VB (inc. achilles injury discussion)

[Sanders]

I don't think you're really reading my posts. I'm not saying that being deliberately misleading is "okay", nor am I arguing in favour of spin.

I'm saying that it happens. Clubs will generally view being misleading as an acceptable (or more to the point, something they can reasonably explain away if challenged), whereas bluntly lying is not.

I'm not saying I agree with them, or that I appreciate that practice. Just that it happens.

OK but without an opinion on the practice it doesn't seem reasonable to me to say "it happens". We know it happens, that's not in dispute. it happened here.

That the club considers it acceptable is the bone of contention.

 

[cmndstab]

OK but without an opinion on the practice it doesn't seem reasonable to me to say "it happens". We know it happens, that's not in dispute. it happened here.

That the club considers it acceptable is the bone of contention.

No, it is in dispute. We have posters in this very thread coming up with all manner of absurd theories for why the club might have "told a white lie" here, because they can't accept the idea that the club might simply err on the boundary of reality for the sake of making a bad story sound a bit better.

Your bone of contention might be with the club doing it, but I wasn't responding to you. I don't like that they do it either, although I do accept that it's something that all clubs are equally bad with.

 

[Sanders]

No, it is in dispute. We have posters in this very thread coming up with all manner of absurd theories for why the club might have "told a white lie" here, because they can't accept the idea that the club might simply err on the boundary of reality for the sake of making a bad story sound a bit better.

Your bone of contention might be with the club doing it, but I wasn't responding to you. I don't like that they do it either, although I do accept that it's something that all clubs are equally bad with.

Maybe its me, but I can't see the consistency in your position.

You say it happens, but don't think it happened here and if it did you don't like it but accept it because its just how things are done.

When you accept things that you don't agree with, because it happens then that is the equivalent of being ok with it in the first place. I.e. You don't really see a problem.

others are more troubled and think a lessening of credibility and truthfulness in communications undermines the club/fan relationship.

White lies are still lies. Half truths are not true. Deliberately misleading is conspiring to promote a false picture - that's not an honest action

But anyway, I think we understand each other's position.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

Would be worth having options in case injuries need covering though...

True

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I know basketball is all up and down sprinting but how long is the court, a quarter of an AFL oval? Those giants take fifteen strides and they have crossed it.

My own personal opinion is that Adelaide couldn't afford to run a non-matchfit player, returning from serious injury, in finals and with capped rotations.

I don't know if there is something in the water (HGH) in the US but they seem to recover from their surgery far faster than AFL players do.

Basketball is all about having exceptional explosion and acceleration and that comes from your feet, ankles and your Achilles' tendon - very much like a midfielder trying to break away from a stoppage. They need that explosive pace and acceleration at stoppages as it's such a confinded space.

Did the injury occur on his kicking foot?

 

[cmndstab]

Maybe its me, but I can't see the consistency in your position.

You say it happens, but don't think it happened here and if it did you don't like it but accept it because its just how things are done.

When you accept things that you don't agree with, because it happens then that is the equivalent of being ok with it in the first place. I.e. You don't really see a problem.

others are more troubled and think a lessening of credibility and truthfulness in communications undermines the club/fan relationship.

White lies are still lies. Half truths are not true. Deliberately misleading is conspiring to promote a false picture - that's not an honest action

But anyway, I think we understand each other's position.

I really don't think we do, since you have stated my position to be something different than it actually is.

First of all, I do think it happened here. I think the club deliberately reported the injury recovery time at the bottom end of the scale in order to make the press release less damaging to them. I think it's extremely common (would happen more often than not).

I am aware of the concept that even being a little dishonest is still being dishonest. However, from a club perspective, they're mostly interested in whether they can defend their statements if challenged. If somebody calls them to task over the three month line, they can say "well, the doctor said at least three months, and VB is a good trainer so, you know, we just thought that..." whereas if they told us four weeks, there would be no defending it.

Again, I'm not saying it's right, just that it happens. Your statement that this means I somehow approve of it (or am "okay with it") is something I don't even begin to understand. It's completely possible to be aware that something is common, and even understanding why it is common, while still being opposed to it.

 

[Taylor]

I really don't think we do, since you have stated my position to be something different than it actually is.

First of all, I do think it happened here. I think the club deliberately reported the injury recovery time at the bottom end of the scale in order to make the press release less damaging to them. I think it's extremely common (would happen more often than not).

I am aware of the concept that even being a little dishonest is still being dishonest. However, from a club perspective, they're mostly interested in whether they can defend their statements if challenged. If somebody calls them to task over the three month line, they can say "well, the doctor said at least three months, and VB is a good trainer so, you know, we just thought that..." whereas if they told us four weeks, there would be no defending it.

Again, I'm not saying it's right, just that it happens. Your statement that this means I somehow approve of it (or am "okay with it") is something I don't even begin to understand. It's completely possible to be aware that something is common, and even understanding why it is common, while still being opposed to it.

I remember reports coming out that Barlow could be healed up and fit by grand final week if Fremantle made it after his leg break, it took a year, well really two years before he recovered. They took the best case and worked from there.

