MORE eddie bias on Nathan blood smear report

[Danni]

Originally posted by Rohan_

Just to set the record straight. You can't get Aids by transferring blood on a jumper like Nathan did. What is more ironic is there has never been a reported case where blood has been exchanged on a sporting field and Aids has resulted.

That's not setting the record straight - that is deflecting the issue in point.

Just like all the 'have a look at what Ling did first' junk posts are doing too.

Might as well say 'aker kneed opposition player - so player knees him back'............still doesn't make it right.

Every action a player makes is a choice, whether it be a well thought out one or not. And every choice has a consequence.

Now what if by some million, trillion, zillion remote chance, Ling had a cut under his jumper right where Buckley wiped the blood? And what if there was just enough blood to seep through the jumper and touch that cut? And what if unbeknown to either player there was an issue that caused the contact of Buckley's blood to Lings cut to become a medical issue????

That is certainly a number of "what if's".............BUT.............they wouldn't have been raised or have any relevence if Buckley had not purposely places his blood on his opponent.

I was gutwrenched enough seeing our captain apparently elbow a WC player in rnd 5.............had he done what Bucks had done I would have been more than appalled and would have lost faith in him as a leader.

There is NO excuse................none of this 'but he did this and that first' junk. As everyone of us here would have had drilled into us our whole lives...........2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Defender]

Originally posted by Rohan_
He will get a week for it however people are overreacting to the act. Yes it was unsportsmanlike and crude but it will hardly tarnish the career of Nathan.

I beg to differ I think he will be remembered for a long long time for this very low act.


Just to set the record straight. You can't get Aids by transferring blood on a jumper like Nathan did. What is more ironic is there has never been a reported case where blood has been exchanged on a sporting field and Aids has resulted. [/QUOTE]

YET! There is always a first time and that is why the blood rule has been put into place as a precaution. Someone treating the rule with such contempt is just plain silly.

More so what if Nathan when attempting to smear blood on the jumper missed or the player moved his head and the blood went into an open cut on the other players face or body? Buckleys intent on smearing the player makes it very serious !! A lot more serious than an elbow or a fist fight.

The incident on a soccer pitch never occurred. [/QUOTE]

never say never Rohan there is always a first time. And wake up to your self and realise how serious this is.

 

[Nafan]

Originally posted by Danni
Every action a player makes is a choice, whether it be a well thought out one or not. And every choice has a consequence.

There is NO excuse................none of this 'but he did this and that first' junk. As everyone of us here would have had drilled into us our whole lives...........2 wrongs don't make a right.

WELL SAID Danni!! Although I think you're preaching to the ignorant.



----------------------------------


check out this auction, for an opportunity of a lifetime - SIGNED EDDIE MCGUIRE COLLINGWOOD GUERNSEY

 

[OldLion]

Buckley, like many other players including Carey, are ultra competitive. The up side is their consistant performance, the down side is they can go over the top in any number of ways. Some players can get sucked in and lose the plot, some others become even more aggressive. Buckley has been involved in a number of incidents and has also played some great footy. Eventually the odds are against him. He'll get a big fine, after lots of Pie huffing and puffing and will play next week.

 

[you_idiot]

Originally posted by Danni
Every action a player makes is a choice, whether it be a well thought out one or not. And every choice has a consequence.

Now what if by some million, trillion, zillion remote chance, Ling had a cut under his jumper right where Buckley wiped the blood? And what if there was just enough blood to seep through the jumper and touch that cut? And what if unbeknown to either player there was an issue that caused the contact of Buckley's blood to Lings cut to become a medical issue????

That is certainly a number of "what if's".............BUT.............they wouldn't have been raised or have any relevence if Buckley had not purposely places his blood on his opponent.

I'm glad you brought this up, Danni.

I heard something else on 3AW's pregame show this afternoon, and one of the panelists (I can't remember who) mentioned that if Ling had something as simple as a pimple (rhyme not intended, by the way) on the spot under the guernsey where Buckley wiped bis blood upon him, then that could be an absorption point for transmission, just as much as a cut would be. Mind you, I'm only paraphrasing here...

