Sam Newman on MMM !!

[saintbrat]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22314563-2,00.html
POLICE said tonight they had charged a man and woman with theft in relation to medical documents concerning AFL players reported stolen and then sold to Channel Seven, who broadcast them.

[Mr Magic]

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.

No mention of CH7 other than they were co-operating and had given the name of the person who provided them with the documents.

Heard head of their news? say they never gave an undertaking to the person that they wouldn't hand over her name to the Police, only that they wouldn't publicly reveal her name.

[Joffa Burns]

IMO to be a deterrent the penalty must fir the crime.

When a positive result is guaranteed (supposedly) to remain private and a player is to undergo counseling as a result of a positive test the deterrent factor is minimal.

To eradicate the problem the penalty needs to be raise significantly and relate to first offenders.

[stinger]

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.

of course they were stolen....even if they were found "in the gutter"...


..not a big call at all...i see that the police have now laid charges.......


you find a 20 grand ring in the gutter and try and hawk it.......it's called larceny by finding......always been on the statute book......

[stinger]

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

no they haven't........see the article from the australian that i placed on the general forum....crannypete is also correct...there are commonwealth laws protecting the confidentiality of doctor/patient records...well, at least the reporter.....

[Mr Magic]

.

of course they were stolen....even if they were found "in the gutter"...


..not a big call at all...i see that the police have now laid charges.......


you find a 20 grand ring in the gutter and try and hawk it.......it's called larceny by finding......always been on the statute book......

Stinger you are correct - according to Steve Carey, CH7 Neews editor, the couple charged by the Police have been charged with 'theft by finding' for not returnig the documents to their rightful owners, the Rehab Clinic.

[golden hawk]

7 mentioned the club - was it Dorks? What club is in question... obviously not us after this year. Anyhow... which club is it and are they playing finals. If so... what the!!!

If one player get's done the whole team should go.

injuction is in place remember means here can not say team or players either and you can bet your bottom dollar it is everywhere not just the club named that should not have been named ..........at least they were at a place to fix their problem not caught shooting up !

it is also about the confidentiality of personal papers that should not have been aired you would not like your doctor to tell the world about your problems or if you had been talking to a lawyer about a crime you committed which they can not tell anyone for same reason you would not like him coming out and telling the world before your trial that yes you actually did it when he is being paid to get you off though with some crooks i wish they would

[Solar]

7 mentioned the club - was it Dorks? What club is in question... obviously not us after this year. Anyhow... which club is it and are they playing finals. If so... what the!!!

If one player get's done the whole team should go.

injuction is in place remember means here can not say team or players either and you can bet your bottom dollar it is everywhere not just the club named that should not have been named ..........at least they were at a place to fix their problem not caught shooting up !

it is also about the confidentiality of personal papers that should not have been aired you would not like your doctor to tell the world about your problems or if you had been talking to a lawyer about a crime you committed which they can not tell anyone for same reason you would not like him coming out and telling the world before your trial that yes you actually did it when he is being paid to get you off though with some crooks i wish they would

Does it not worry you that the club was not They could be traded to another club with a 2 strike past and all of a suddent the new club has a player that might be suspended without their prior knowledge.

Anyway, what did your pres say about drug taking players at his club.....

[golden hawk]

am i reading that right say a player gets 2 strikes at one club goes to another club gets a third and gets suspended with out that club knowing why is that what you meant ?


yeah i know what he said he says alot sometimes when we don't want him too tooo

[Solar]

am i reading that right say a player gets 2 strikes at one club goes to another club gets a third and gets suspended with out that club knowing why is that what you meant ?

yep, what if a club Y offloads player X who has 2 strikes. Club Y has no idea, club W also has no idea. Player X is tested and found guilty and suspended. All of a sudden club W have lost a player plus whatever they gave up to get them.

Strike one: tell club and re-hab. If a player is traded the club is forced to tell the other club that this player is on one strike

strike two: GAWN

[golden hawk]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22314563-2,00.html
POLICE said tonight they had charged a man and woman with theft in relation to medical documents concerning AFL players reported stolen and then sold to Channel Seven, who broadcast them.

they are looking at whether 7 knew as they could be done for recieving stolen goods

[golden hawk]

am i reading that right say a player gets 2 strikes at one club goes to another club gets a third and gets suspended with out that club knowing why is that what you meant ?

yep, what if a club Y offloads player X who has 2 strikes. Club Y has no idea, club W also has no idea. Player X is tested and found guilty and suspended. All of a sudden club W have lost a player plus whatever they gave up to get them.

