Was going to post the Hun article but it doesn’t say a lot, just that the report is delayed by ‘a few weeks’. A comedic quote from McLachlan though from when he took over from Andy;
“A key learning out of last year is that process and transparency are going to have to be prioritised … rather than what we think is the right solution for the game in the short term.”
When he said "The day I lie to someone is the day I can’t do my job,” what he really meant was *“The day I can’t lie to someone is the day I can’t do my job,”
All part of the lying, really.
I suppose it depends on how lying is defined. If we leave out with-hold which is lying, changing the context which is lying and dishonest, leaving the bits out we don’t need which is changing the story entirely is more than merely lying its deception. And; besides everyone tells fibs, don’t they? Normalise it and it becomes the norm.
The problem with serial liars is they lie so much eventually, they don’t even realise or recognise when they are lying.
I think he meant compromised, not prioritized 
saw a post on Twitter this morning that McDevitt was on the queensland representative side of the ACC investigation that started the saga !! now I know why he thinks something happened he just couldn’t prove it. Makes sense why he went us with everything being privy to what the crime commission heard …is that allowed??
“The facts are the club was target tested, he was target tested and he never failed a test. After that there is a lot of speculation in that.”
Gil the Dill commenting on West Coke.
What a hypocrit
Essendon players were target tested and they were clean. That didn’t stop the AFL and ASADA
It’s a point well made, but perhaps not the best timing on this one Alan …??
Allan Hird, Herald Sun
March 24, 2017 7:35pm
WHY did the AFL slap Essendon to kingdom come with governance failings before all evidence had been tested, but refuse to punish the Eagles and its officials despite being delivered a detailed report of drug taking and cover-ups, Mark Robinson asked on March 21.
That question needs to be answered and here is why.
The AFL held the Essendon coach responsible for governance at his club. But the Eagles coach, despite being warned by the police about his club’s culture, was described by Mike Fitzpatrick in a statement published on 12 January, 2016 as a very respected person.
Fitzpatrick in fact endorsed John Worsfold’s appointment as the Essendon coach. Why does the AFL hold the coach responsible for governance at one club but not at another?
Mike Fitzpatrick endorsed John Worsfold’s appointment as the Essendon coach.
Now from what I know, John Worsfold was not responsible for the drug taking culture at the Eagles and I would assume he did what he could to prevent it. So, therefore, I support him being employed by an AFL club.
But how can the AFL hold such a contradictory position: the coach of one club is responsible for governance and the coach of another is not?
Fitzpatrick in the same 12 January, 2016 statement said: “The integrity of the competition and the health of the players are the most important things for our game — and we must fight to protect both”.
Why then bury William Gillard’s report? Surely if the health of the players was so important the AFL should have gone public and introduced programs to assist its past and present players affected by drugs.
Surely if the health of West Coast’s players was so important the AFL should have gone public and introduced programs to assist its past and present players affected by drugs. Picture: Carmelo Bazzano
If it had put the players’ health first perhaps the tragic circumstances some former Eagles players are now experiencing could have been prevented.
Another difference between the AFL’s treatment of Essendon and the Eagles is the way the two investigations were set up.
Mr Gillard makes it plain on page 9 of his report he was constrained by the terms of reference given him by the AFL because the Eagles players had the right not to incriminate themselves.
The Essendon players had similar rights under the ASADA Act, specifically put there by the Australian parliament. But the AFL consciously and deliberately took that right away when it entered into the joint investigation with ASADA.
Why did the AFL remove the rights of Essendon players yet ensure the Eagles players had the very same rights?
The AFL needs to come clean and explain why it treated Essendon and the Eagles so differently.
Is it because, as Bruce Francis has argued so cogently, the AFL — as the players’ employer — failed in its work health and safety responsibilities and it had to find a scapegoat to protect itself?
Is it because the crime commission report was made public by the Labor Government and Andrew Demetriou and Fitzpatrick panicked, assumed guilt and set out to protect the brand and themselves instead of letting ASADA do its job?
It is probably a combination of both I would guess.
Mark Robinson has asked the obvious question. Let’s hear the answer from the AFL. Better still, how about an independent investigation of the contrasting handling of Essendon and the Eagles?
If the government won’t do it, why don’t all the AFL clubs demand an investigation at arms length from the AFL commission?
After all, one of them could be next.
oh ffs.
Great stuff from Hird snr. He has asked some of the most important questions in the main stream media, which is something that was impossible to do for far too long.
I don’t see why the timing of this is so bad. The players are free. Time to fire up.
Yeah let’s all have a go at our latest coach and try and get him tarnished or punished now when we are trying to rebuild. Just what we need.
And the timing does suck, do this 2 - 3 years ago, not now when it is all over and everyone just wants to move on. All it does is keep people focussed on us being drug cheats and our new coach being a terrible coach.
We want to start again fresh and rebuild this club, we do not crap articles like this that achieve absolutely nothing except keep it alive.
Could have published it tomorrow or Monday.
I don’t think the article tarnishes Worsfold’s reputation, I think it just highlights the hypocrisy of persecuting Hirdy for events that he had far less responsibility for than many others.
As far as the timing goes, if you just want to forget about it, the timing will never be right. When would be a convenient time to discuss hypocrisy and injustice?
Well done Allan Hird and another great article. It doesn’t tarnish our coach, but it does the AFL. Boo hoo to all that dont approve. I dont care how and when these articles appear, as long as they do and the msg gets across.
Yep Allan Hird’s article is all about exposing the AFL’s double standards. Problem is all the people in power that could make the move on a senate inquiry are turning a blind eye. They are protecting their buddies.
Timing isn’t so bad.
It won’t get much airtime today as there are two finished games being discussed and two more games this afternoon. It’ll be forgotten by the time our game starts.
There will be a few questions in Worsfold’s presser though.
It would have gained more momentum if it came out for Monday’s paper. That way it carries through all the programs during the week who usually run out of footy stuff to talk about quickly and jump onto rumour and other miscellaneous crap.
Unfortunately anything anti AFL has very little follow through.
Written up one day and quickly forgotten as the MSM are under the total control of Liz Lukin and ‘accreditation’.
Particularly if it is pro Essendon. Shut down extremely quickly.
Nothing to see here!
The AFL under estimated McDevitt completely, he out smarted them and out played them. Like most people the AFL deal with, they thought they had it all wrapped in a neat little package. But because McDevitt already had information about Essendon from the ACC, he played the AFL to get the result he wanted. The AFL were co operative to a point thinking they would get the result they wanted. They didn’t wake up until it was too late.
I wonder if McDevitt used and abused the players to put the AFL in their place and to get the result he wanted pushed through WADA in terms of total responsibility for what goes into the body being the Athlete’s responsibility.
When guilt is already assumed, everyone immediately looks guilty and everything they do, plays into that belief.
Interesting article in HS today saying that the AFL specifically restricted the WCE review to recommendations/charges only to events after 2007.
If only the rest of the Muppet’s in football land and MSM could read between the lines, ask the relevant questions and hammer the points home on the AFL.
This is not designed to tarnish our coach, it’s to point out the major hypocrisy, ineptitude and downright corruption of the AFL hierarchy.