****en everyone these days.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Did you purposefully miss context or? I was referring to mental illness vs physical illness. Physical illness (especially of public figures) is just accepted, you don't hear people questioning cancer, stroke etc.

I think people would accept a diagnosis of 'mental health issues' in 99 per cent of cases.

It's the timing and the circumstances in this case that fuel a degree of scepticism.

I'm saying that if Lyons manager came out today and said "Look he's actually been receiving treatment for cancer, please give him space while he works through this", noone would've started saying "Oh I bet the cancer is just a cover so we don't bag him". Mental illness has the problem of being "unseen", this is part of the reason there's such a huge stigma around it.

Well, a diagnosis of cancer is also harder to falsify.

There may be a 'stigma' around some kinds of mental illness. But that's not what's at work here with the scepticism surrounding Garry Lyon's situation.

I'm not saying it's an attack on them, i'm saying people can/do look at high profile people with issues that are similar to their own, and watch reactions. Lyon gets publicly condemned as a liar (not saying he is currently, just a lot of posters on here) because of 'x', it's not exactly comforting for someone hiding a mental health issue. They don't have to be in his exact situation at all.

So someone somewhere could look at this and draw an unfortunate, incorrect conclusion about their own situation?

I'm sorry but that is not a good enough reason to suspend our critical thinking.

If you're going to argue that some things are simply unsayable, regardless of the circumstances, you need to have a really compelling case for that.

As I said, the refusal to accept without question the line about Garry Lyon's 'mental health issues' does not suggest that all claims of mental illness are fraudulent. Nor is it an attack on everyone who has had or may have mental health issues in the future. It's disingenuous to cast it that way.

You keep bringing up that it's critical thinking. It's really not. Do you think the posters here calling Lyon a liar (lol) are really weighing up all available options.

I won't speak for what every other poster is thinking but, as outlined earlier, the timing and the circumstances seem to have fuelled a degree of scepticism and I think that's understandable.

Read the posts here, you've got posters saying he's using it to avoid the consequences, they feel the public need to be inserted into this, as a delivery of some punishment to Lyon.

I don't see how criticising Lyon or questioning the claim of 'mental health issues' constitutes a desire to be 'inserted' anywhere. I don't even understand what that means.

I see people making comments on an open forum about an unfolding 'scandal' involving people with a public profile. And they're free to do so.

You seem to be confusing what i'm saying, you're responding as if i'm saying "He's got mental health issues, so noone can comment on anything to do with the story". I've stated it numerous times, comment on how wrong the behaviour was, comment on the act all you like, i'm just disputing that people should be going around saying someone who is said to be dealing with mental health issues is a liar.

I think people can comment on whatever aspect of the story they choose, can't they?

Who are you to set the parameters of what is or isn't acceptable?

You've created some strawman where i'm saying his behaviour can't be criticised, it can. The same goes for cousins and pearce, both pretty clearly had issues (both have been/are going to rehab IIRC), there's no "proof" that this is the case, just what we've been told. But I would feel the same if people said "Nah cousins doesn't have issues, he's just making them up to get out of trouble"

Again, the timing and the circumstances have made people sceptical of the claim of 'mental health issues'.

You seem to be suggesting that people should accept that claim without question. That, for mine, is an unacceptable suspension of critical thinking that hands managers and handlers an easy out when it comes to hosing down controversies involving their clients.

I only have an issue and feel noone has a right, to question his health status, for reasons i've stated.

They do. People have a right to say all kinds of things that you might find objectionable.

Also, I think you'll find that saying someone is lying about having a mental health issue could pretty easily fall under defamation.
As long as he can prove he does have issues it'd be pretty easy to show reputation damage (assuming that's why the media aren't saying he's lying). Obviously it's not going to get to a case of Lyon suing big footy poster x, but i'd say it is a breach of a legal standard, yes.

Rubbish.

I'm not sure how much you know about defamation law but it would be nigh on impossible for Garry Lyon to prove he had been defamed by an anonymous poster on an internet forum. Hence, no legal standard has been breached.