Strike one: tell club and re-hab. If a player is traded the club is forced to tell the other club that this player is on one strike

strike two: GAWN

mmmmmmm you must know of such a person but of course you can not say

[Mr Magic]

am i reading that right say a player gets 2 strikes at one club goes to another club gets a third and gets suspended with out that club knowing why is that what you meant ?

yep, what if a club Y offloads player X who has 2 strikes. Club Y has no idea, club W also has no idea. Player X is tested and found guilty and suspended. All of a sudden club W have lost a player plus whatever they gave up to get them.

Strike one: tell club and re-hab. If a player is traded the club is forced to tell the other club that this player is on one strike

strike two: GAWN

mmmmmmm you must know of such a person but of course you can not say

I have a feeling that the AFL has made some allowances for this eventuality and any club finding themselves in this situation would be heard sympathetically by Dimwit and Monkeyboy, the architects of the AFL's Drug Policy.

[golden hawk]

anyway am sure it is at all clubs one way or another and it is through out the world too wish people who do that crap would realise it is and does kill so why start putting it into their bodies if it is going to kill you

[Solar]

anyway am sure it is at all clubs one way or another and it is through out the world too wish people who do that crap would realise it is and does kill so why start putting it into their bodies if it is going to kill you

it's all semantics in the end.... ever seen how many people die from alcohol related deaths!

[golden hawk]

anyway am sure it is at all clubs one way or another and it is through out the world too wish people who do that crap would realise it is and does kill so why start putting it into their bodies if it is going to kill you

it's all semantics in the end.... ever seen how many people die from alcohol related deaths!

that included lots die from alcohol or are killed cause of some one who is drunk or on drugs all included

[stinger]

7 not out of the woods yet........hope the pricks get charged....and gaoled.......


"Seven could face charges


Dan Harrison
August 29, 2007 - 2:36PM
AdvertisementAdvertisement

Channel Seven could face charges over airing a story based on allegedly stolen medical records, Victoria's Chief Commissioner of Police says.

The report, aired by the network on Friday, alleged two players from a Melbourne AFL club were undergoing rehabilitation for illicit drug use.

The network cited medical records it bought from a woman who claimed to have found them in the gutter outside the clinic in Ivanhoe, in Melbourne's north-east.

A 31-year-old woman and a 36-year-old man, both of Ivanhoe West, have been charged with the theft of the records, after investigators raided Channel Seven's Melbourne offices.

Speaking on Southern Cross radio this morning, Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon described the network's decision to buy and then publicise the records as "appalling".

"First of all I don't think they should have been bought, and second I don't think they should have been publicly aired," Ms Nixon said.

"I think it's an invasion of privacy. Policing tries desperately to protect people's information. We've put in an enormous amount of protections to try and not have that happen to people so for then to have an even more personal record in terms of your own medical history out in the public domain and then publicly released I think (is) a disgrace," she said.

Ms Nixon said investigators would examine the evidence to see whether any action could be taken against Seven.

"There is a possibility (of charges)," she said.

"We obviously executed a search warrant on Channel Seven to gain the material... we'll then consider their role in it.

"It's a great concern that that material was aired, and I certainly think that makes it more difficult for us to investigate and more difficult to deal with in the community."

Ms Nixon said police would consider taking further action against the named players, including quizzing them about the source of the drugs.

"We will obviously look at the material that we have and determine whether there should be any steps taken," she said.

"It's a matter for us to think through the information that we have, there may be no further action, there may be some."

The club and players cannot be named in Victoria for legal reasons following a Victorian Supreme Court injunction.

Earlier, Ms Nixon confirmed detectives had launched an investigation into drug dealing by a leading AFL footballer for a Melbourne-based team at the centre of recent drug allegations.

The revelation comes after Channel Seven broadcast a story alleging two AFL players were in rehabilitation for illicit drug use.