 

[dylan123]

I think the club deliberately reported the injury recovery time at the bottom end of the scale in order to make the press release less damaging to them. I think it's extremely common (would happen more often than not).

Potential short term gain for a long term loss when clubs do that, especially if it's a big named player. Walker for example they've tried to keep the cork on any return dates (well other than Sando recently) to remove any pressure the player might gain after the x period of time that was given and the player hasn't returned.

Derrick Rose is a big one who said himself that he'd like to be back before playoffs last year for memory, thus, all the Bulls fans were expecting him back before then/for the playoffs. He copped a lot of heat/abuse from many parties when he didn't return in that time frame.

I personally would rather the club give a longer period of how long the player is going to be out for then shorter. Whilst it will hurt at first, it will remove any pressure the player might get to return by that date later on in the period, at we can then say they're ahead of schedule if they do look like returning earlier then the first prediction.

Oh well, here's hoping for a speedy recovery.

 

[cmndstab]

I personally would rather the club give a longer period of how long the player is going to be out for then shorter. Whilst it will hurt at first, it will remove any pressure the player might get to return by that date later on in the period, at we can then say they're ahead of schedule if they do look like returning earlier then the first prediction.

The problem with that approach, from a club perspective, is that by the time that people are pleasantly surprised by a quicker-than-reported return, it's too late for them to be purchasing memberships, or whatever. Whereas the other way around, if people are unpleasantly surprised in round 12 they're unlikely to cancel their memberships or return their merchandise or whatever. And by that stage they'll be emotionally invested in the team's performance even despite the surprise.


Not that I think VB's inclusion or otherwise would make a significant different to our attendance or membership numbers, mind you, but that's another issue.

 

[1970crow]

I really don't think we do, since you have stated my position to be something different than it actually is.

First of all, I do think it happened here. I think the club deliberately reported the injury recovery time at the bottom end of the scale in order to make the press release less damaging to them. I think it's extremely common (would happen more often than not).

I am aware of the concept that even being a little dishonest is still being dishonest. However, from a club perspective, they're mostly interested in whether they can defend their statements if challenged. If somebody calls them to task over the three month line, they can say "well, the doctor said at least three months, and VB is a good trainer so, you know, we just thought that..." whereas if they told us four weeks, there would be no defending it.

Again, I'm not saying it's right, just that it happens. Your statement that this means I somehow approve of it (or am "okay with it") is something I don't even begin to understand. It's completely possible to be aware that something is common, and even understanding why it is common, while still being opposed to it.

this is the bit that i can't agree with and is probably where the 2 views come apart. i don't think the club reported at the bottom end of the scale at all. i think they reported it at 3 months short of the bottom end of the scale. he's out for at least 6 months. they stated at least 3 months with full knowledge that he won't be playing within 6. they might as well have said 1 month. it's not a lot less accurate than 3. it's a lie. they lied. end of story.

 

[bigtexan]

Has it been reported how it actually happened yet?
Just a guess but i think someone has accidently towed their sled into vb.
Cant see how the sled you are towing can hit yourself in the ankle.
I could be wrong but doesnt make sense to me

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Has it been reported how it actually happened yet?
Just a guess but i think someone has accidently towed their sled into vb.
Cant see how the sled you are towing can hit yourself in the ankle.
I could be wrong but doesnt make sense to me

That's my thinking - it's not like the sled weights can be sling shot back into yourself.

 

[cmndstab]

this is the bit that i can't agree with and is probably where the 2 views come apart. i don't think the club reported at the bottom end of the scale at all. i think they reported it at 3 months short of the bottom end of the scale. he's out for at least 6 months. they stated at least 3 months with full knowledge that he won't be playing within 6. they might as well have said 1 month. it's not a lot less accurate than 3. it's a lie. they lied. end of story.

Well, I'm not convinced that's the case. I don't have any medical training, of course, but I can believe the doctor told them that 3 months was the earliest reasonable time to expect him back training.

I don't know, of course. I could be wrong.

 

[Allefgib]

Stabby - I believe that you believe they reported at 3 months to 'lessen the blow' to the supporters in the hope to keep optimism high to minimise impact to things like the sales of memberships. That seems 'reasonably' clear from your posts - but please clarify if that is not the case and be clear on what you do believe.

I believe that too. What I don't like is that the club in doing that is either:
a) treating supporters like children; or
b) going to be burnt by those types of decisions down the line. if you don't believe that - look at the conversation we are having...
c) both, although I personally think they get away with alot of a) anyway, and that's why they go down that path.

Is there anything in the above you disagree with? Because i get the impression that's pretty much Sanders view.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

They chose a time frame that they thought was believable and at the same time wouldn't place scrutiny on the captaincy.

Nothing to do with what any doc said. It was just more bs spin. Let us down gently and find out the bad news later when we are distracted by something else.

Off topic - after a win is the perfect time to deliver unpleasant news.

