Baker's case is underway - discussion

matrix · Post: # 439559Post **matrix** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:29pm

PurpleJesus wrote: Bumping/striking someone when they can't see it coming is no excuse IMO, if anything that just makes it worse, like hitting someone from behind.

errr that would be the same thing......
if u cant see it coming then u cant see it coming.
if u get hit from behind u cant see it coming.

not like seeing it coming, especially when its right in front of u.
if farmers too stupid to see whats in front of his face then he is not a very smart footy player is he?
plus his story changed, so it just goes to show you he just aint honest

saintsRrising · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:34pm

PurpleJesus wrote:

Right, so anything that you don't agree with immediately consitutes lying?

That's an interesting definition of the word.

What has immdiate got to do with it.

In each case I have mentioned the actual FACTS show that the people named were liers.

ie the Freo Trainer....photographic evidence PROOVED he lied.

Harvey just maded up that M Voss refused to testify because his brother plays for the saints. a complete fabrication.

Farmer initillay stated that he had no memory....then changes it to say that Baker was in front of him. EVERY other witness says that Bakers was in front.

All LIERS...and immediate has nothing to do with it.

In your case you are either STUPID ora Lier about the game tape.....as you can clearly hera that Voss's first staement is that he did not see it.

so are you a lier...or just too stupid to wind your tape back far enough???

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:35pm

matrixcutter wrote:not like seeing it coming, especially when its right in front of u.
if farmers too stupid to see whats in front of his face then he is not a very smart footy player is he?
plus his story changed, so it just goes to show you he just aint honest

If you run up to me and when you get within a meter, I jump in front of you, would you be able to avoid running into me? If you can't, does that make you stupid?

Plus Farmer has concussion, I'm surprised he remembers anything. He's not going out of his way to get Baker suspended, what does he or Freo gain from that? He's simply saying what he can remember, if that memory is hazy then it's hardly shocking.

eppo67 · Post: # 439580Post **eppo67** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:36pm

Spot on Maxi put it this way in simple legal terms.

If the car in front of you suddenly stops and you cannon into it guess what you are guilty of careless driving.

Why? Because you should be travelling at such a distance that you should be able to stop if you have to.

Post: # 439584Post **n1ck** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:38pm

PurpleJesus wrote:
matrixcutter wrote:not like seeing it coming, especially when its right in front of u.
if farmers too stupid to see whats in front of his face then he is not a very smart footy player is he?
plus his story changed, so it just goes to show you he just aint honest
If you run up to me and when you get within a meter, I jump in front of you, would you be able to avoid running into me? If you can't, does that make you stupid?

Plus Farmer has concussion, I'm surprised he remembers anything. He's not going out of his way to get Baker suspended, what does he or Freo gain from that? He's simply saying what he can remember, if that memory is hazy then it's hardly shocking.

If farmer cant remember what happened, he shouldnt be testifying at the hearing, should he!?

But, instead, he claims for days he cant remember, then as soon as it goes to the Tribunal - all of a sudden he remembers?

Not only that, but remembers WRONG!

Sorry, am I missing something here?

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:44pm

saintsRrising wrote:In each case I have mentioned the actual FACTS show that the people named were liers.

ie the Freo Trainer....photographic evidence PROOVED he lied.

Where is this "photographic evidence"? Isn't that why the tribunal relied on witness statements, because there was no video or photos of the incident?

Harvey just maded up that M Voss refused to testify because his brother plays for the saints. a complete fabrication.

Harvey was asked for his opinion on why Voss wasn't called as a tribunal witness and he said he thought it was because Brett plays for the Saints. That's his OPINION, he's entitled to think whatever he likes, you can't say he's a liar because he gave his opinion.

Farmer initillay stated that he had no memory....then changes it to say that Baker was in front of him. EVERY other witness says that Bakers was in front.

He has a concussion. Are you surprised his memory is hazy?

All LIERS...and immediate has nothing to do with it.

In your case you are either STUPID ora Lier about the game tape.....as you can clearly hera that Voss's first staement is that he did not see it.

so are you a lier...or just too stupid to wind your tape back far enough???

