When this is over, we will be in a very good position.
darkest day in sport.
Round 10, 1996, Essendon vs St Kilda at Waverley Park, half way through the third quarter when the lights went out.
Not entirely true, Malcolm Blight had a torch and I think a few fans made a fire out of the behind post.
Pretty sure my cousin started a fire that night.
initials AS?
Nope, JL.
I may be wrong, I'll have to ask him, I was only 8 at the time.
There's probably hundreds of guys running around claiming to have started the fire & just as many claiming to have knocked over the post. BTW, the post wasn't burnt, the fires were only paper fires that burnt out pretty quickly.
You're probably right, My Cousin is the type of bloke that would claim he did it.
The only thing surprising about this revelation is that people are surprised.
I am surprised they published it, and on the AFL site of all places. It is akin to a bully (which happens to be a teacher) in the school yard saying sucked in, you got caught but we didn't.
I think the AFL site is pretty independent from the AFL. It appears to be far more independent than the say The Age at the current time.
I don't agree.
While no news source is entirely independent from an agenda or political stance, most still report objectively.
AFL Media are not objective in my opinion. The 'news' section on their site is propaganda, pr if you like. No objectivity. Everything is monitored and controlled. That's part of the reason they took over the EFC site.
There are player interviews and fluff pieces of interest to supporters of individual clubs, however most stories are written to generate chatter and build their online presence.
It's a brilliant strategy, but it aint objective. The story, the lead, was buried last night. The paragraph on the 12 clubs should have been the opener. AFL Media know what they're doing and it's a strategy from the top.
Edit: This explains it in more detail: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/30/technology/afl-media-future-content-marketing
I take your point, but I still think the AFL wield plenty of influence over what is published in the Age etc. via their control of what info is leaked to who. I don't see any evidence that the traditional media outlets report AFL news with any more independence than the AFL site. The only journos I noticed who consistently went against the company line in the whole Essendon saga were Chip Legrand (not a sports jorno) and to a much lesser extent Robo (in the later stages). Apparently it's hard to stay in a job reporting on the AFL once head office cuts you off, regardless of whether you're employed at their website or not.
This is true, it's all part of the AFL's monopoly masterplan/dictatorship.
I remember reading last year that they ticked off a couple of clubs for giving stories to leading journos from The Age/Sun rather than AFL Media.
Chip Le Grand has made an enemy in Demetriou with his reporting.
I'm as mad as hell.
Trying to get a flash mob together as we speak.
On the basis of this Report alone..............Chairman Little should be down at the Supreme Court this morning with an Injunction against the AFL asking for an immediate cease to AFL Trade Period, pending an appeal by EFC to the Commission for our Draft Picks to be reinstated.
Someone please wake him up............
We can't, and Little can't.
We ACCEPTED the penalties. They weren't imposed on us. And I bet there was no 'and any other club found to have been slack with their record keeping will cop the same punishment of else EFC gets their draft picks back' clause.
As soon as we signed on to the penalty agreement, we lost any legal leverage we ever had.
It's too late. Stop dreaming.
Sorry HM, but there is. Action taken under Duress provides a very productive legal avenue.
i. am. extremely. annoyed.
extremely.
On the basis of this Report alone..............Chairman Little should be down at the Supreme Court this morning with an Injunction against the AFL asking for an immediate cease to AFL Trade Period, pending an appeal by EFC to the Commission for our Draft Picks to be reinstated.
Someone please wake him up............
We can't, and Little can't.
We ACCEPTED the penalties. They weren't imposed on us. And I bet there was no 'and any other club found to have been slack with their record keeping will cop the same punishment of else EFC gets their draft picks back' clause.
As soon as we signed on to the penalty agreement, we lost any legal leverage we ever had.
It's too late. Stop dreaming.
Sorry HM, but there is. Action taken under Duress provides a very productive legal avenue.
FFS this is not an episode of The Bill. This is not going to be fought in court.
People need to stop confusing the ‘team’ and the ‘club’.
My faith in the team, the 22 blokes that run out there every weekend, has never been higher. They actually play for the jumper now, the first time in years.
My faith in the club, the board of administrators, whilst not as high as it was is still pretty high. We only had to put up with one season of this garbage, sure we folded like deck chairs, but it’s done for us. We have copped our whack and can look forward to 2014.
I think its time just to let this one go. We got screwed, but the damage is far from irreparable.
Spot on.I don't agree.I think the AFL site is pretty independent from the AFL. It appears to be far more independent than the say The Age at the current time.I am surprised they published it, and on the AFL site of all places. It is akin to a bully (which happens to be a teacher) in the school yard saying sucked in, you got caught but we didn't.The only thing surprising about this revelation is that people are surprised.
