Sam Newman on MMM !!

Bernard Shakey · Mon 27 Aug 2007 12:16am

Illicit drugs, not performance enhancing (although I must say some illicit drugs would be performance enhancing and others the opposite).

So who really cares.

AFL players only reflect the society they are part of.

Nobody running a Dog Fighting establishment, like Michael Vick of the Atlanta Falcons. That idiot has blown a $130,000,000.00 contract.

aussierules0k · Mon 27 Aug 2007 12:22am

Iceman234 · Post: # 443947Post **Iceman234** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 12:37am

aussierules0k wrote:Mate, the stuff IS performance enhancing that's the big problem. How can we rate a players running capacity V Robert Harvey when the guy might be on a (I'll say it again) performance enhancing drug. We know Harves aint - and he doesn't need testing. If this stuff is really wide spread, then the game will be kerrrrput. No-one including me will support it. I suppose that's why the AFL is so desperate to cover it all up.

Robert Harvey, what a legend! ... and growing bigger every day.

K,

on the same wavelength here.

Can't be bothered typing a lengthy response like I intended to - you know where I'm coming from and it's futile to try to explain it to those who haven't yet seen it.

If not stopped soon and dealt with, WITH CONSEQUENCES, our game will die a slow death. The AFL should have suspended Cousins for a full year, at the very least, for having the addiction he had/has/always will have. My personal opinion was two years for what he was doing.

The_Dud · Post: # 443952Post **The_Dud** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 12:57am

on another note, did anyone catch the Bulldogs/Hawks game today?

geez Hawthorn looked alot better after the half-time break, Clarkson's speach must have been a real pick-me-up

ausfatcat · Post: # 444033Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 11:51am

The_Dud wrote:on another note, did anyone catch the Bulldogs/Hawks game today?

geez Hawthorn looked alot better after the half-time break, Clarkson's speach must have been a real pick-me-up

must of had some stirring lines

B W and R all over · Mon 27 Aug 2007 11:55am

I watched that game. Hodge's supply to Franklin was mind-blowing.

fonz_#15 · Post: # 444037Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 11:56am

ausfatcat wrote:
The_Dud wrote:on another note, did anyone catch the Bulldogs/Hawks game today?

geez Hawthorn looked alot better after the half-time break, Clarkson's speach must have been a real pick-me-up

must of had some stirring lines

fonz_#15 · Post: # 444041Post **fonz_#15** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 11:57am

B W and R all over wrote:I watched that game. Hodge's supply to Franklin was mind-blowing.

sure it wasn't mind altering?

ctqs · Post: # 444078Post **ctqs** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 1:05pm

Otiman wrote:Some forums with relatively big backing should take on the AFL on matters such as this. It's not a news reporting situation and shouldn't be treated as so. Basically the AFL flexes their muscle and forums cave.

The only difference between this and a chat in a bar between mates is that it is recorded and able to be accessed by others.

It's actually not the AFL's call. It was a Supreme Court judge who made that ruling. The AFL wasn't even a party to the proceeding. It's tried to join since, but hasn't actually been granted permission as yet, though it seems certain they will become part of the case. It's back in court on Thursday to try to get the injunction amended so the club can be named. It was named the other night because the media outlet in question wasn't served with it until it was too late. That's why nobody can repeat it right now. As for naming individuals, is it right for people's medical records to be made public without their consent?

ausfatcat · Post: # 444088Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 1:17pm

if they could name the club why couldn't they name the players?

*BaLLy iS BeST* · Mon 27 Aug 2007 1:50pm

according to dylan howard from channel 7 on nova radio this morning..

they could have named the players but chose not to. and he rekons they should be given some credit for that.

i duno..as much as i would like to know who they are...its not right for their personal info to be made public.

as much as i kno its probly reality...i would be shattered if saints players were outed as taking drugs

SENsei · Post: # 444122Post **SENsei** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 2:06pm

The individuals have to be named now due to Dylan Howard's decision. Ch7 have now made an entire club 'guilty' until proven innocent.

Cop out. Go the whole hog or shut your trap.

ausfatcat · Post: # 444125Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 2:12pm

SENsaintsational wrote:The individuals have to be made now due to Dylan Howard's decision. Ch7 have now made an entire club 'guilty' until proven innocent.

Cop out. Go the whole hog or shut your trap.

exactly my feelings... If I was a player from that club and had done nothing wrong have that suspition over me because some team mates did the wrong thing I would be livered. Say everything or nothing at all. And especially don't advertise it and then not say it.

crowjelly · Post: # 444161Post **crowjelly** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 3:09pm

Is "livered" akin to being brained?

