Now LAMBOSE definitely in hot water!

[WhiteLionFeva]

That's the thing WLF, it is an agreed reduced penalty. The penalty, had they gone through the whole process could have been 4 years. Allen could have gotten 4 and Lambert 3, or even 2. I think both would be happy with 1. Receiving the same in this circumstance means nothing as they are both way less than the alternative. I think you're missing this point. When you get a reduced penalty, it doesn't matter a great deal what it is reduced from.
They didn't go through the full process to determine the full extent of involvement/guilty/culpability. That's the point.

Lets agree to give it up. We don't agree.

 

[MacMum]

Essendon fans thought Hird was mislead and carried the can for others too.

Let's not be Essendon fans.

I've never been one for blind support...if that was the case, I would've been supporting Rockliff come what may, among all the talk of his off field behavior ... I make up my own mind and form my own opinion as I see things. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.

Reading that statement just didn't sit well with me in this instance..

....and as I said, there may be more to it, quite possibly is, but one can only go on what is presented.

 

[MSB ROYS]

Don't care, just want us to win games.

 

[Hollow Knight]

I've never been one for blind support...if that was the case, I would've been supporting Rockliff come what may, among all the talk of his off field behavior ... I make up my own mind and form my own opinion as I see things. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.

Reading that statement just didn't sit well with me in this instance..

....and as I said, there may be more to it, quite possibly is, but one can only go on what is presented.

Which is why negotiated statements are a thing.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Don't care, just want us to win games.

At the very least turn up to games thinking we have a real chance. And have a reasonable number of fellow supporters around me.

 

[jjami15]

Don't care, just want us to win games.

Kind of agree, Lambert has got his 'whack' for it. Let's all move on to the bigger picture stuff. I'm certain the club will in the meantime ensure that our welfare department is up and running prior to the draft.

 

[Fatcat08]

Hard to see GWS not getting a whack here too. Just don't think that the AFL could get away with not handing them some punishment after the Essendon incident. At the end of the day people who work for the club are representatives of the club and the fact that they didn't notify other club officials doesn't give the club an out IMO, just like it didn't in the Essendon case. Will be interesting to see what those sanctions are.

 

[Schraderbrau]

Guilt and culpability are different concepts as I'm sure you know. There is no finding of guilt. And I accept that there has been plea bargaining. But the fact remains they have arrived at the same penalty for each and it is reasonable to assume from this that the AFL (and presumably ASADA who are all over this) think they merit the same penalty (i.e. have similar culpability).

The AFL's thought process behind the penalty is basically this imo - "What is the smallest penalty we can give them (so as to encourage them to accept it/keep out of court/protect the AFL brand) without ASADA cracking the shits".

The actual culpability was probably a secondary consideration imo.

 

[Gadzorks]

Hmm. Gubby Allen strikes me as being as shifty as a sh.....se rat! "Allen advised...." Why didn't Whitfield stay at his house?

...imo he would've been pulling the strings. Lambert seems to be a trusting soul, so would go along with things.

There must be stuff we haven't heard about, because it really seems like a storm in a teacup to me tbh...

If lambert is that much of a yes man on this big issue he wouldn't be good at representing the players to management on other issues. my take is he was part of the decision making, and not just taking gubby's orders.

 

[Schraderbrau]

That's the only one that seeks to differentiate them. All the other conduct is described in terms of their shared involvement and I would think deliberately so. Pretty hard to read it any other way than that they were seen as equally responsible. Put another way, if one was seen as less culpable than the other, he'd be entitled to feel aggrieved to receive the same penalty.

The power differentiation between Gubby and Lambert is a pretty significant distinction though. If Lambert keeps his job then it will probably be that fact that he was acting under orders whereas Gubby's position at the pies is untenable because he was the guy directing things and so he's gone.

The AFL is not transparent at all on this stuff. What Brisbane decide to do with Lambert will be a better reflection on his conduct imo

 

[irel]

I've never been one for blind support...if that was the case, I would've been supporting Rockliff come what may, among all the talk of his off field behavior ... I make up my own mind and form my own opinion as I see things. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong.

Reading that statement just didn't sit well with me in this instance..

....and as I said, there may be more to it, quite possibly is, but one can only go on what is presented.

This whole statement is shot down with one word. "Akermanis"

 

[M Malice]

The AFL's thought process behind the penalty is basically this imo - "What is the smallest penalty we can give them (so as to encourage them to accept it/keep out of court/protect the AFL brand) without ASADA cracking the shits".

The actual culpability was probably a secondary consideration imo.

agree, fairness or the appropriateness of the penalty whether too harsh or too lenient would have bugger all to do with it. 100% perception generated punishment IMO.

 

[MacMum]

This whole statement is shot down with one word. "Akermanis"

No, I just didn't blindly follow those criticising him, but that is your opinion......mine was to support him when you others were condemning him. That is me forming my own opinion against the flow.

