As much as Robbo can be a bumbling, semi coherent, dribbling pisshead at least he was one of the few journos who didn't completely follow the AFLs agenda.
once the penny dropped. would've preferred him to stake his career on it and spilt the beans
A plague o' both your houses! I am sped.
Is he gone, and hath nothing?
Deadset can we get Julian Assange to have a crack here? He would tear them a new one. It would be glorious.
As much as Robbo can be a bumbling, semi coherent, dribbling pisshead at least he was one of the few journos who didn't completely follow the AFLs agenda.
Yeh he still did, firing half a shot across the bow is still following the Agenda.
I suggested as much to Robbo on twitter a while back. The gist of my tweet was that he was happy retweeting links to articles written by others claiming that the AFL mishandled the whole drugs issue disastrously, but that he didn't have the balls to pick the story up himself.Because Robbo wants to keep his AFL accreditation.Thats what I dont get. IF IF IF it was real, and IF Robbo was after the absolute gun story of a lifetime as any journalist would be, it would have been front page ages ago.Why doesnt he just release it and show the world what the ***** is like?Get him Robbo.
I claimed that he was too protective of his accreditation and that as the chief football writer at the HUN he was obliged to follow the story.
He didn't reply to me publicly but private messaged me a few times. I kept my replies to him open to everyone and made sure they were polite. His messages were pretty uncomplimentary, probably not dissimilar to the way Vlad spoke to him! At one point I was very tempted to suggest that as an award winning journo I expected a higher quality of abuse from him than "U R being a ■■■■, ■■■■ off wanker"!
Ultimately he blocked me without responding to my question, but I consider that I won the bout on points.
Yeh he still did, firing half a shot across the bow is still following the Agenda.As much as Robbo can be a bumbling, semi coherent, dribbling pisshead at least he was one of the few journos who didn't completely follow the AFLs agenda.
I'm not even sure he gave it a half shot.
Whately seemed to claim most of the responsibility for any anti AFL stories.
Yeh he still did, firing half a shot across the bow is still following the Agenda.As much as Robbo can be a bumbling, semi coherent, dribbling pisshead at least he was one of the few journos who didn't completely follow the AFLs agenda.
I'm not even sure he gave it a half shot.
Whately seemed to claim most of the responsibility for any anti AFL stories.
Whately is a little bit like Andrew Wilkie the politician. Constantly on the look out for other people's work he can claim credit for.
Yeh he still did, firing half a shot across the bow is still following the Agenda.As much as Robbo can be a bumbling, semi coherent, dribbling pisshead at least he was one of the few journos who didn't completely follow the AFLs agenda.
He didn't even do that.
He asked Vlad some questions, Vlad said 'shut the ■■■■ up' and Robbo promptly shut the ■■■■ up. Shot across the bow would have been, y'know, him actually writing an article saying 'Vlad told me to shut the ■■■■ up' and thre Hun publishing it.
This article is from a completely different newspaper, basically reporting on rumours that Robbo had been privately complaining to journo mates in the pub saying 'holy ■■■■, Vlad told me to shut the ■■■■ up!'
Vlad won this, comprehensively. Robbo and the Hun didn't even try.
I'm struggling to differentiate between which of them is the bigger ■■■■ really.
Much maligned Mark Robinson
Much maligned by his own fans
There's a great article "Giving Up on the Search for Truth" by Nick Carter in this weekend's Australian. Basically laments the demise of (political) journalism and the hunger/capacity for journos to get off their ■■■■ and search for the truth. Says most are happy to regurgitate whatever line is being fed to them. The lessons equally apply for other forms of investigative journalism. The Essendon/ASADA issue is a classic case of journos and their masters being wary of biting the hand that feeds them.
Robbo knows if he writes the article his paper gets threatened by the AFL and he gets ‘relocated’ shortly after. So it will never ever ever ever ever ever ever get written.
Ever.
Robbo knows if he writes the article his paper gets threatened by the AFL and he gets 'relocated' shortly after. So it will never ever ever ever ever ever ever get written.
Ever.
Ever?
Robbo knows if he writes the article his paper gets threatened by the AFL and he gets 'relocated' shortly after. So it will never ever ever ever ever ever ever get written.
Ever.
Certainly won't get written whilst Robbo is the HS #1 football writer and wants to remain so.
This stuff doesn't really matter....one day the truth will emerge no doubt but it will be well into the future.
All that matters to me is the draft, 2014 pre-season training and getting on with the 2014 season and having a crack at the flag.
Right now, anything else is simply a distraction from this.
It's a non-issue in the sense that CEO's and people of that ilk often abuse journalists and the like. You'd be surprised how feral people in positions of power can be. It would be silly for Robbo to write an article based on the exchange with Demetriou.
