A Current Affair National executive producer Grant Williams clarified that the program had only received a copy of the footage for the first time late on Monday October 19 and they contacted McConville and Essendon on the Tuesday for a comment and decided to publish the following evening.
Oops!
Fogdog on the money about on Carlisle being in the news for the wrong reasons this week.Iād love to know Carlisleās āexpenseā bill on his o/s trip.
Channel Seven was offered video footage purporting to show Jake Carlisle in a room with illicit drugs in Las Vegas nine days before Channel Nine broadcast damning footage that prompted the St Kilda recruit to issue a public apology.
The footage that Seven was offered was of poor quality and did not show Carlisle actually taking drugs. The grainy images showed Carlisle and drugs in a room but there was no āmoney shotā of him taking the drugs.
The footage was offered by two tradesmen who turned up at the stationās offices on October 12 asking for $20,000 for the video. It appeared the video may have been filmed from the phone of a third person.
A Seven source said he was unsure whether it was the same video later screened by Channel Nineās A Current Affair but said that it was definitely of a poorer quality.
AdvertisementThe network rejected the offer because of the poor quality of the images, the price and because it did not actually show the player taking drugs.
Seven contacted Carlisleās manager, Anthony McConville, and asked him about the video and whether his client had taken drugs.It is understood McConville contacted Carlisle in America and questioned him about the footage. At the time Carlisle denied he had been taking illicit drugs.
Neither Essendon nor St Kilda were approached about the footage offered to Seven.
Channel Nineās A Current Affair eventually broadcast footage of Carlisle on October 21 ā hours after he was traded to St Kilda from the Bombers.
The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.
It is understood Carlisleās denial to his manager that he had taken drugs on the Seven video meant that when McConville was asked the same question by Nine about drug-taking, he thought the network had the same footage, and repeated Carlisleās denial. McConville also went back to Carlisle again before the show went to air and was again given a denial. It was only after the footage was shown that Carlisle admitted his misbehaviour.
St Kilda was furious with Carlisleās behaviour and with not having been informed by McConville about the pending news.
The Saints remain in negotiations with Carlisle and McConville to seek to revise the playerās contract, which is for four years with a trigger for a fifth year.
He was also due to sign a separate marketing contract under the AFL Additional Services Agreements, which fall outside the salary cap, but this contract is being changed and Carlisle will lose a significant amount of money.
The AFL Players Association defended McConvilleās decision not to inform St KIlda of the fact a news story was about to break alleging Carlisle had been filmed taking drugs.
McConville had sought advice from the AFLPA about his responsibilities in the matter before the story went to air and the PA advised him his duty was to best represent his client and that he was not compelled to inform the Saints.
A Current Affair National executive producer Grant Williams clarified that the program had only received a copy of the footage for the first time late on Monday October 19 and they contacted McConville and Essendon on the Tuesday for a comment and decided to publish the following evening.
He said they had not deliberately held the story until a trade was completed.āOn the Wednesday news broke of his trade to St Kilda and we quietly pulled someone from the Saints media team aside to inform them of the video. We then asked St Kilda to come to view the material privately before we put it to air. They declined,ā Williams said.
Not sure this makes it any better or worse to be honest. Maybe people who want to extort situations for money should get phones with a better quality camera is all I get from this.
Fogdog on the money about on Carlisle being in the news for the wrong reasons this week.Iād love to know Carlisleās āexpenseā bill on his o/s trip.
Channel Seven was offered video footage purporting to show Jake Carlisle in a room with illicit drugs in Las Vegas nine days before Channel Nine broadcast damning footage that prompted the St Kilda recruit to issue a public apology.
The footage that Seven was offered was of poor quality and did not show Carlisle actually taking drugs. The grainy images showed Carlisle and drugs in a room but there was no āmoney shotā of him taking the drugs.
The footage was offered by two tradesmen who turned up at the stationās offices on October 12 asking for $20,000 for the video. It appeared the video may have been filmed from the phone of a third person.