People have 'a right' to comment how they choose (with a few specific exceptions) and it's not your place to police it by claiming they don't.

 

[Swooping Crow]

Newman’s claim that Brownless and Garry can work together again on The Footy Show is strange. How will they get through a show without puerile references to Bill’s weight and lack of sex appeal or James ‘ramming the point home.’


It would be very uncomfortable for Garry and Brownless given what has transpired. But then again the ratings would be higher given the circumstances as people love watching train wrecks.

 

[Farm Boy]

So far the facts are that he had a relationship with Mrs Brownless who may or may not have been married to/committed to Billy at the time, depending on who you want to believe, and that he is undergoing treatment for mental health issues.

What exactly do you want him to accept responsibility for? And what would that even mean? He's done nothing illegal (unless it was in wedlock in which case he's committed adultery, which I guess is illegal in the eyes of the Lord ). So what should he accept responsibility for?

If they weren't together, then it is just a matter of personal opinion as to whether he owes Bill an apology. If the friendship is done (which I assume it is), then Gary's only responsibility IMO is to himself. Plus, from Bill's perspective, what does an apology even mean. It is not like Gary didn't know what he was doing. He knew full well what he was doing, and he did it anyway. From Billy's perspective, an apology could just be a cop out. I think people WANT to see Gary apologise in a media forum, as some form of shaming tactic, as a way for the media/public to maintain their moral superiority. I hope Gary comes back a hardened man, and maintains this issue is a personal - and private - issue. That would really annoy the media, because they think everyone's business is their own (like its an entitlement), I hate the media, rant over.

 

[Farm Boy]

Newman’s claim that Brownless and Garry can work together again on The Footy Show is strange.

From Sam's perspective it is probably not that strange. He strikes me as the type of bloke that moves on pretty quick. It would be a dent to his ego (if it happened to Newman), but for all of Newman's flaws, he is a fairly pragmatic bloke.

 

[DemonTim]

Where does it say he sought treatment before all of this blew up?
It's just a carefully worded statement 'continues to receive medical treatment'. So did this treatment start years ago or just when he realised he made a big boo boo?

Well if he is continuing to do something, then

I think people would accept a diagnosis of 'mental health issues' in 99 per cent of cases.

It's the timing and the circumstances in this case that fuel a degree of scepticism.

Well, a diagnosis of cancer is also harder to falsify.

There may be a 'stigma' around some kinds of mental illness. But that's not what's at work here with the scepticism surrounding Garry Lyon's situation.

So someone somewhere could look at this and draw an unfortunate, incorrect conclusion about their own situation?

I'm sorry but that is not a good enough reason to suspend our critical thinking.

If you're going to argue that some things are simply unsayable, regardless of the circumstances, you need to have a really compelling case for that.

As I said, the refusal to accept without question the line about Garry Lyon's 'mental health issues' does not suggest that all claims of mental illness are fraudulent. Nor is it an attack on everyone who has had or may have mental health issues in the future. It's disingenuous to cast it that way.

I won't speak for what every other poster is thinking but, as outlined earlier, the timing and the circumstances seem to have fuelled a degree of scepticism and I think that's understandable.

I don't see how criticising Lyon or questioning the claim of 'mental health issues' constitutes a desire to be 'inserted' anywhere. I don't even understand what that means.

I see people making comments on an open forum about an unfolding 'scandal' involving people with a public profile. And they're free to do so.

I think people can comment on whatever aspect of the story they choose, can't they?

Who are you to set the parameters of what is or isn't acceptable?

Again, the timing and the circumstances have made people sceptical of the claim of 'mental health issues'.

You seem to be suggesting that people should accept that claim without question. That, for mine, is an unacceptable suspension of critical thinking that hands managers and handlers an easy out when it comes to hosing down controversies involving their clients.

They do. People have a right to say all kinds of things that you might find objectionable.

Rubbish.