Ludicrous? Perhaps.

Likely? Maybe just as plausible.

Fact of the matter is that there is a lot of hysteria, still, even after almost 25 years, of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that we don't even know all the possible means of transmission.

And what Defender says is true, too... that there are no precedents and the "first time" that something like this happens is just waiting to occur. It's a wonder that poignant subjects like this don't come up more often-- and quite simply, it's also a wonder that more controversies such as this don't occur on the field of battle more often as well.

Like I said on a similar thread, the "blood rule" is there for a reason...

Cheers,
William

 

[Rohan_]

Originally posted by you_idiot


Like I said on a similar thread, the "blood rule" is there for a reason...

The Blood Rule will be no longer in place as is next year. There is no reason to keep it and that it why it is being disbanded.

 

[Danni]

Originally posted by Rohan_


The Blood Rule will be no longer in place as is next year. There is no reason to keep it and that it why it is being disbanded.

I too heard that it won't be in place as is next year - but I didn't hear any mention of disbanding it?


I just heard 'not as is' which also could mean more stringent application, or just different applications to now.

At no stage could I personally foresee a disbanding or abandonment of the 'blood rule'.............especially in these here times of public liability and personal litigations.

The AFL is not THAT stupid.

 

[you_idiot]

Originally posted by Rohan_


The Blood Rule will be no longer in place as is next year. There is no reason to keep it and that it why it is being disbanded.

You might colour me a skeptic, Rohan, but how do you know this? Do you have a link about it?

As long as there are public health fears in the population at large, and some level of ignorance or prejudice as to how HIV/AIDS is transmitted, the rule deserves to stay in any league of any sport in the world, simple as that. The leagues, like any other workplace, have a moral and legal responsibility to protect its workers-- and in the AFL's case, that means its players. I would certainly hope that the "blood rule" would not be abolished, just on common-sense grounds.

I wouldn't say that there's "no reason to keep it," to borrow your own words. There's plenty of reasons to keep it.

But if you have documented evidence, such as a news link, showing that the AFL will drop it, I am curious to see it...

Cheers,
William

 

[Rohan_]

Originally posted by Danni



At no stage could I personally foresee a disbanding or abandonment of the 'blood rule'.............especially in these here times of public liability and personal litigations.

The AFL is not THAT stupid.

It all depends on reports that are being researched by a number of leading doctors to the AFL's insurance company. I'm not downpat on it but I have heard a leading sporting competition hasn't even got such a rule in vogue.

Surprising given that litigation is more rife in America than here.

 

[Danni]

Originally posted by Rohan_


It all depends on reports that are being researched by a number of leading doctors to the AFL's insurance company. I'm not downpat on it but I have heard a leading sporting competition hasn't even got such a rule in vogue.

Surprising given that litigation is more rife in America than here.

And these so easily could be the same doctors that can't agree on the benefit and/or safety of using drips to rehydrate football players.

And the same doctors who can't agree on whether or not surgery can benefit sufferers of OP.

And the same doctors who were involved in the payout/insurance claim by a player (whose name currently escapes me) for his ongoing problems playing on a too hard centre bounce area and one with a marker on it.

And more than likely includes at minimum ONE doctor who is currently facing a legal limbo in his insurance future depending on what happens with the liability insurance after the inability of the nations larget medical insurer to cover doctors that has led to parliamentry intervention to make sure medical treatment is still available to the general public let alone private patients and then after them research and development consultants.

It just ISN'T going to happen.

The day the AFL disband/abandon a blood rule equals the day the AFL allow a player to continue on the field with blood pouring out of them..............

It just ISN'T going to happen.

 

[you_idiot]

Originally posted by Rohan_
I'm not downpat on it but I have heard a leading sporting competition hasn't even got such a rule in vogue.

Absolutely not true, Rohan.

Every sports league/organization in the world-- you name a sport or a competition, from MLB, the NBA, NHL, MLS, the NFL, UEFA, among others, you name it-- has a "blood rule" in place for the reasons I previously stated... for the general public interest and safety.