A Seven source said he was unsure whether it was the same video later screened by Channel Nineās A Current Affair but said that it was definitely of a poorer quality.
AdvertisementThe network rejected the offer because of the poor quality of the images, the price and because it did not actually show the player taking drugs.
Seven contacted Carlisleās manager, Anthony McConville, and asked him about the video and whether his client had taken drugs.It is understood McConville contacted Carlisle in America and questioned him about the footage. At the time Carlisle denied he had been taking illicit drugs.
Neither Essendon nor St Kilda were approached about the footage offered to Seven.
Channel Nineās A Current Affair eventually broadcast footage of Carlisle on October 21 ā hours after he was traded to St Kilda from the Bombers.
The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.
It is understood Carlisleās denial to his manager that he had taken drugs on the Seven video meant that when McConville was asked the same question by Nine about drug-taking, he thought the network had the same footage, and repeated Carlisleās denial. McConville also went back to Carlisle again before the show went to air and was again given a denial. It was only after the footage was shown that Carlisle admitted his misbehaviour.
St Kilda was furious with Carlisleās behaviour and with not having been informed by McConville about the pending news.
The Saints remain in negotiations with Carlisle and McConville to seek to revise the playerās contract, which is for four years with a trigger for a fifth year.
He was also due to sign a separate marketing contract under the AFL Additional Services Agreements, which fall outside the salary cap, but this contract is being changed and Carlisle will lose a significant amount of money.
The AFL Players Association defended McConvilleās decision not to inform St KIlda of the fact a news story was about to break alleging Carlisle had been filmed taking drugs.
McConville had sought advice from the AFLPA about his responsibilities in the matter before the story went to air and the PA advised him his duty was to best represent his client and that he was not compelled to inform the Saints.
A Current Affair National executive producer Grant Williams clarified that the program had only received a copy of the footage for the first time late on Monday October 19 and they contacted McConville and Essendon on the Tuesday for a comment and decided to publish the following evening.
He said they had not deliberately held the story until a trade was completed.āOn the Wednesday news broke of his trade to St Kilda and we quietly pulled someone from the Saints media team aside to inform them of the video. We then asked St Kilda to come to view the material privately before we put it to air. They declined,ā Williams said.
Not sure this makes it any better or worse to be honest. Maybe people who want to extort situations for money should get phones with a better quality camera is all I get from this.
Or perhaps Carlisle needs to be a little more selective with his friends.
A Current Affair National executive producer Grant Williams clarified that the program had only received a copy of the footage for the first time late on Monday October 19 and they contacted McConville and Essendon on the Tuesday for a comment and decided to publish the following evening.Oops!
Donāt think it matters now that itās come out that the AFLPA knew and told McConville not to say anything.
So Jake, Do you wish to self report?
Er not ā ā ā ā ā ā likely, Iām a former Essendon player, donāt you guys read the papers?.
But we saw the video of you taking drugs.
No you didnāt.
But there were lines of white stuff on the table.
Wasnāt me, that was all fabricated edited not admissible in court kind of stuff.
Yeah but everbody says you were snorting cocaine!
Nup, thatās why my press release makes no reference whatsoever to drugs.
But weāre the media and we dictate what happens.
Yeah Nah!
Seriously? That seems an entirely appropriate sentence to me. Many wouldn't have had the "interpreted as" bit.The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.Legit legal question for the Q.C.s out there: How is this statement not defamatory?Itās a sensible and logical enough sentence. But I donāt see how it isnāt defamatory.
Jake omitted in his statement to profess that he did not inhale, but thatās not an admission. As soon as you say āmany have interpretedā then you are getting into weasel words. Who has interpreted? And if you publish one of these supposed interpretations, then that would be getting ever closer to defamation.
