Opinion Rob Chapman

[*PAF]

May I ask who you're referring to when you say "us"? ...

Easy to answer. Re-read this thread and take note of who and how many posters believe what.

 

[*PAF]

I agree with you on this part, Demetriou's words are damaging to our club and he should be made to explain them or apologise, or both.

Part 2 is equally important.
"If not why not?"

 

[Bacon8]

I think the other thing is that Trigg knew about the deal for a while and did nothing/hoped it went away or Tiprat just stayed, it took Chapman to "self report" once we hit trade time.. That could be what they mean.. But Essendon "self reported" the moment they realised there was something maybe wrong.. That's not to say Essendon didn't know though, but that's how it seems to the AFL obviously

This isn't true, given a) Bruce Reid's letter b) Thompson telling them midway through last year to immediately stop the injection program and c) Hamilton leaving the club late last year.

 

[The Karma Bus]

This isn't true, given a) Bruce Reid's letter b) Thompson telling them midway through last year to immediately stop the injection program and c) Hamilton leaving the club late last year.

That's not my thoughts, that's what the AFL are running with though.. Which is further back up for them not smashing them on draft penalties.. Even though they wouldn't have anyway, I'm not sure what it would take to earn 3 years of picks taken away.. But it would be a ridiculous number and type of things, or some bad re-offending.. 2 years is the right amount to hurt but not destroy clubs and will be a pretty typical penalty..

Vlad wouldn't want to admit they wouldn't really give 3 year draft bans or he loses some "hand"

 

[Elder van Berlo]

As I've said before, I personally believe the AFL needed to use Trigg as a precedent for the Melbourne saga which was next cab off the rank. They had to find a way to hit Melbourne without killing the Club off entirely. By imposing a fine they would never have to pay (and couldn't in any case) and then throwing personal sanctions on the people involved, they were able to limit the damage to the Club. Had they ever sanctioned personnel in these salary cap things before? No. So there's no doubt in my mind here they had an ulterior motive to keep Trigg on.

Doesn't your theory, that they wanted to set a precedent of punishing individuals rather than clubs, support the suggestion that had Trigg walked or been pushed (as opposed to suspended), it might have led to lesser penalties for the club itself?

 

[fabs33]

Easy to answer. Re-read this thread and take note of who and how many posters believe what.

Seems to me that our supporters, as in Adelaide supporters, are equally distrustful of Demitriou and Chapman. That doesn't mean they agree entirely with your stance on the matter or your version of events, it's a possibility but nothing you can say for sure based on the comments made by Chapman, Demitriou or Fitzpatrick.

You could have also addressed the rest of my post, specifically these two questions;

"You're also overlooking the fact that Essendon and all their people have had a very defensive attitude during this whole saga, to the point that there was even a threat of legal action, is this cooperating fully?"

And; "Is conveniently having no paperwork relating to their activities for investigators to examine also cooperating fully?"

Demetriou said they cooperated fully, so how did they cooperate with the investigators more than we did? Are you suggesting that Demitriou said that which he did in regards to our failure to cooperate solely based on the timing of our "self reporting", I doubt that very much. I think you're giving Fitzpatrick's use of the word "after" far more importance than you should.

 

[Elder van Berlo]

The email replies were sent from his iPad, so my guess is he was stuck on a really tough Candy Crush level.

He took the opportunity to deal with some emails when he ran out of lives.

 

[fabs33]

Part 2 is equally important.
"If not why not?"

At this point I would settle for the truth, the pick can wait.

 

[headache1]

This isn't true, given a) Bruce Reid's letter b) Thompson telling them midway through last year to immediately stop the injection program and c) Hamilton leaving the club late last year.

d) James Hird being warned off of using peptides by the AFL before any of this even took place, but setting up a program to use them anyway.

 

[*PAF]

Seems to me that our supporters, as in Adelaide supporters, are equally distrustful of Demitriou and Chapman. That doesn't mean they agree entirely with your stance on the matter or your version of events, it's a possibility but nothing you can say for sure based on the comments made by Chapman, Demitriou or Fitzpatrick.
...

A) re read the thread as there are many similar posts, and
b) I have not said too much about my version of events but re-quoted the part you refuse to read in your own post, and
c) Quoted Andy D and Chapman directly from the 5aa interview.

...

You could have also addressed the rest of my post, specifically these two questions;

"You're also overlooking the fact that Essendon and all their people have had a very defensive attitude during this whole saga, to the point that there was even a threat of legal action, is this cooperating fully?"

And; "Is conveniently having no paperwork relating to their activities for investigators to examine also cooperating fully?"
...

This is not a thread about Essendon, hence no reply. If it was about Essendon there would have been no reply about Chapman.

...


Demetriou said they cooperated fully, so how did they cooperate with the investigators more than we did? Are you suggesting that Demitriou said that which he did in regards to our failure to cooperate solely based on the timing of our "self reporting", I doubt that very much. I think you're giving Fitzpatrick's use of the word "after" far more importance than you should.