For example, if there's blood on a player's uniform, the player must exit the field immediately until he changes his kit or gets his open wounds bandaged. Simple and as practical as that.

The rule is there to protect the athletes on the field of battle. And although what you say about the legal ramifications do certainly exist, the insurance policies are there not for those who would ever have to make a claim, but rather as a 'safety net' in case one ever has to be made... better safe than sorry, as the expression goes.

I don't mind the outrageous claims, just make sure you back it up with documentation. I haven't seen anything yet that would confirm what you're alledging, but if you have something in black and white, I'd like to see it, out of curiousity...

Cheers,
William

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by scmods
The world has gone crazy!

I just read a post from a Collingwood fan, where he criticised BOTH Eddie and Nathan!

Nothing will ever be the same again.

No you didn't.

 

[FIGJAM]

Originally posted by Defender
I think lots of us are Very disappointed Collingwood supporters.

Stop pretending to be a Collingwood supporter TheButcher!

 

[stewart]

Originally posted by Hurricane75
Its Eddie's job as Collingwood President to stand behind his players in the good and bad.

I'm sure Eddie is very disappointed by what happened but he needs to make sure that Bucks gets a fair trial. It has all been one sided media so far.

What do you expect him to say???????

One thing as a Collingwood president and another as a football commentator...!!!

Stewart

 

[Michele]

Buckley's disgraceful actions, should also be seen in the light of his comments in his regular HS column, sometime in May........"that getting blood on to an opponents jumper can be used to get that player off the field."

Seems he has been thinking and knew what the re-action would be to his action

His gave a very stupid and arrogant reply to a question on whether he would be suspended. "No, he didn't believe he would be suspended" - more like, why in the hell should I be suspended, when a far more appropriate comment would have been a "no comment".

As it stands now, he has inadvertently accused Ling of ?????

He does not have the nickname of FIGJAM for nothing.

 

[you_idiot]

Originally posted by Michele
Buckley's disgraceful actions, should also be seen in the light of his comments in his regular HS column, sometime in May........"that getting blood on to an opponents jumper can be used to get that player off the field."

Seems he has been thinking and knew what the re-action would be to his action

Nice point, Michelle. If his actions were truly pre-meditated, and can be proven as such, then there's no way he can escape the charges, and a heavy suspension AND fine will be the result of the Tribunal's proceedings this week.

Anyone got a link to that original article? Apparently, the Herald-Sun charges one for retrieving "search" articles from their website...

Cheers,
William

 

[Anton Grbac]

It really is laughable to hear a number of Magpies dismissing it as a "minor incident". Jeezuz, i could imagine the outrage and indignation of the 'faithful' if it were a Hird, Lloyd, Voss, McLeod etc. doing the same thing to one of their own.

They'd be squealing like stuck pigs.

where's wally?

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Hurricane75
Its Eddie's job as Collingwood President to stand behind his players in the good and bad.

I'm sure Eddie is very disappointed by what happened but he needs to make sure that Bucks gets a fair trial. It has all been one sided media so far.

What do you expect him to say???????

It's not Eddies job to make sure he get's a fair trial. For a start he hasn't committed a crime, it's a tribunal and secondly it's the tribunal's job to give him a fair hearing.
Why is it so hard for you collingwood supporters to understand that Eddie runs collingwood not the AFL?

ps. I know he thinks he runs the AFL but there is a difference.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper


It's not Eddies job to make sure he get's a fair trial. For a start he hasn't committed a crime, it's a tribunal and secondly it's the tribunal's job to give him a fair hearing.
Why is it so hard for you collingwood supporters to understand that Eddie runs collingwood not the AFL?

ps. I know he thinks he runs the AFL but there is a difference.

Firstly, it is the rest of the football public that keep telling us Eddie runs the AFL, influencing every decision ever made and we keep denying it.

Secondly, it is most definately Eddie's job as presedent to get Buckley off - and that is irrespective of whether that is the morally right thing to do or not. We are not talking about murder charges here. Yes they are serious but Eddie has an absolute responsibility to do all he can to mitigate the penalty in so far as it will impact Colloingwoods on field performance. If I vote for him it is because I believe he does and will continue to do that.