My question is a legal question, not a common sense having a private conversation with your mate question.
meh... Jake's a Saints player now... and their issue to deal with. Thanks for the memories and all that and goodonya for making sure we got a decent trade, but there was obviously plenty of bad mixed in with the good and I hold zero trader's remorse.And I wonāt miss the sooking. Saga Shmaga. He was a sooky sook that sooked a lot and it was all too often on show. I have had the opportunity of two brief conversations with him and he sooked in both of those as well. If he canāt sort that out he will never realise his talent.
Thanks Bomberjay. At last some concrete evidence of his sookiness. Not just people reading the tea leaves on the television. Indeed it would be hard to be a successful elite athlete with chronic belly aching syndrome.
The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.
Legit legal question for the Q.C.s out there: How is this statement not defamatory?
I take a few things from that article.
Had it come out with the first video, he may still be at Essendon because no one would have offered him a big contract.
He must be careless in his attitude given he was asked about the first video prior to making the second (unless I understood the timeline wrong). Cant believe he subsequently made and sent a second video.
He has some crap mates.
At least we know why he, and others perhaps like him, donāt update asada with their travel schedule. A $2500 club fine is nothing compared to the perceived freedom of being off the radar for a few weeks.
Spot on TW.
My biggest take is the quality of his mates. Thatās where I most question his judgement and intelligence. I hope that he smartens up and surrounds himself with some more āquality peopleā as friends.
Seriously? That seems an entirely appropriate sentence to me. Many wouldn't have had the "interpreted as" bit.The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.Legit legal question for the Q.C.s out there: How is this statement not defamatory?
Spot on TW.My biggest take is the quality of his mates. Thatās where I most question his judgement and intelligence. I hope that he smartens up and surrounds himself with some more āquality peopleā as friends.
His āmatesā might have saved his life despite being idiots. Birds of a featherā¦
Jake needs to take responsibility for his actions. Saying his mates are the true villains imo is off the mark.
Seriously? That seems an entirely appropriate sentence to me. Many wouldn't have had the "interpreted as" bit.The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.Legit legal question for the Q.C.s out there: How is this statement not defamatory?
Itās a sensible and logical enough sentence. But I donāt see how it isnāt defamatory.
Jake omitted in his statement to profess that he did not inhale, but thatās not an admission. As soon as you say āmany have interpretedā then you are getting into weasel words. Who has interpreted? And if you publish one of these supposed interpretations, then that would be getting ever closer to defamation.
My question is a legal question, not a common sense having a private conversation with your mate question.
Spot on TW.My biggest take is the quality of his mates. Thatās where I most question his judgement and intelligence. I hope that he smartens up and surrounds himself with some more āquality peopleā as friends.
His āmatesā might have saved his life despite being idiots. Birds of a featherā¦
Jake needs to take responsibility for his actions. Saying his mates are the true villains imo is off the mark.
As far as his actions go, yes he is responsible and has to take responsibility and canāt blame it on his mates.
And also as far as choosing who his mates are, well thatās also his responsibility and his choices.
If, as I believe/d, you were saying we should lay off jake because he did the right thing when he left Wim, I'm with you.If otoh you are saying Dank & the EFC saga is in someway responsible for his current predicament heās got himself into, & that if not for that, he wouldnāt have used a recreational drug off season & then been so dumb as to post it on the web in any way, ā¦ I reckon youāre on your Pat Malone there.
Edit: Maybe you were both just being deliberately obtuse ā¦
Iām saying THE saga is responsible for All Of The Predicaments.
Iām saying if you think Carlisle is the only Essendon player to snort Charlie then I have a bridge to sell you.He didnāt post it on the web, his mate sold it to the papes.
Whatever, do you want me to hate him for being dumb?
How dumb were you in your early twenties?
He really did post it on the web, snapchat is only slightly more private & secure asā¦ sayā¦ following a rival club on twitter.
On the rest Iām pretty much with you. Heās an idiot for filming and then posting something illegal, but it hasnāt cost us anything - and he could well have cost us a lot.