While no news source is entirely independent from an agenda or political stance, most still report objectively.
AFL Media are not objective in my opinion. The 'news' section on their site is propaganda, pr if you like. No objectivity. Everything is monitored and controlled. That's part of the reason they took over the EFC site.
There are player interviews and fluff pieces of interest to supporters of individual clubs, however most stories are written to generate chatter and build their online presence.
It's a brilliant strategy, but it aint objective. The story, the lead, was buried last night. The paragraph on the 12 clubs should have been the opener. AFL Media know what they're doing and it's a strategy from the top.
Edit: This explains it in more detail: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/30/technology/afl-media-future-content-marketing
This is absolutely deliberate; the content, the timing, the placement, the digital channel, the order of statements etc.
Part of an ongoing whitewash strategy.
We were scapegoated, and unreasonably, unfairly so.
Our beloved Bombers - an established, high-profile club and its high profile people - have taken the unneccessarily heavy-handed hits from the AFL, to help rebuild the AFL's reputation and rebuild the perception that the AFL is in control of the supplements situation.
This - in spite of these revelations that multiple teams and players are accessing supplements.
In spite of the fact that our discredited/sacked sports scientists and high performance staff worked at multiple other AFL Clubs (what did they do at those Clubs?) - none of whom self-reported, none of whom were investigated by the AFL and none of whom have received any penalties.
So exhausted by all of this.
The AFL knew exactly what they were doing throughout this whole episode.
If they exposed one rogue club they would be seen as heroes for investigating drug/supplement abuse within the code and just to make a point that no one is immune to their cleaning out the 'cheats', what better way in the eyes of the public than by tearing down one of the game's greatest ambassadors and all round Mr Nice Guy James Hird? Great publicity for the code and their stand against all things evil!
If, on the other hand, multiple clubs were found to be abusing drugs/supplements, the problem would be seen to be endemic and of the code's making, not individual clubs, and with the AFL it is all about how the public see them. They are so sanctimonious in their belief that they are better than every other sporting code in the country. The way they handled this throughout was their way of saying just that.
Regardless of the fact that any clear thinking person could see issues with the way they did handle it, get enough saturation in the media pushing your agenda and the general public's perceptions are almost guaranteed. Once the hysteria has then died down, no-one could give two hoots anymore, as long as it doesn't involve them or their club. Little, (no pun intended) if anything, will come of this article.
You've got to hand it to them, the AFL have orchestrated this magnificently.
Why couldn't we have just filled in a survey?
Very poor decision by the board there.
Why couldn't we have just filled in a survey?
Very poor decision by the board there.
because if the afl had just decided to survey the landscape with a survey, then they wouldnt have been able to surv-ey large infringement notice to us and hird wouldnt not have been able to surv-ey lengthy suspension.
People need to stop confusing the 'team' and the 'club'.
My faith in the team, the 22 blokes that run out there every weekend, has never been higher. They actually play for the jumper now, the first time in years.
My faith in the club, the board of administrators, whilst not as high as it was is still pretty high. We only had to put up with one season of this garbage, sure we folded like deck chairs, but it's done for us. We have copped our whack and can look forward to 2014.
I think its time just to let this one go. We got screwed, but the damage is far from irreparable.
One of the best and most logical posts I have ever read on here! As angry as I am (as we all are) over these new 'revelations', we should be pretty confident to say that we have and will continue to be a bigger, better club and team once its all over. Time to get excited!!
Sometime no matter whether the punishment was out of proportion to the crime the best way forward is to accept the whack and move on. We don't want to be like the miserable old woman who was stood up at the high school prom and stewed on it for fifty years until she died a bitter old woman. Time to let go.
Spot on.
I don't agree.
I think the AFL site is pretty independent from the AFL. It appears to be far more independent than the say The Age at the current time.
I am surprised they published it, and on the AFL site of all places. It is akin to a bully (which happens to be a teacher) in the school yard saying sucked in, you got caught but we didn't.The only thing surprising about this revelation is that people are surprised.
While no news source is entirely independent from an agenda or political stance, most still report objectively.
AFL Media are not objective in my opinion. The 'news' section on their site is propaganda, pr if you like. No objectivity. Everything is monitored and controlled. That's part of the reason they took over the EFC site.
There are player interviews and fluff pieces of interest to supporters of individual clubs, however most stories are written to generate chatter and build their online presence.
It's a brilliant strategy, but it aint objective. The story, the lead, was buried last night. The paragraph on the 12 clubs should have been the opener. AFL Media know what they're doing and it's a strategy from the top.
