Roast Mark Robinson

[PieNSauce]

What if there were no further facts to be had and no other source that would verify it?

If the leak came from a source that is impeccable, and that leaker is telling you up to 11, then you run with it. Now he could have written that story differently. He could have angled it that someone was leaking deliberately against Collingwood, but that still wouldn't change the fact that up to 11 had tested positive.

If you are wanting and expect Journos to wait to be 100% spot on with their reporting, then you're going to have very thin papers with very little investigative reporting going on. If he was within a margin close to 11, the story has validity.

A year ago, if Collingwood had 1 player testing positive, it would have been huge news. Now all of a sudden because he can't verify if it's 9,10 or 11, it becomes a point of contention if he should publish or not!!!

All this talk about other club's is just a deflection of avoiding a real problem that our club faces. If by some chance we start seeing players getting 4 and 12 week suspensions, is anyone really going to take solace in the fact that other club's have the same problems?

The facts are that in spite of claims his numbers are incorrect, not one alternative number has been given to counter his number. If it was significantly less, I would have thought that fact would be made very public.

I don't think people are deflecting at all. I think they're just choosing to discuss other aspects because there's not much you can say about players taking illicit substances is there? I personally don't care that most journos have little integrity. I still think people are entitled to comment on the fact.

 

[FuManchu]

Yes you can. 90% correct spelling but first.

Ok, so let's assume 7 is the number, or 5 or 3 or 1. Let's talk about the implications for Collingwood of 1,3,5,7,9 or 11 idiots on our list who didn't give a shit they were going to be hair tested.

Now many think Collingwood was singled out. But was Gold Coast singled out last year in light of Harley Bennell?

Were St Kilda or Essendon singled out in light of Carlisle?

Were Collingwood singled out last year when 2 players copped to PEDs based on their explanation of illicit drug use?

Was Hawthorn singled out when Tuck got done for 3 strikes?

Or is it just the case, any information regarding illicit drug use is going to get media attention no matter who the club is and how it happens? And if Robbo is fed information about a specific club, is he singling out that club or just running with a story he feels is from an impeccable source?

 

[PicaBoo]

Ok, so let's assume 7 is the number, or 5 or 3 or 1. Let's talk about the implications for Collingwood of 1,3,5,7,9 or 11 idiots on our list who didn't give a shit they were going to be hair tested.

Now many think Collingwood was singled out. But was Gold Coast singled out last year in light of Harley Bennell?

Were St Kilda or Essendon singled out in light of Carlisle?

Were Collingwood singled out last year when 2 players copped to PEDs based on their explanation of illicit drug use?

Was Hawthorn singled out when Tuck got done for 3 strikes?

Or is it just the case, any information regarding illicit drug use is going to get media attention no matter who the club is and how it happens? And if Robbo is fed information about a specific club, is he singling out that club or just running with a story he feels is from an impeccable source?

Robbo produced that number 11 out of nowhere . Why hold on that coz nobody can't proof him wrong? So forget about that.
We had Pert with his statement weeks ago. Do you really think we would be in the clear back then. Why the outrage now? Drugs are a lingering issue. We can be upset about that all the time if we want.
With your and Robbo's logic every article featuring Collingwood and drugs should be front page news because it is known we have players dabbling in that ? Even based upon nothing?

 

[FuManchu]

Robbo produced that number 11 out of nowhere . Why hold on that coz nobody can't proof him wrong? So forget about that.
We had Pert with his statement weeks ago. Do you really think we would be in the clear back then. Why the outrage now? Drugs are a lingering issue. We can be upset about that all the time if we want.
With your and Robbo's logic every article featuring Collingwood and drugs should be front page news because it is known we have players dabbling in that ? Even based upon nothing?

I suspect the next time any player from any club gets caught out using, they will be front page news. Nothing has changed in that regard.

As for outrage.... I'm far from outraged, far from it, quite nonchalant in fact. I would have hoped the numbers were in the range of 1 or 2, but I think we now know that's a false economy. And we all probably knew it when Pert described the scene as volcanic. I don't think he was describing anything but his own experience at Collingwood.