Wait, so because a bunch of other Saints supporters say something that contradicts what I said, that automatically makes ME the liar? There's not the slightest possibility that I'm right and they're wrong, or do you always take the words of your fellow Saints supporters on blind faith?

matrix · Post: # 439603Post **matrix** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:45pm

i dont know jesus, but if i do run into u its my fault isnt it.......

a player can run where he likes and stop where he likes.....

so lets say that baker does exactly the same thing yet he is knocked over, and has to come from the ground?......
who is at fault?.
is it in the back, or a suspension?

baker got four weeks for rough conduct on evidence from 'witnesses'.......so we might as well scrap all tribunal decisions that rely on cameras huh?

Post: # 439605Post **n1ck** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:45pm

PurpleJesus wrote: Where is this "photographic evidence"? Isn't that why the tribunal relied on witness statements, because there was no video or photos of the incident?

The photos were reported having been used in the hearing last night numerous times, to prove that the ball wasnt where Kirkwood or Farmer said.

Maybe you should watch the news?

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:46pm

eppo67 wrote:Spot on Maxi put it this way in simple legal terms.

If the car in front of you suddenly stops and you cannon into it guess what you are guilty of careless driving.

Why? Because you should be travelling at such a distance that you should be able to stop if you have to.

Except if you're driving in one lane and a driver in the lane next to you pulls in front of you, with less than 1m of space, and you run into them, that's their fault.

Read the articles about it, Baker wasn't running in front of Farmer, he was next to him and jumped into Farmer's path.

matrix · Post: # 439612Post **matrix** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:47pm

PurpleJesus wrote:
Read the articles about it, Baker wasn't running in front of Farmer, he was next to him and jumped into Farmer's path.

so?
what sport are we playing again?

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:48pm

n1ck wrote:
PurpleJesus wrote:If farmer cant remember what happened, he shouldnt be testifying at the hearing, should he!?

But, instead, he claims for days he cant remember, then as soon as it goes to the Tribunal - all of a sudden he remembers?

Not only that, but remembers WRONG!

Sorry, am I missing something here?

He was called as a witness by the tribunal, he has no say in whether he testifies or not.

If he's pressed on what he can remember and he says he remembers something knocking him to the ground, then how is that wrong, given he has a concussion? Or do you expect his memory to be perfectly clear regardless?

Brewer · Post: # 439617Post **Brewer** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:49pm

Well do you always take the position of your fellow Anchors?

For God's sake mate, perhaps YOU are wrong? Ever considered that?

Baker ran off on a dummy lead and stopped to steal Farmer's momentum. Farmer was not smart enough to figure it out, ran into the back of Baker and came off worse. His fault, not Bakers. The AFL just has a problem with it because:

1. It was against an interstate team
2. Blood scares the ladies

Post: # 439618Post **n1ck** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:49pm

Blocking / Shepherding is not a reportable offence, whichever way you spin it.

yipper · Post: # 439620Post **yipper** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:49pm

[quote="PurpleJesus
Where is this "photographic evidence"? Isn't that why the tribunal relied on witness statements, because there was no video or photos of the incident?

The St.Kilda F C produced still photos clearly showing where the play was (and the ball) at the precise time of the incident. The trainer was caught out on this because he had stated the ball and the play was in a different area. In addition - he admitted he did not see contact at all and in so doing, contradicted Farmer's evidence!! - he was reduced to an unreliable witness along with Farmer by the Tribunal process. The Tribunal has admitted they have completely discounted the testimonies of both Farmer and Freo trainer.

Grimfang · Post: # 439621Post **Grimfang** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:50pm

PurpleJesus wrote: Wait, so because a bunch of other Saints supporters say something that contradicts what I said, that automatically makes ME the liar?

Unless they put out a special edition version of the commentary in WA, when Voss first brings it to the attention of the audience that Farmer is down he clearly states he didn't see what happened.

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:52pm

matrixcutter wrote:
PurpleJesus wrote:
Read the articles about it, Baker wasn't running in front of Farmer, he was next to him and jumped into Farmer's path.
so?
what sport are we playing again?

So, your analogy was wrong. But nice of you to get us back on topic when it's pointed out.

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:56pm

Brewer wrote:Well do you always take the position of your fellow Anchors?

For God's sake mate, perhaps YOU are wrong? Ever considered that?