 

[thehardaway]

Ling has been reported

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by MarkT

Firstly, it is the rest of the football public that keep telling us Eddie runs the AFL, influencing every decision ever made and we keep denying it.

Secondly, it is most definately Eddie's job as presedent to get Buckley off - and that is irrespective of whether that is the morally right thing to do or not. We are not talking about murder charges here. Yes they are serious but Eddie has an absolute responsibility to do all he can to mitigate the penalty in so far as it will impact Colloingwoods on field performance. If I vote for him it is because I believe he does and will continue to do that.

Firstly, I disagree. It is the collingwood faithfull who keep denying that they believe Eddie runs the AFL.

Secondly, I agree in part. Get him off (as club pres) yes, but ensuring a fair hearing is not his job. He has commented about a tribunal hearing which I believe is against AFL regulations. This means he should be brought to order for his actions, and if he's not, then the AFL are **** weak and Eddie does really run the ****ing comp.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
...but ensuring a fair hearing is not his job.

The comment was ot meant to be literal in that a fair trial means not biased against Buckley. I actually think it's Eddie's job to try and get an unfair trial to the point where his player gets off - much like the lawyer of a guilty defendant in court.

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
He has commented about a tribunal hearing which I believe is against AFL regulations. This means he should be brought to order for his actions, and if he's not, then the AFL are **** weak and Eddie does really run the ****ing comp.

Firstly, the AFL and tribunal are weak and show it regularly IMO. Secondly, Eddie gets no favours from the AFL and neither do Collingwood. For every so called favour I could point to many more incidents where we have been stiffed. Thirdly, even ignoring the above, if Eddie could bluff the AFL anything like what Jack has done in the past, or demand the favours of the Swans or a few others I would be a very happy Collingwood supporter.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by MarkT

The comment was ot meant to be literal in that a fair trial means not biased against Buckley. I actually think it's Eddie's job to try and get an unfair trial to the point where his player gets off - much like the lawyer of a guilty defendant in court.

Firstly, the AFL and tribunal are weak and show it regularly IMO. Secondly, Eddie gets no favours from the AFL and neither do Collingwood. For every so called favour I could point to many more incidents where we have been stiffed. Thirdly, even ignoring the above, if Eddie could bluff the AFL anything like what Jack has done in the past, or demand the favours of the Swans or a few others I would be a very happy Collingwood supporter.

Still one point to query from your reply. Do you agree that Eddie has attempted to sway public opinion by commenting on an upcoming hearing, which is against AFL regulations and how would you resond if it was another president influencing a hearing against a collingwood player?

ps. sorry, that's more than one point

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
Do you agree that Eddie has attempted to sway public opinion by commenting on an upcoming hearing, which is against AFL regulations

To be honest I haven't heard Eddie on the incident. I did hear Buckley on Sunday say something about provocation though. If Eddie said something out of line when, say, interviewed as club President then he should be fined. If he said some durring, say, a call of a game, then it depends on what and how etc. I don't know what he said though.

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
how would you resond if it was another president influencing a hearing against a collingwood player?

I wouldn't be happy if another President tried to influence a hearing against a Collingwood player. If another Presedent tried to influence a hearing FOR his own player I would just think it was expected from a President. It is then up to the AFL to decide whether the boundaries have been overstepped.

It's all a joke anyway. Clubs get fined, the money goes back into the pool and is shared in the end back with the clubs. I would expect most clubs contribute and all get a dividend. Club fines are irrelevant IMO. As they are the mechanism for penalising what IMO amount to stupid rules, then you take what is dished out.

If anyone really thinks a club President or player can influnce a professional juror then they may as well give up on the whole system. It's all about public perception and has little to do with reality IMO. I would be mopre concerned about maintaining tribunal integrity and ensuring independance from the AFL myself.

 

[Jabsy]

Originally posted by scmods
The world has gone crazy!

I just read a post from a Collingwood fan, where he criticised BOTH Eddie and Nathan!

Nothing will ever be the same again.

The world truly has come full circle. Armageddon must be nigh.

(I hope that doesn't mean they'll win the flag...)