The story, aired on Friday, was based on medical records bought by the station from a woman who claimed to have found them in the gutter outside the clinic in Ivanhoe, in Melbourne's north-east.

A 31-year-old woman and a 36-year-old man, both of Ivanhoe West, were charged by police with the theft of the records, after investigators raided Channel Seven's Melbourne offices.

AFL players have refused interviews with the network's reporters as a protest against its behaviour.

The Chief Commissioner said police abandoned the probe because the allegations of drug dealing by the player could not be substantiated.

Speaking on Southern Cross radio, Ms Nixon said investigators first learnt of the allegations three months ago.

"What happened was it was looked at, we determined that the information was not credible nor reliable, so we did not pursue that investigation any further," Ms Nixon said.

"From the evidence we were given, we were not able to determine that there were further matters involved. It was not reliable or able to be substantiated."

Ms Nixon said the investigation was no longer active.

"We don't have any further information to act on at this stage, so no it's not," she said.

Ms Nixon said she had received a call from AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou this morning, pledging the league's support and cooperation in any investigation.

When asked whether any other AFL players were being investigated for drug offences, she replied: "Not that I'm prepared to talk about."

"At any time obviously there are a range of people in the state of Victoria being investigated, so in this case I'm not aware of any related to this particular matter."

[golden hawk]

yes i hope they do or give them a scare at least of what could have happened , might teach them a lesson specially after the aka/7 thing which is getting looked at for 7 and maybe aka to be sued

[stinger]

yes i hope they do or give them a scare at least of what could have happened , might teach them a lesson specially after the aka/7 thing which is getting looked at for 7 and maybe aka to be sued

they have no scruples and no ethics......i think recent events have substantiated that.........including the two you have mentioned......

[golden hawk]

yes i hope they do or give them a scare at least of what could have happened , might teach them a lesson specially after the aka/7 thing which is getting looked at for 7 and maybe aka to be sued

they have no scruples and no ethics......i think recent events have substantiated that.........including the two you have mentioned......

sadly i think your right

[BAM! (shhhh)]

Strong feelings and sentiments have been raised by this. So I'll throw in my $.02 Insofar as that is a result, it's IMO the only good one of what, IMO, is an abhorrent act by CH 7 that is a massive violation of privacy well in excess of the mistakes of the players involved.

What really bugs me are the righteous statements made as if this were a black & white issue. It's not, and never will be - the very fact of the debate is the strongest evidence I think I can offer.

From back in high school I have thought we create a bigger problem by pretending it is black and white, by pretending zero tolerance is even an option. How many people who ended up as heroin o/d stats started out believing drugs were bad point blank as they'd been taught, only to try a little dope and find out the consequences were smaller than they'd been led to believe, and started on a slippery slope?

Since then I have known people with many varieties of drug problems. For some, it's a phase... For others, it is or becomes more. For some, it's a mental addiction - like the folks who can't have 1 drink, they must have 20, for some, physical, ala smoking cigarettes. Some of them hid this, some didn't. Either way, I can't think of a single case where "naming and shaming" would have been of assistance - either they were already ashamed, or they wouldn't be regardless.

For those who say "what if you found your kid with a needle in their arm", take that to the next step, and think about the support you'd want for them to get clean, and the privacy required. All are entitled to their opinions, but I think if we try and oversimplify this issue through such graphic imagery, we invite the slippery slope I mention above.

Those who craft societies message seem to either not know, or deliberately ignore the realities of this issue. Politicians cannot subscribe to anything other than zero tolerance for fear of being labelled "soft on drugs", which gets interpreted as "pro" drugs by those who are never forced to look deeper than "drugs are bad".

I do not know whether the players involved look at drugs as a lifestyle choice, as a mistake, as a problem, or as a non issue. I do know that if they're in rehab, they're legally entitled to their privacy, and that if we take it away, public people are less likely to go down that road.

And I think that would be a tragedy.

For those who haven't seen them, I recommend the movies Requiem for a Dream (a very anti drugs movie IMO), and Traffic (a very moral movie), which try to portray elements of the reality. They're both pretty heavy stuff, but for those who have the fortune to say they've never had drugs cross their path, they may give some idea of what the view is for those who have. Especially Traffic.