Baker ran off on a dummy lead and stopped to steal Farmer's momentum. Farmer was not smart enough to figure it out, ran into the back of Baker and came off worse. His fault, not Bakers. The AFL just has a problem with it because:

1. It was against an interstate team
2. Blood scares the ladies

I'm not the one believing one account over another simply because one of the people supports my team.

If the Saints produced photos proving the Freo trainer's account wrong then fine, I'll gladly admit I'm wrong on that. That wasn't reported in the paper here in Perth. My mistake.

But if you seriously believe that Baker was suspended because the AFL favoured Fremantle as an interstate team then you have far bigger issues to sort through.

matrix · Post: # 439636Post **matrix** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:56pm

point out where i said baker was RUNNING in front of farmer.....
then i'll apologise purple.

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:58pm

yipper wrote:[quote="PurpleJesus
Where is this "photographic evidence"? Isn't that why the tribunal relied on witness statements, because there was no video or photos of the incident?

The St.Kilda F C produced still photos clearly showing where the play was (and the ball) at the precise time of the incident. The trainer was caught out on this because he had stated the ball and the play was in a different area.

If that's the case then I apologise, that hasn't been reported over here. All that has been said is that the tribunal believed Baker's account of the incident, not that photos had been used as evidence.

Brewer · Post: # 439642Post **Brewer** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:58pm

PurpleJesus wrote:That wasn't reported in the paper here in Perth.

Funny that.

PurpleJesus wrote:But if you seriously believe that Baker was suspended because the AFL favoured Fremantle as an interstate team then you have far bigger issues to sort through.

The AFL has a fixed agenda to make happy headlines in the 'other' states.

Perhaps if you had access to some less biased footy reporting you might be in a better position to comment on that.

Post: # 439643Post **n1ck** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:58pm

Of course it wasnt reported in Perth.

The Perth football media are as biased towards the WA sides as the Adelaide media is to the SA clubs.

Ever compared a Perth match's commentary to that of one played anywhere else?

Channel 10, ABC both reported the use of the photographic evidence - and its validity - DURING the hearing.

saintsRrising · Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:01pm

PurpleJesus wrote:
saintsRrising wrote:In each case I have mentioned the actual FACTS show that the people named were liers.

ie the Freo Trainer....photographic evidence PROOVED he lied.
Where is this "photographic evidence"? Isn't that why the tribunal relied on witness statements, because there was no video or photos of the incident?

You really do have trouble keeping up don't you.

1/ You cannot wind the tape back far enough.

2/ You obviously cannot read the transcipts of what happened (there is actually this thing called the Internet....you know...what this Forum is on......you can use it to get info from unbiased sites....that is if your want to be FULLY informed rather than justa stooge for others).

Let me guess...you are relying on the lies and distortions on Dockerland for your information and are taken it as factual? If so, more the fool.!!!

Obviously the Freo Trainer did not know about it in ADVANCE.

The photos were logged in as evidence...and caught him out as a lier.

So the ONLY question is whether the trainer lied off his own bat....or whether it was part of collusion by the Fremantle Football Club.

The Trainer is a proven liar.

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:02pm

matrixcutter wrote:point out where i said baker was RUNNING in front of farmer.....
then i'll apologise purple.

Baker claimed he was running from Fremantle's half-back flank on the interchange side in front of Farmer, heading down the wing but slightly towards the Fremantle goal.

Baker said he had initially been about five metres ahead of Farmer but when the Docker forward got within about a metre of him he checked his stride and jumped into Farmer's path.

http://realfooty.com.au/news/news/seven ... 65162.html

eppo67 · Post: # 439654Post **eppo67** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:03pm

Look it is utterly ridiculous to content that by moving into Farmers path Baker could have any reasonable expectation the Farmers head would slam into the back of his. It is utter bulls***.

The whole incident was an accident.

PurpleJesus · Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:04pm

n1ck wrote:Of course it wasnt reported in Perth.

The Perth football media are as biased towards the WA sides as the Adelaide media is to the SA clubs.

Ever compared a Perth match's commentary to that of one played anywhere else?

Channel 10, ABC both reported the use of the photographic evidence - and its validity - DURING the hearing.

I'm simply going on what has been reported over here, there's nothing I can do about the WA media is there?