...and I'm not blind to him, I know he can sometimes say the wrong things....but he can also be right, imo, on a lot of things. He has also mellowed too as he's got older, as we all do.

 

[irel]

No, I just didn't blindly follow those criticising him, but that is your opinion......mine was to support him when you others were condemning him. That is me forming my own opinion against the flow.

...and I'm not blind to him, I know he can sometimes say the wrong things....but he can also be right, imo, on a lot of things. He has also mellowed too as he's got older, as we all do.

OK

 

[SRH17]

No, I just didn't blindly follow those criticising him, but that is your opinion......mine was to support him when you others were condemning him. That is me forming my own opinion against the flow.

...and I'm not blind to him, I know he can sometimes say the wrong things....but he can also be right, imo, on a lot of things. He has also mellowed too as he's got older, as we all do.

Absolutely right MM.
I met him at a GF lunch in Brisbane this year and the public Aker is a whole lot different to the non public Aker.
In fact he is a deep thinker about the game and has views which make a whole lot of sense.

 

[Cooties]

No, I just didn't blindly follow those criticising him

That sort of thinking doesn't belong on Bigfooty!

 

[carnthemlions]

Allen and Lambert should have known better, simple as that. As far as sanctions go, I would be harder on whoever made up the story that the player in question was hiding from his girlfriend or trying to break up with her or whatever the nonsense story was. Given their expertise, I imagine they will both be back in the 'football industry' after their bans. This is a business and people have short memories or are prepared to put premierships and profits before all else.

Lambert's involvement (hard to imagine that he wasn't) in that aspect of it means he has to go, as far as I'm concerned. Own your mistake. The least he could do is follow Gubby's lead at this point.

 

[3KZ is Football]

Lambert's involvement (hard to imagine that he wasn't) in that aspect of it means he has to go, as far as I'm concerned. Own your mistake. The least he could do is follow Gubby's lead at this point.

I agree, but I suspect he will spend some time out of the game and then be back.

 

[brizrider]

Have the club made any oficial comment about this? I haven't seen anything...

 

[jackess]

Have the club made any oficial comment about this? I haven't seen anything...

They were going to have a board meeting about it according to the couriermail. Not sure if this has happened yet.

 

[Football Pope]

There was an article which stated Lambert did not report it to the club as he believed the matter to be closed after a GWS sanctioned investigation. Fair enough to I guess.

Depends if Mathew Francis reported the matter back to the club....

Lions, Football Manager Matthew Francis, was aware of Lambert’s involvement because he sat in on the Lambert interview with AFL investigators

.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...e/news-story/c834376dfc282ab354ed54c8eb97c728

 

[TreyHK]

The club is trying to get off to a fresh start with new off field leadership. They have made it clear that they expect more from the leadership within the playing group. Given this, why would the club keep Lambert on following his suspension? He's contracted to do a role that he now can't do for 12 months. I don't really care whether he was acting under instructions or not, his suspension is directly related to his player welfare role and if the club is serious about leadership they should terminate his employment. There have been comments on here from people saying that they don't care and that they just want to win games. Our recent history shows that poor on field results have been aligned with a lack of strong leadership at the club.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bato]

Brisbane Lions slam AFL for failing to warm them before Craig Lambert appointment

LIONS chairman Bob Sharpless has criticised the AFL for failing to warn them they could be inheriting a problem when they hired welfare boss Craig Lambert.

Lambert last week accepted a 12-month ban from the AFL for his role in the Lachie Whitfield drug case.

On Monday, ASADA confirmed it was satisfied with the suspensions handed to Lambert, Graeme Allan and Whitfield.

At the time Lambert switched from GWS to return to the Lions, the AFL was investigating allegations he hid Whitfield at his home for three days to avoid a potential drug test.

Welfare is a critical part of the club’s operations and the Lions say they will have to replace Lambert.

They are in the position of having to find another role for Lambert when his ban ends, or with the difficult task of having to find a suitably qualified professional who is prepared to take-on the welfare role for just one year.

Lions football manager David Noble has identified a candidate he wants to fill the role but the club must now work through what happens with Lambert.

The Lions also need to know how Lambert’s wife Melissa can fulfil her club welfare role if he can have no contact with players.

While Collingwood were made aware of the investigation when they hired Allan, who has since resigned, the Lions were kept in the dark when they appointed Lambert.

“It’s a complicated situation, Craig and Melissa have been with us for a year and have done a good job,’’ he said.

“My major disappointment is that we are in this situation. GWS had a level of knowledge, the AFL had a level of knowledge but we didn’t.

“At the end of the day from the checks we did there was nothing that would have caused us any worries.’’

 

[Sherrinator]

Brisbane Lions slam AFL for failing to warm them before Craig Lambert appointment

Maybe we should have done our due-diligence and not just gone in half-cocked.

 

[CarterS]

Doesn't seem equitable if Pies were told and we weren't. Legit question to answer.