 

[left at home]

our players have been found to have taken illegal drugs and that is a story it self, if it was found
that we were the only ones doing it. the story written made it sound that way, instead of a afl wide problem, which
it is. l am not happy that any of our players are users wether in the off season or not. but the story had some facts but
not a lot and in singling out one club instead of all is in my mind the problem. he wanted to do the same story years ago
but the Essendon problem stuffed that and he has been waiting for his chance ever since, and he took it.
a journo has a right to run with a story even if l don't like it, as long it is right, well thought out and factual.
it was not well thought out, had some facts but it was right we our club have drug users, but do all clubs and that to me should have been the story

 

[PicaBoo]

Your moral compass is less developed than the rest of us. Not really surprising with your bikie links.

Nah , can't falter his moral compass. Journalistic threshold of integrity is more the issue.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

"Less of the personal grandstanding of a certain journalist who wrote a story about Collingwood which he could not actually verify, and who then pathetically tried to moralise and say the story wasn’t about Collingwood despite him fully making it about Collingwood.

You can’t have it both ways, and that ham-fisted crack at a serious football issue was a real downer of the past week" - Damian Barrett

 

[Rufustilkin]

Long time reader of Big Footy, but this issue has finally got me join. Has anyone seen Damien Barrett's column on the AFL website. I can't stand the guy but he is the first person in the media to state what occurred here in blunt terms. The following is a quote from his article:

"Also, less of the personal grandstanding of a certain journalist who wrote a story about Collingwood which he could not actually verify, and who then pathetically tried to moralise and say the story wasn’t about Collingwood despite him fully making it about Collingwood.

You can’t have it both ways, and that ham-fisted crack at a serious football issue was a real downer of the past week."

Nailed it in my opinion.

Cheers.

 

[FuManchu]

"Less of the personal grandstanding of a certain journalist who wrote a story about Collingwood which he could not actually verify, and who then pathetically tried to moralise and say the story wasn’t about Collingwood despite him fully making it about Collingwood.

You can’t have it both ways, and that ham-fisted crack at a serious football issue was a real downer of the past week" - Damian Barrett

But Barrett came out Monday night saying he agreed with his right to print the story in spite of his concerns about the issue of numbers. Barrett should have either not made that statement initially or having once made it, left it at that.

The fued continues!

 

[Brad Goodman]

But Barrett came out Monday night saying he agreed with his right to print the story in spite of his concerns about the issue of numbers. Barrett should have either not made that statement initially or having once made it, left it at that.

The fued continues!

He did have the right to print it, but he doesn't have the right to defend the fact that he printed it. Robbo deserves every bit of criticism he has received for this.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

But Barrett came out Monday night saying he agreed with his right to print the story in spite of his concerns about the issue of numbers. Barrett should have either not made that statement initially or having once made it, left it at that.

The fued continues!

So you have a different view about what Barrett can write compared to what Robbo can write?

 

[Wooljay]

But Barrett came out Monday night saying he agreed with his right to print the story in spite of his concerns about the issue of numbers. Barrett should have either not made that statement initially or having once made it, left it at that.

The fued continues!

Barrett just has his finger to the breeze and going with the populist opinion.

I agree with him, but doesn't make him any less of a hack journo.

 

[FuManchu]

He did have the right to print it, but he doesn't have the right to defend the fact that he printed it. Robbo deserves every bit of criticism he has received for this.

He doesn't have the right to defend the fact he printed it?

Really? He could be 100% wrong, but he still has the right to defend whatever he chooses.

Or do you mean you don't think he has any reasonable excuse?

 

[TheSierBear]

Long time reader of Big Footy, but this issue has finally got me join. Has anyone seen Damien Barrett's column on the AFL website. I can't stand the guy but he is the first person in the media to state what occurred here in blunt terms. The following is a quote from his article:

"Also, less of the personal grandstanding of a certain journalist who wrote a story about Collingwood which he could not actually verify, and who then pathetically tried to moralise and say the story wasn’t about Collingwood despite him fully making it about Collingwood.yep

You can’t have it both ways, and that ham-fisted crack at a serious football issue was a real downer of the past week."

Nailed it in my opinion.

Cheers.

Great first post respect to Barrett you must be spewing ur a few seconds late

 

[FuManchu]

So you have a different view about what Barrett can write compared to what Robbo can write?

good point. But Barrett looks like he is jumping on a bandwagon after the tide of opinion now suits his previous grudge.

Do you now not weigh up Barrett's previous opinion to his newly found opinion?

 

[Baltimore Jack]

good point. But Barrett looks like he is jumping on a bandwagon after the tide of opinion now suits his previous grudge.