I'm not sure how much you know about defamation law but it would be nigh on impossible for Garry Lyon to prove he had been defamed by an anonymous poster on an internet forum. Hence, no legal standard has been breached.

People have 'a right' to comment how they choose and it's not your place to police it by claiming they don't.

You're just parroting your initial point now, that there is some explicit right to comment on anything we want whenever we want. You can't expect me to respond when:
1. You refuse to acknowledge what other people are doing, and keep referencing critical thinking, as if that's what's happening (despite most posters questioning in not doing that at all)
2. You keep inserting strawmen
3. You refuse to read responses ("I don't see how criticising Lyon or questioning the claim of 'mental health issues' constitutes a desire to be 'inserted' anywhere. I don't even understand what that means." I referenced specifically how posters want to be inserted)

I also pointed out that Lyon would not chase big footy poster x, but you ignored that, and said it's not defamation because he can't do it. They're two completely different things. A person can breach the legal standard of defamation, without being held to account for it.

You realise you're doing the same though. You're claiming some right for people to call Lyon a liar, while denouncing me for saying they don't have the right. Don't I have the right to critically think and tell people they cant say things?

 

[milhouse1]

I actually think this is a pretty well written and thoughtful article by Caroline Wilson

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...e-and-yet-public-scandal-20160217-gmw9pi.html

 

[FuManchu]

Newman’s claim that Brownless and Garry can work together again on The Footy Show is strange. How will they get through a show without puerile references to Bill’s weight and lack of sex appeal or James ‘ramming the point home.’


It would be very uncomfortable for Garry and Brownless given what has transpired. But then again the ratings would be higher given the circumstances as people love watching train wrecks.

But you are dealing with a bloke who thinks everything is fair game and that you should get over things easily. I wouldn't be using him as a yardstick of societal expectations.

 

[Bollox]

Unsure which part i am supposed to display the most internet moral outrage.

When anyone remarries they are rooting another blokes ex wife.
With this in mind the only rule to ever bear in mind is to never cut another mans grass.

Not to say you cant...you just expect to be called out for doing it.

Lyon is a shit bloke.

Not interested in the abused old depression excuse. That doesnt make you go around rooting out of school.

 

[peppy la pew]

But you are dealing with a bloke who thinks everything is fair game and that you should get over things easily. I wouldn't be using him as a yardstick of societal expectations.

Ol Sam is hoping to hell his meal ticket doesn't get taken away, TFS is outdated, it's time to pull the curtain.

I'm sure another format will resurface with some new faces to appeal to viewers who like the show, hopefully Sam the dinosaur will be no where near it

 

[Tyrone Time]

I actually think this is a pretty well written and thoughtful article by Caroline Wilson

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...e-and-yet-public-scandal-20160217-gmw9pi.html

Yes it is. But why has it taken her till Wednesday to get involved?
Good ole self interest. She's pathetic when it comes to protecting people she likes.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You're just parroting your initial point now, that there is some explicit right to comment on anything we want whenever we want.

Sure, I've reiterated some of my earlier positions. Is there something wrong with that?

And yes, people have a right to comment more or less how they choose (with a few specific exceptions). I don't understand why you'd suggest otherwise.

You can't expect me to respond

I don't expect anything either way. Whether you respond is entirely up to you.

1. You refuse to acknowledge what other people are doing, and keep referencing critical thinking, as if that's what's happening (despite most posters questioning in not doing that at all)

All I said is that I won't speak for what other posters are thinking, which strikes me as entirely reasonable.

But broadly, I think the timing and circumstances of the claims of 'mental health issues' have fuelled a degree of scepticism, which also strikes me as understandable.

And, yes, I have made reference to critical thinking. We should not suspend it by accepting a manager's statement without question, when that manager is in the middle of trying to hose down a 'scandal' involving his client.

2. You keep inserting strawmen

This is just another canned line.

Claiming to be misrepresented when you haven't. Why not go for the trifecta of canned responses and claim you've been 'taken out of context'?