 

[cmndstab]

Stabby - I believe that you believe they reported at 3 months to 'lessen the blow' to the supporters in the hope to keep optimism high to minimise impact to things like the sales of memberships. That seems 'reasonably' clear from your posts - but please clarify if that is not the case and be clear on what you do believe.

I believe that too. What I don't like is that the club in doing that is either:
a) treating supporters like children; or
b) going to be burnt by those types of decisions down the line. if you don't believe that - look at the conversation we are having...
c) both, although I personally think they get away with alot of a) anyway, and that's why they go down that path.

Is there anything in the above you disagree with? Because i get the impression that's pretty much Sanders view.

Pretty much, yeah. I'm not sure I view it as "treating supporters like children", if only because it's become so commonplace that it happens in all walks of life to adults. But yes, this is pretty much how I feel.

 

[1970crow]

Well, I'm not convinced that's the case. I don't have any medical training, of course, but I can believe the doctor told them that 3 months was the earliest reasonable time to expect him back training.

I don't know, of course. I could be wrong.

well you do know that if you haven't been training for 3 months after an operation then you're sure as shit not turning up and getting a game the first weekend after you're cleared to START training. i'd hazard a guess that you'd have to delve deep into the ammo divisions before that would happen. it certainly isn't going to be happening at the elite level or anything vaguely resembling competitive football.

 

[1970crow]

Has it been reported how it actually happened yet?
Just a guess but i think someone has accidently towed their sled into vb.
Cant see how the sled you are towing can hit yourself in the ankle.
I could be wrong but doesnt make sense to me

there has to be something else to it and if it hasn't come out in an official manner yet, then it probably won't. if there's any performance gain from towing them in the first place, then you would think that they're not just going to continue with their previous velocity in the event that a band snaps. if they're just going to scoot along the ground without any external influence we'd put a handle on them and use them as a means of transport.

 

[MRB37]

They chose a time frame that they thought was believable and at the same time wouldn't place scrutiny on the captaincy.

Nothing to do with what any doc said. It was just more bs spin. Let us down gently and find out the bad news later when we are distracted by something else.

Off topic - after a win is the perfect time to deliver unpleasant news.

It's one thing to do that initially, but they've just put up another article saying they still expect VB back for the 2014 and to be completing full training drills in 6 months. I'm not sure why they have such blind optimism, but they seem to have taken a "can't report any bad news" type approach to the situation.

 

[cmndstab]

well you do know that if you haven't been training for 3 months after an operation then you're sure as shit not turning up and getting a game the first weekend after you're cleared to START training. i'd hazard a guess that you'd have to delve deep into the ammo divisions before that would happen. it certainly isn't going to be happening at the elite level or anything vaguely resembling competitive football.

Did they say he'd be back playing in three months? I thought they said he would be "back" in three months, which means back to training.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

It's one thing to do that initially, but they've just put up another article saying they still expect VB back for the 2014 and to be completing full training drills in 6 months. I'm not sure why they have such blind optimism, but they seem to have taken a "can't report any bad news" type approach to the situation.

That would be just to justify making an interim captain appointment

 

[1970crow]

Did they say he'd be back playing in three months? I thought they said he would be "back" in three months, which means back to training.

So that is your interpretation of at least 3 months. Good for you. My interpretation is that if the club suggests at least 3 months then we could reasonably expect a return to afl at 3months plus 1day. Obviously you have attained a higher consciousness and have managed to read between the krap and have managed to be on the same page as as the afc. Again, good for you. Vb won't be afl ready for 12 months. Fact.

 

[Elite Crow]

Back in 3 months implies playing again, it's not like they said tex would be back in 6 months, ie training again, they always refer to knees as a 12 month injury, which refers to playing again.

Personally I don't think the clubs initials comments were to spin it, I reckon they panicked and got a statement out too early without thinking it through. More amateur hour than sinister.

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

The way he did the injury is so strange - an actual cutting of the tendon rather than snapping it while running/jumping.

What does that mean from a medical perspective?

Is it better that it is a 'clean' cut rather than a 'shredding' of the tendon? Or is it worse? No different?

 

[Vader]

I think you're all jumping at shadows, particularly Carl with his well loved tin foil hat conspiracy theories. Cmndstab is no closer to the mark by attempting to link it to membership sales. The truth is almost certainly far more mundane.

The club stated that the recovery period would be "at least" 3 months. Note that they didn't give a precise time frame, just a lower bound.

Subsequent media releases have stated that he will be in a moon boot for 3 months. After that he will commence weight bearing exercises, eventually leading to a return to full training and playing duties. I doubt anyone - not VB, the surgeon or the club doctor - would be able to make an accurate guess as to how long this will take. You might as well ask "how long is a piece of string? ".

We know that VB is meticulous in the way he prepares himself. I have no doubt that he will take the same approach to his rehabilitation. He also has a massive fitness base, so regaining fitness should be less of a concern for him than other players. For these reasons the club is probably hoping & expecting that he will be back quicker than most players suffering a similar injury.

They know he won't be available while he's in the moon boot, but after that it's all guess work, hence "at least 3 months".