If, as I believe/d, you were saying we should lay off jake because he did the right thing when he left Wim, I'm with you.If otoh you are saying Dank & the EFC saga is in someway responsible for his current predicament heās got himself into, & that if not for that, he wouldnāt have used a recreational drug off season & then been so dumb as to post it on the web in any way, ā¦ I reckon youāre on your Pat Malone there.
Edit: Maybe you were both just being deliberately obtuse ā¦
Iām saying THE saga is responsible for All Of The Predicaments.
Iām saying if you think Carlisle is the only Essendon player to snort Charlie then I have a bridge to sell you.He didnāt post it on the web, his mate sold it to the papes.
Whatever, do you want me to hate him for being dumb?
How dumb were you in your early twenties?He really did post it on the web, snapchat is only slightly more private & secure asā¦ sayā¦ following a rival club on twitter.
On the rest Iām pretty much with you. Heās an idiot for filming and then posting something illegal, but it hasnāt cost us anything - and he could well have cost us a lot.
Fair enough.
I take a few things from that article.Had it come out with the first video, he may still be at Essendon because no one would have offered him a big contract.
He must be careless in his attitude given he was asked about the first video prior to making the second (unless I understood the timeline wrong). Cant believe he subsequently made and sent a second video.
He has some crap mates.
At least we know why he, and others perhaps like him, donāt update asada with their travel schedule. A $2500 club fine is nothing compared to the perceived freedom of being off the radar for a few weeks.
If athletes arenāt available to be tested when ASADA turns up it is registered as a breach as far as I understand, and they are banned.
Seriously? That seems an entirely appropriate sentence to me. Many wouldn't have had the "interpreted as" bit.The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.Legit legal question for the Q.C.s out there: How is this statement not defamatory?Itās a sensible and logical enough sentence. But I donāt see how it isnāt defamatory.
Jake omitted in his statement to profess that he did not inhale, but thatās not an admission. As soon as you say āmany have interpretedā then you are getting into weasel words. Who has interpreted? And if you publish one of these supposed interpretations, then that would be getting ever closer to defamation.
My question is a legal question, not a common sense having a private conversation with your mate question.
How can it possibly be defamatory?
He was filmed snorting coke. And he didnāt & hasnāt denied it.
Ahā¦ no he wasnāt. He was filmed snorting a white powder. Could have been anything.
Seriously? That seems an entirely appropriate sentence to me. Many wouldn't have had the "interpreted as" bit.The following morning Carlisle released a statement apologising for his behaviour, in what was interpreted as an admission of drug use.Legit legal question for the Q.C.s out there: How is this statement not defamatory?Itās a sensible and logical enough sentence. But I donāt see how it isnāt defamatory.
Jake omitted in his statement to profess that he did not inhale, but thatās not an admission. As soon as you say āmany have interpretedā then you are getting into weasel words. Who has interpreted? And if you publish one of these supposed interpretations, then that would be getting ever closer to defamation.
My question is a legal question, not a common sense having a private conversation with your mate question.
How can it possibly be defamatory?
He was filmed snorting coke. And he didnāt & hasnāt denied it.Ahā¦ no he wasnāt. He was filmed snorting a white powder. Could have been anything.
WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?
And HAP as for āhe hasnāt denied itā - that is completely irrelevant. In other news, Jake Carlisle hasnāt denied setting a dwarf on fire.
He is clearly guilty HAP because HE HASNāT DENIED IT.
We have laws and a legal system for a reason.
What Iām somewhat curious about, is why Jake just didnt say / hasnāt said, āIt was powdered sugar, me & a mate did it for a lark. We were mocking some Americans we met the night beforeā or something like that. It would be as believable as anything else, & who could prove o/wise??
Certainly would have saved him a lot of drama & money, & he still hasnāt actually said he did use drugs, & again, who (other than those with him), could say anything different, & even if they did, they couldnāt prove it. Itās all a bit strange.