3. You refuse to read responses ("I don't see how criticising Lyon or questioning the claim of 'mental health issues' constitutes a desire to be 'inserted' anywhere. I don't even understand what that means." I referenced specifically how posters want to be inserted)

I don't understand what it means for a "poster to want to be inserted".

I see people making comment on an open forum. At what point does that become a 'desire to be inserted'? At what point does that phrase even mean anything?

I also pointed out that Lyon would not chase big footy poster x, but you ignored that, and said it's not defamation because he can't do it. They're two completely different things. A person can breach the legal standard of defamation, without being held to account for it.

Again, I question how much you know about defamation law and the legal thresholds to proving such a charge.

It would be nigh on impossible for a defamation charge to be upheld in these circumstances, so there has been no legal standard breached.

Or is it automatically defamation just because you said so?

You realise you're doing the same though. You're claiming some right for people to call Lyon a liar, while denouncing me for saying they don't have the right.

That's not the same. More like opposites.

I'm saying people can comment how they choose. You're saying they can't.

That's a funny kind of 'same'.

Don't I have the right to critically think and tell people they cant say things?

You have the right to say whatever you like. I merely pointed out that your claim that people 'have no right' to question Garry Lyon's 'mental health issues' carries zero weight and is ultimately misguided.

 

[Swooping Crow]

But you are dealing with a bloke who thinks everything is fair game and that you should get over things easily. I wouldn't be using him as a yardstick of societal expectations.

Sam is the type of person who probably thinks depression is merely a 'fantasy.'

 

[DemonTim]

Sure, I've reiterated some of my earlier positions. Is there something wrong with that?

And yes, people to have a right to comment more or less how they choose (with a few specific exceptions). I don't understand why you'd suggest otherwise.

I don't expect anything either way. Whether you respond is entirely up to you.

All I said is that I won't speak for what other posters are thinking, which strikes me as entirely reasonable.

But broadly, I think the timing and circumstances of the claims of 'mental health issues' have fuelled a degree of scepticism, which also strikes me as understandable.

And, yes, I have made reference to critical thinking. We should not suspend it by accepting a manager's statement without question, when that manager is in the middle of trying to hose down a 'scandal' involving his client.

This is just another canned line.

Claiming to be misrepresented when you haven't. Why not go for the trifecta of canned responses and claim you've been 'taken out of context'?

I don't understand what it means for a "poster to want to be inserted".

I see people making comment on an open forum. At what point does that become a 'desire to be inserted'? At what point does that phrase even mean anything?

Again, I question how much you know about defamation law and the legal thresholds to proving such a charge.

It would be nigh on impossible for a defamation charge to be upheld in these circumstances, so there has been no legal standard breached.

Or is it automatically defamation just because you said so?

That's not the same. More like opposites.

I'm saying people can comment how they choose. You're saying they can't.

That's a funny kind of 'same'.

You have the right to say whatever you like. I merely pointed out that your claim that people 'have no right' to question Garry Lyon's 'mental health issues' carries zero weight and is ultimately misguided.

Again. You obviously haven't read responses.

so you won't speak on behalf of other posters but you will say they're applying critical thinking?

I understand your general idea, that the right to freedom of speech should have no bounds, I disagree

Well I think we are not going to agree. Legal standards can be breached without being followed up. It actually happens all the time. Not being able to prosecute/take it up in a civil manner does not mean they weren't breached. There's many many reasons that could happen.

It actually has as much weight as you saying they do have the right, they're both opinions

I've also pointed out your strawmen specifically, you ignored it. Now when it's mentioned again you mock the idea that you've done it

No point continuing a conversation with someone who won't read what's presented

 

[the_interloper]

Did you read it? It specifically denies that it's been going on for years - it says it started after both parties had separated from their former partners. Pretty important distinction.

That was the manager that said that though right? He'd have an interest in trying to calm this down ASAP.

 

[good4footy]

Can anyone show me where Lyon is using depression as an excuse?

It is possible for him to be a) a shit bloke b) also have depression. I can't see anywhere he is using b) to excuse a)