Well if you want to ignore it then that is up to you. Once thing we have found out recently is that people in the AFL are very careful in the words they use and how they word things. After means after and has never meant before.

 

[amer]

The evidence has been provided in the reports / interviews.

You tell me where I'm wrong, as apparently you are of higher intellect & know better than those involved...

It has? What makes you think you know the integrity of any of what is going on?

You're positing things despite having no proximity to anything. If you're going to fall on the "evidence" and "interviews" provided, it logically follows that everything the AFL does holds up to the finest standards of diligence, fair process and transparency. You have gone on record as saying otherwise, many times.

If a "scientist" comes out and says I've done the research, and this that and the other are the case, does it make any of the things they have said unequivocally true? Kane, you're saying you know because someone else has said the same. NOT because you know.

You are not in any position to tell anyone what the facts are. The same goes for us all. Sam Newman made this point also.

 

[feenix67]

It has? What makes you think you know the integrity of any of what is going on?

You're positing things despite having no proximity to anything. If you're going to fall on the "evidence" and "interviews" provided, it logically follows that everything the AFL does holds up to the finest standards of diligence, fair process and transparency. You have gone on record as saying otherwise, many times.

If a "scientist" comes out and says I've done the research, and this that and the other are the case, does it make any of the things they have said unequivocally true? Kane, you're saying you know because someone else has said the same. NOT because you know.

You are not in any position to tell anyone what the facts are. The same goes for us all. Sam Newman made this point also.

Rubbish, there are plenty of facts that have been released and not disputed.

PS Sam Newman thinks this is all a beat up, so I'd be careful holding him up as your poster child for objective analysis.

 

[skoobydoo]

Doubtful since neither Chapman or Demetriou intimated as such. It's my opinion that Essendon's penalties were designed to hurt the club without doing the same to their team, so that in the future the league does not suffer in terms of revenue lost, after all Essendon is one of the higher drawing Victorian clubs. I think it far more likely that Demetriou was trying to justify the penalties handed down without letting on to the truth so he plucked out of his arse the first thing that came to mind, you will note the proximity of the two, and in the end was caught out.

Yes. Spot on. Demetriou is the clown in all this.

 

[skoobydoo]

I'm not sure, either the AFL rated what we did worse, or they realise the Crows don't really fight that hard so it would be easy to make a statement.

And we are an out-of-Vic Club. We will never be in the position of power that clubs like Essendon, Collingwood etc wield in standing up to the schoolyard bully.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

It has? What makes you think you know the integrity of any of what is going on?

You're positing things despite having no proximity to anything. If you're going to fall on the "evidence" and "interviews" provided, it logically follows that everything the AFL does holds up to the finest standards of diligence, fair process and transparency. You have gone on record as saying otherwise, many times.

If a "scientist" comes out and says I've done the research, and this that and the other are the case, does it make any of the things they have said unequivocally true? Kane, you're saying you know because someone else has said the same. NOT because you know.

You are not in any position to tell anyone what the facts are. The same goes for us all. Sam Newman made this point also.

You still haven't answered what specific fact I listed you dispute. Strange since you were so so strong in your opinion you know better.

There is clear evidence that Essendon paid of banned substances & others not yet passed fit for human consumption. There is clear evidence players signed consent forms to take these drugs. Dank has admitted to injecting Thysomisen-4, thinking wrongly it wasn't banned.

So you would prefer to ignore the evidence & go on the word of Sam Newman - someone who counts Dank as a personal friend - I'm sure he is objective in this!

You may as crawl back under your rock if you want to ignore all this evidence & take your opinion on someone who is not going to be objective.

 

[King Elvis]

Personally, I think 'Essendon's inability to keep records' is 'Essendon's refusal to produce records'. It's the most outrageous case of 'Dog ate my homework' ever. At least, in footy. Maybe not in the history of the universe.

I've got no doubt they know exactly what they used, but the truth of it is worse than appearing incompetent and disorganised.

 

[CrowAboutIt]

The way it sounds now is that everyone at Essendon co operated fully for the "internal review" and then they realised just how big the issue was.

Or when they knew they were busted.. After AD called them warning them

 

[King Elvis]

Or when they knew they were busted.. After AD called them warning them

Bingo.

Essendon self reported after they found out what Hird had been up to, despite being warned about it by the AFL/ASADA and having Reid and Bomber try and stop it.

We self-reported when we found at what Trigg had done (according to the narrative that both the Crows and the AFL have been happy to present).

So what's the difference?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

I've got no doubt they know exactly what they used, but the truth of it is worse than appearing incompetent and disorganised.

Hence the onus of proof should be on Essendon to disprove that they used these drugs that they paid for.

 

[FR0GGY]

You still haven't answered what specific fact I listed you dispute. Strange since you were so so strong in your opinion you know better.

