Baker wasn't briefed properly that Report system is amateuri

[Megamaguire]

Listening to G.T. on the radio this evening i have to concur that Bakes wasn't briefed correctly in the sense that him being 'TOO' honest in admiting that he was trying to block farmer's run was used by the afl to use his defence against him and gave them a chance to scapegoat Bakes and make an example of a player to warn the rest of the finals playing teams to keep their noses clean come september.

Apparently if Bakes had claimed in actuality he didn't know exactly what happened regarding farmer's contact to the back of his head the onus of proving Bakes had done wrong would have been solely with the afl. Without adequet video coverage demetriou would have been more in the firing line for not providing cameras in working order by the afl. Instead he yaps on about the need for 100 cameras (yea right)!

Instead Bakes is scapegoated when decent afl camera coverage would have cleared him.

This reminds me of the Tassie SIREN gate stuff up and the crap Saint Kilda had to go through . In both cases the afl decide to interpret the rules as suits them at Saint Kilda's expense.

This decision against Baker is COMPLETELY LAUGHABLE.

THROW OUT LOGIC AND MAKE BAKER AN EXAMPLE.

HEY, when are the afl going to admit a duty of care and FIX the dangerous high impact surface that the they are happy to accept at the Dome but the players association are far from happy with?

If we were talking about another club rather than Saint Kilda i'm betting the lack of video coverage would have trumped any decision.

When you see cousins out there think of a reason why Bakes shouldn't be and i'll send it to dementiaretriou.

Come on Sainters sink another interstater mob tonight and give dementiatriou more heartburn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Flatten em Sainters!
Chin up Bakes i love ya.

[Mr X from the West]

Look - we were stitched up. End of story.

If it was Buckley, Harvey or Hird or some other "champion" of the game then there would have been no suspension. But the AFL took this opportunity to make an example of Baker (a "non-champion" in their eyes) because it involved "head high" contact which they are trying to stamp out (essential, in their polluted minds, to enhance our competitive position relative to other sports).

It's all about money. Baker and StKilda FC were collateral damage.

They will, of course, deny the above. But it's fact.

[Megamaguire]

Don't play ball with afl jerks - it'll come back to bite us bad. I think the afl will only respect our club when we fight harder against their bulls***.

I also believe the club and players need a much more sophisticated approach to tackling tribunal threats to our teams hopes for september glory. If the club don't get on top of this expect it to keep happening. Without video evidence collingwood would have had eddie declaring war on the afl.

G o S A I N T E R S !

[Behind Play]

From what I am hearing on SEN, don't blame the tribunal, we need to blame the club.

Can this bloody club get anything right?

[Mr X from the West]

From what I am hearing on SEN, don't blame the tribunal, we need to blame the club.

Can this bloody club get anything right?

Nothing the Club can do if you're stitched up.

[Behind Play]

From what I am hearing on SEN, don't blame the tribunal, we need to blame the club.

Can this bloody club get anything right?

Nothing the Club can do if you're stitched up.

Make sure Baker was worded up properly, as any solicitor would do with a witness.........then we wouldn't have been stitched up.

Like I said, can we do anything right?

[SteveStevens66]

SEN just played a clip of RB's luncheon address.

It was pathetic and Eddie said, "Listening to that, you'd think the President thinks the tribunal got it right." FFS