Many people have asked why Robbo doesn't just release the tape (if there is one).
The answer is that if he did release the tape, it would likely be a criminal offence under Victorian law. You are allowed to secretly record a conversation that you are involved in, but you are not allowed to disseminate or publish that conversation without the permission of every person in the conversation.
Essentially what has happened (a point which seems to have been missed by everyone), is that Vlad has accused Robbo of committing a criminal offence as payback for Robbo's initial article where he accused Vlad of the same.
It's a non-issue in the sense that CEO's and people of that ilk often abuse journalists and the like. You'd be surprised how feral people in positions of power can be. It would be silly for Robbo to write an article based on the exchange with Demetriou.
It seems to be more than that though. Fascinating really. There's a ton of different angles here:
1. The CEO of the AFL seems to be on a personal mission to end the career of the head footy writer of the HS for having the temerity to do his job and ask questions.
2. The CEO of the AFL has allegedly made threats to the head footy writer of the HS. Is that appropriate? Should the CEO charged with the "governance" of a sporting code not adhere to the principal of transparency above all else? I'd have thought integrity and by implication transparency are the pillars on which any sport should be based. Questions should be welcomed about anything and everything at all times.
3. When people lose their cool and starting making threats of physical violence normally there is a reason behind that. If everything was perfectly explainable and there is nothing for anyone to hide, why would their be the need for threats?
4. What are the laws around taping of conversations without permission? If an individual is being threatened is it permitted then?
5. It is often suggested that EFC shifted the focus from the management of the 2012 supplements scheme to the manner in which the investigation was conducted and controlled in terms of leaks. Demetriou and the AFL were extremely frustrated by that shift in spin. Yet it would appear that in this case they are demonstrating the exact same behaviour, focusing on how Mark Robinson conducted his capturing of the truth rather than the underlying truth which is what everyone is worried about in the first place. Did Demetriou tip off Essendon to self report?
6. If we are prepared to hang Demetriou for what at that stage was a personal risk to help Essendon. Do we not have to hang everyone who sat in the room and accepted the tip off and failed to object? Is it appropriate for Hird to allegedly tip off Robbo about the inappropriateness of this only when it no longer served to serve his interests?
My personal opinion. Forgiveness is a powerful force.
Everyone made mistakes in the heat of the moment. I don't think Hird is a saint or blameless but he has given most of his life to Essendon and he loves the club. He had no intention to ever harm us. He is a good man that perhaps made some errors of judgement. If there is anything to forgive, I forgive him. He has earned the right to forgiveness a hundred times over. He has spilt his blood and broken his bones for this club.
Demetriou and Robbo should shake hands and forgive and move on with life.
Fitzpatrick however should still look seriously look at the position of CEO in his organisation. For whereas a club - a group of people bonded together by history, family, blood, sweat, tears and tradition - can forgive, a sports administration is merely a body of highly paid people there to do their job. Which is to govern.
Many people have asked why Robbo doesn't just release the tape (if there is one).
The answer is that if he did release the tape, it would likely be a criminal offence under Victorian law. You are allowed to secretly record a conversation that you are involved in, but you are not allowed to disseminate or publish that conversation without the permission of every person in the conversation.
Essentially what has happened (a point which seems to have been missed by everyone), is that Vlad has accused Robbo of committing a criminal offence as payback for Robbo's initial article where he accused Vlad of the same.
True, as far as it goes. I can entirely understand why Robbo has not released the tape.
But this doesn't stop him writing about the CONTENTS of the tape. He's perfectly capable of writing an article entitled "Demetriou's obscene rant - AFL attempts to gag the media!" or whatever. He doesn't even need to mention the tape, since he was the actual target of Vlad's little tantrum and so can report on his first-hand knowledge of it.
The existence (and legality) of the tape, as far as I know, would only become relevant if Vlad sued Robbo/the Hun alleging that the story was false and/or libellous. In which case (as far as I know) Robbo can legally present the recording as evidence to back up his story regardless of whether Vlad gives permission or not.
But once again, this didn't happen. Because Vlad wouldn't sue (especially if he actually did say all that stuff). He'd instead basically end Robbo's career by withdrawing his AFL accreditation, which he can basically do at any time and for any reason (a journo-only variant of the 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge). We've already seen how unwilling the AFL is to risk its control over the game and the games decision-making by allowing any of its disputes to make it into a courtroom it doesn't completely control.
Vlad threatened. Robbo caved.
The media could be dipping their toes in the water, trying to work out if this kind of story will generate hits.
The media could be dipping their toes in the water, trying to work out if this kind of story will generate hits.
It'd generate a spectacular amount of hits.
Once.
Maybe twice in the follow up.
Compare that to no reporting with AFL access for the rest of the near future from the Herald Sun, not worth it.