There is clear evidence that Essendon paid of banned substances & others not yet passed fit for human consumption. There is clear evidence players signed consent forms to take these drugs. Dank has admitted to injecting Thysomisen-4, thinking wrongly it wasn't banned.

So you would prefer to ignore the evidence & go on the word of Sam Newman - someone who counts Dank as a personal friend - I'm sure he is objective in this!

You may as crawl back under your rock if you want to ignore all this evidence & take your opinion on someone who is not going to be objective.

Amer can hardly dispute anything (unless hes involves) after he's just slammed you for not knowing because your not involved. I guess none of us know anything

 

[*PAF]

Bingo.

Essendon self reported after they found out what Hird had been up to, despite being warned about it by the AFL/ASADA and having Reid and Bomber try and stop it.

We self-reported when we found at what Trigg had done (according to the narrative that both the Crows and the AFL have been happy to present).

So what's the difference?

Maybe the AFC was "not asked" to self report before that and they didn't?

 

[mattymac]

Chapman answered it. He said ALL of the sanctions were negotiated down - 50% less than the starting point. Fair to assume then that there were additional years of draft picks reduced with negotiation, not added.

Yeah nah that was obvious bullshit though wasn't it. No one believes they were going to take 4 years of picks off us. Chapman covering his arse with pork pies.

 

[fabs33]

A) re read the thread as there are many similar posts

And how many of those posts agree with you that there is a difference between Adelaide and Essendon in terms of self reporting?

b) I have not said too much about my version of events but re-quoted the part you refuse to read in your own post, and
c) Quoted Andy D and Chapman directly from the 5aa interview.

I know what I wrote and continue to believe that there is a huge discrepancy between the attitudes and statements made by people from the AFL after our hearing with the comments made by Demetriou in his most recent interview on 5AA. Here are some examples from the day the commission convened with our club and it's staff:

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/crows-lose-picks,-tippett-banned-211573

Anderson and the AFL said they had encouraged Adelaide to relinquish their first and second picks in the 2012 National Draft, which the club honoured, a gesture that was duly considered in the investigation.

"The club has previously an unblemished record. The AFL commission also noted the club had elected to forfeit its first two selections at the recent NAB AFL Draft in advance of these hearings"

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/crows-lose-picks,-tippett-banned-211573

I call that cooperation. But does that sound like the same attitude Demetriou expressed yesterday when he said the following:

http://www.fiveaa.com.au/article_essendon-co-operated-crows-didn-t-says-andrew-demetriou_115430

“This club (Essendon), unlike the Crows, cooperated fully”

“They actually self reported. From the chairman through to the coaching staff through to every player… every individual in that club cooperated fully and openly with ASADA and the AFL in the investigation."

“That carries weight in sanctioning and I’ve got to tell you when we dealt with Adelaide that didn’t happen.”

http://www.fiveaa.com.au/article_essendon-co-operated-crows-didn-t-says-andrew-demetriou_115430

Perhaps he thought we were a bunch no good Machiavellian fiends when stated this:

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/crows-lose-picks,-tippett-banned-211573

"I have enormous trust in the chairman of this football club in Rob Chapman, who picked up the phone and rang me when he first heard about it and we have no reason to believe their board didn't act admirably."

http://www.sportal.com.au/afl/news/crows-lose-picks,-tippett-banned-211573

I wonder what happened between now and then for him to think so differently about us...

This is not a thread about Essendon, hence no reply. If it was about Essendon there would have been no reply about Chapman.

Au contraire, this is very much about Essendon, haven't you noticed all the discussion comparing the two cases?

Well if you want to ignore it then that is up to you. Once thing we have found out recently is that people in the AFL are very careful in the words they use and how they word things. After means after and has never meant before.

Perhaps you shouldn't ignore the fact that somehow Essendon are able to "cooperate fully", to use Demetriou's words, when they have threatened legal action and denied investigators access to any documentation pertaining to what was given and to whom it was given. If you're keen to keep comparing both clubs levels of cooperation then perhaps you should extend your comparison beyond when each club reported itself to include their cooperation through all phases of both enquiries, since Demetriou's comments did the same.

 

[*PAF]

And how many of those posts agree with you that there is a difference between Adelaide and Essendon in terms of self reporting?

...

Who gives a flying fig about Essendon in this thread?
Andy made it quite clear that Adelaide were not helpful until after the "Investigative process" started and Chapman said otherwise.
You misquoted Fitzy in post #24 to supposedly prove that Chapman is a good fella and Vlad a lying prick. That is what my original post was about, your misquote.
Now you're going off on all sorts of 12 year old tangents.

 

[mattymac]

Sack him. Vlad doesn't respect him and walks all over us. We need someone who will openly stand up in the public forum for the best interests of the club. None of this allegedly being a hero behind closed doors crap.

Poort reportedly getting the first showdown at the crowval now. Our club gets no nice things under these muppets.