Edit: This explains it in more detail: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/8/30/technology/afl-media-future-content-marketing
This is absolutely deliberate; the content, the timing, the placement, the digital channel, the order of statements etc.
Part of an ongoing whitewash strategy.
We were scapegoated, and unreasonably, unfairly so.
Our beloved Bombers - an established, high-profile club and its high profile people - have taken the unneccessarily heavy-handed hits from the AFL, to help rebuild the AFL's reputation and rebuild the perception that the AFL is in control of the supplements situation.
This - in spite of these revelations that multiple teams and players are accessing supplements.
In spite of the fact that our discredited/sacked sports scientists and high performance staff worked at multiple other AFL Clubs (what did they do at those Clubs?) - none of whom self-reported, none of whom were investigated by the AFL and none of whom have received any penalties.
So exhausted by all of this.
The AFL knew exactly what they were doing throughout this whole episode.
If they exposed one rogue club they would be seen as heroes for investigating drug/supplement abuse within the code and just to make a point that no one is immune to their cleaning out the 'cheats', what better way in the eyes of the public than by tearing down one of the game's greatest ambassadors and all round Mr Nice Guy James Hird? Great publicity for the code and their stand against all things evil!
If, on the other hand, multiple clubs were found to be abusing drugs/supplements, the problem would be seen to be endemic and of the code's making, not individual clubs, and with the AFL it is all about how the public see them. They are so sanctimonious in their belief that they are better than every other sporting code in the country. The way they handled this throughout was their way of saying just that.
Regardless of the fact that any clear thinking person could see issues with the way they did handle it, get enough saturation in the media pushing your agenda and the general public's perceptions are almost guaranteed. Once the hysteria has then died down, no-one could give two hoots anymore, as long as it doesn't involve them or their club. Little, (no pun intended) if anything, will come of this article.
You've got to hand it to them, the AFL have orchestrated this magnificently.
This is it.
Fairfax now belatedly running with it.
Not just Essendon: issues with supplement use by 12 AFL clubsSupplement use will be curtailed.
An AFL survey has revealed that there have been several issues with most clubs‘ use of supplements, as the league seeks to formalise changes to its anti-doping code.
The survey reveals:
- Players from nine AFL clubs have independently sourced supplements.
- 12 clubs conducted programs with medium or high levels of supplement
- These clubs lacked "a single point of accountability"
- The definition of supplements was not satisfactory
- The selection process of support personnel was flawed.AFL medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt told a group of more than 200 doctors, physiotherapists and sports scientists of the findings during grand final week.
AdvertisementThe revelations follow a season dogged by the Essendon supplements scandal that resulted in coach James Hird being suspended for 12 months and a raft of other sanctions. ASADA‘s investigation into the use of supplements at Essendon is still ongoing.
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/not-just-essendon-issues-with-supplement-use-by-12-afl-clubs-20131016-2vm11.html#ixzz2hqhoVLKq
People need to chill out.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
Dear Andrew Demetriou.
Karma catches everyone, eventually.
People need to chill out.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
Um, the bolded part is exactly what the survey implies ie. that they were running similar programs with inadequate systems of recording and supervision. We got kicked out the finals this year for this, remember? Our club was slandered and dragged through the mud because of a culture that was actually growing in the majority of clubs.
And please don't tell me to chill out. If you're fine with it, fine. But don't expect everyone to be so forgiving or dismissive of the significance of this.
People need to chill out.
It's just some survey that was anonymously filled out by club officials and staff. How the hell are the media meant to get to the bottom of it? How are they meant to "re-open the case"? The article itself is probably making a mountain out of a mole hill when as Windy Dill suggests, it's no surprise that players ordered their own legal samples. And since other clubs weren't trying to run 'cutting edge' supplemenet programs they probably had no need to keep records etc like we should have done...
We copped our whack and it's not that bad. We weren't a threat in finals, we can afford the fine and we have another proven coach in Bomber T who will stand up and coach. The draft picks MIGHT hurt, but there's a lot of good to come out of it as well... team bonding, membership numbers etc etc
Sure we were screwed over and embarassed unnecessarily, but just because other clubs might have done something doesn't make what we did right.
Time will tell, but I strongly disagree with the bolded. Since the day the penalties were handed down it has been my contention that the draft pick losses will cost us a genuine shot at a flag with the Watson/Stanton/Goddard generation.
But were the other 11 clubs running a pharmacologically experimental environment?
Well the sponsor of at least one implied that they were in a public press release (depending on your definition of psychologically experimental). And they were reigning premiers at the time.