Cityboy · Post: # 444243Post **Cityboy** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 5:07pm

Is there any chance that the AFL might get fully fed up with what Channel 7 has dished up this year, crap coverage, not treating the Drugs/Aka issues a little more to their liking, and give 7 their $'s back and tell'em to shove their contract? Would they have an OUT clause?

Just some thoughts.
________
MARIJUANA JOINT

stinger · Post: # 444352Post **stinger** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 7:29pm

JeffDunne wrote:Why stinger?

It's news and they broke the story. That's their job.

If the info was stolen then that's not their problem, someone will pay for that.

If I was a news organisation I'd have run with it.

...no...don't agree...the info...confidential patient records were stolen......was hawked around to other agencies including 9 and 10...they refused to buy it...7 don't have any scruples.......

...wait and see what happens...7 will get their pants sued off them...

saint66au · Post: # 444366Post **saint66au** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 7:57pm

stinger wrote:
JeffDunne wrote:Why stinger?

It's news and they broke the story. That's their job.

If the info was stolen then that's not their problem, someone will pay for that.

If I was a news organisation I'd have run with it.
...no...don't agree...the info...confidential patient records were stolen......was hawked around to other agencies including 9 and 10...they refused to buy it...7 don't have any scruples.......

...wait and see what happens...7 will get their pants sued off them...

Spot on stinger

This is very different to players being tested positive. Confidential medical records (as they ALL are) have been sold to the media and said media have made them public. Absolutely disgraceful by all parties involved IMHO

Found the papers in the gutter??? What an absolute load of tosh! These records were pilfered from someones filing cabinet....I'd stake my life on it. I hope the police investigation nabs the culprit, whther its the woman who whoever, and throws the freaking book at 'em. That story has more holes than a Swiss cheese factory.

Ch 7 were the third media outlet she went to..as you do when you find a confidential document and want to return it but the gate is locked

JeffDunne · Post: # 444371Post **JeffDunne** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 8:04pm

So you know they were stolen stinger? That's a pretty big call at this point. I suspect it might be true but I'm not going to finger someone while there's a police investigation into it.

And FWIW, if news organisations weren't prepared to report on documents obtained illegally then many crooks would walk free.

You could certainly argue in a case like this that the public doesn't have any right to know, but TBH, if I was running a news organisation I would have run with it.

saint66au · Post: # 444374Post **saint66au** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 8:11pm

And FWIW, if news organisations weren't prepared to report on documents obtained illegally then many crooks would walk free.

Well Channel 7 could have kept their chequebook in their pocket and still promoted a big story. Instead the story could have ran "Channel 7 was this afternoon offered, for an undisclosed sum, confidential medical documents, possibly detailing drug use, on several bigname AFL players. Channel 7 chose not to pay for the documents and handed the matter over to Police.

Still a big big story, but they come out of it smelling like roses rather than what you feed roses with

snoopygirl · Post: # 444389Post **snoopygirl** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 8:45pm

Gee, I remember about 18 months ago, confidential documents belonging to an AFL club were found spilling out of a skip bin by several people from this site at a social game. Club involved didn't seem too concerned about privacy of their players then. I guess drug taking is something you'd like to keep in house though isn't it.

TimeToShineFellas · Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:11pm

snoopygirl wrote:Gee, I remember about 18 months ago, confidential documents belonging to an AFL club were found spilling out of a skip bin by several people from this site at a social game. Club involved didn't seem too concerned about privacy of their players then.

Careful don't name the Club..................!

Shame we didn't find the 1971 Premiership Cup in the skip that day. After all, it was stolen from us!

ausfatcat · Post: # 444420Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:25pm

what sort of confidential documents were those in the skip and why were you looking in the skip in the first place?

Mr Magic · Post: # 444424Post **Mr Magic** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:28pm

On the 8 o'clock news, Police have confirmed they ahve charged a 36 year old male and a 31 year old female over the theft of confidential medical documents.

plugger66 · Post: # 444427Post **plugger66** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:30pm

Mr Magic wrote:On the 8 o'clock news, Police have confirmed they ahve charged a 36 year old male and a 31 year old female over the theft of confidential medical documents.

Would that mean channel 7 are in trouble and why if they have got the footy rights for 5 years so keen to unpset the AFL. Doesnt make sense to me.

ausfatcat · Post: # 444428Post **ausfatcat** » Mon 27 Aug 2007 9:30pm

ratings ratings ratings thats all they know it's the dollars not the relationship that gets the afl games. Otherwise they would have never got them in the first place.