Do you now not weigh up Barrett's previous opinion to his newly found opinion?

FWIW, I agree with you

 

[Rufustilkin]

I follow the media as little as possible, but I assume that Barrett & Robinson don't like each other?

 

[TheSierBear]

good point. But Barrett looks like he is jumping on a bandwagon after the tide of opinion now suits his previous grudge.

Do you now not weigh up Barrett's previous opinion to his newly found opinion?

So your saying Barrets gutter journalist who flip-flops

 

[Baltimore Jack]

So your saying Barrets gutter journalist who flip-flops

Robbo might take issue with Barrett getting that Title

 

[Brad Goodman]

He doesn't have the right to defend the fact he printed it?

Really? He could be 100% wrong, but he still has the right to defend whatever he chooses.

Or do you mean you don't think he has any reasonable excuse?

Yes that would be more accurate wording. We are entitled to judge his worth as a person and question his character because of the choice to publish the story, but we can't deny him the right to publish it.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I follow the media as little as possible, but I assume that Barrett & Robinson don't like each other?

Its a kind of who has the biggest d.ick sort of thing

 

[JB1975]

JB my bridge on this topic will finally be built after we beat the Tigers on Friday night.

I understand & agree with FuManchu and his frustration on this issue at OUR Club.

My question to you in particular because I think you are quite intelligent, is how many more Thomas & Keefe's do we want at OUR Club before we think it is an issue for us?

Myself, I don't know how a win against the Tigers can make this issue go away, but no doubt it would make us all feel a lot better.

It's nice that you are in accord with FuManchu's frustrations. So are a lot of other people, including myself. But those frustrations haven't been the point of contention in this thread.

The implications of illicit drugs in sport probably needs another thread. Having said that, I'm not of the view that dabbling in drugs is fatal to elite performance, and plenty of footballers and other athletes are testament to that. Others will disagree. Some will say that Collingwood players doing some drugs in the off-season is evidence that Buckley's cultural change has come to nought. I disagree with that, but let's take it to another thread. The potential for illicit drugs to be cut/laced with elements of PEDs is my real concern, because it now seems that one frolic might lead to a lot more pain than anticipated. It reminds me of AIDS, and how it took a while for people to adjust to and accept the fact that an otherwise innocuous act could have sinister and more ongoing ramifications. But again, maybe take it to another thread.

 

[FuManchu]

So your saying Barrets gutter journalist who flip-flops

Quite the opposite. In this case he did. But if came down to Barrett v The fat man, I'd opt for Barrett all day, possibly because his media profile tends to be in short and sharp bursts. But in terms of their fued, once he gave his approval Monday night, he should have held his tongue, because he now looks petty. There were plenty of others steering the anti Robbo bandwagon, he could have looked the bigger man and stayed off it and still seen Robbo squirm. But I do enjoy their mutual hatred playing out.

All current issues aside, I'm not a Robbo fan at all. I find he thinks he is an opinion writer but I just think he rambles on inanely and painfully. But I defend his right to get it right, or get it wrong. He even surprised me when I thought he was heavily conflicted with the Essendon thing and then he named players!

Caro is the best of the lot. She is without fear nor favour and will tackle any and everyone And when she gets it wrong, she admits it.

I'm of the belief that the media for all their perceived self importance, are just pawns in the games of vested parties. These parties leak to journos who run with the stories, it's been going on since Adam was a boy. And as much as you might not like the story, or the story might be wrong, there is always a story in that. And I don't want to bludgeon that aspect of our press out of existence. They're not always going to get it right, but I'd rather they kept trying than be shell shocked into silence.

That's why I don't get upset at these things, because there is a much bigger picture than Collingwood or whoever being tarnished.

 

[Pdid]

BOOOM Barrett has said what everyone in the footy world is thinking!

Barret FWIW has more integrity than robbo - quite often he is on the money when he reports - i.e. treloar to pies in may 2015.

Robbo and HS have taken the approach of hijacking issues or events in afl and providing unnessecary on going commenrary. See supplements saga.

Also have a read of matty pavlich's article on the AFLPA's website. The bloke is spot on.


What a load of shit sport media has become over the last 5-6 years. ****ing crap!!!

 

[Obese Arachnid]

Some people just need to rage against anything that criticises the club. They can't see beyond what they perceive to be an attack. It's like watching Americans try and outdo each other being patriotic.

Perception is a funny thing.