Sorry Saga - “It’s actually quite funny people thinking they know more than they actually do”

If Sarah was made up, I want to know who is responsible.

12 Likes

I remember the two it could have been based on the soon to be 21 description.

But given “Sarah” either is made up, or should be left alone, I’m not sure mentioning them helps.

1 Like

I might have missed why people think “Sarah” is “Tracey” from Work Choices, but it should not be difficult to track down “Tracey”. She is F Walsh according to the legendary 2007 Work Choices ad (John Flaus being the male announcer).

An interesting story about Lukin’s company Essential Media Communications and its own ruthless employment tactics is set out here https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/iron-fist-of-irony/news-story/b4dc36cb832945f346a25aa63bf474a8?sv=3ad6704499ee28d204fba80226cc0196 .

Like SCarey though, I would want to be careful this is not a vigilante approach and that following up Walsh, parents, etc does not cause pain to innocent parties.

Starship enterprise have about as much chance as anyone.

34 players, two coaches, and many other people have had their reputations destroyed, careers impaired or ruined, and even lives threatened.

A major factor in this was the fraudulent “Sarah” call, made at a critical stage in the Saga.

No-one is advocating a “vigilante approach” but anyone who participated in this fraud should be revealed publicly. One thing is certain: they will not suffer in any real way, let alone like the Essendon players, coaches, staff and supporters have suffered.

19 Likes

What do you think exposing the Sarah call will achieve? I reckon most people will say, “Yeah so what, Essendon are drug cheats. They proved it at CAS.”

2 Likes

I think you’d be surprised mate. Nearly every supporter of other teams I’ve spoken to about this over the past 2 years, … FCFC Filth and Dawks included, … have all come to think this was a complete stitch up over the period since.

I don’t know how representative my small personal sample size is, but I get the feeling there’s a majority out there that know we were done over now.

4 Likes

Plenty who’d be pleased to hear who the real Sarah was…particularly the red & black army …(I agree that there’d be many others also) Would be significant.

4 Likes

Well I hope something does come of it but I’m very sceptical. The AFL wil lie and lie and lie, so will McGuire.

Of course Sarah is a fake.

At the time, the view was that it was scripted and Sarah was a well rehearsed actor. Someone in footy knows who did it, and I am surprised it is still and secret.

8 Likes

Of course the"AFL will lie and lie"!

Why else do you think they are spending what must now be getting into the millions of dollars to avoid a court case that IF they lose, the only penalty is that they issue an apology?

Do you reckon Gil and his Rsole mates would be worried about having to issue an apology?

For the avoidance of doubt, they are spending millions in legal fees to avoid having to tell the truth under the potential penalty of perjury.

6 Likes

Yep

Yep

PeY

If Sarah was paid don’t care who she may be, rather who paid her.

23 Likes

The EU Council - the peak body of EU Member States - has made a submission to WADA in the context of the WADA review.
The submission -which is general in nature -addresses concerns in regard to data protection, athletes rights and WADA governance ( including potential conflicts of interest).
Is the Australian Government going to make submission?

1 Like

Only really two possibilities.

Media setup for a story, or AFL to suit their agenda.

Someone knows and will rat one day.

3 Likes

A decent “reward offered to anyone who knows the identity of Eddie McGuire’s Sarah” might flush out a rat.

2 Likes

I think a comparison between the workchoices lady and "sarah’ was done, but it did not seem like a match. That doesnt mean its not her, it just means an expert (forensic scientist) is required to ensure accusations are professionally backed up by science.

2 Likes

I think we want to know cause we believe it was a disgraceful stitch up. Whether it was or wasn’t it could be successfully argued that it had zero impact on the eventual decision. It rallied the troops for team ‘druggies’.