4 Corners (21/3/16) - Actual show at around pg 25

Remove this Banner Ad

MaddAdam said:
We know very little of what was said. That's why all perspectives are very important and tonight gave us an angle we hadn't seen before.
Click to expand...

Yup true. The players as professional athletes didn't take the appropriate steps to check that what was going in them was illegal yet Hal never owned up to to stuffing up being a professional athlete. No new information was given.
 
Taking a moment to calm down I agree it was one sided. It looked pretty damning with the revelations about HyperMed. Lucky it was just down the street. Hal Hunter came across as someone with genuine concerns and a need to find answers. But he must also take responsibility through tying himself to the group and not going alone. As a public broadcaster the ABC are required to present balance and an offer to the EFC to present their side of the allegations would have happened. That they declined says more about the EFC than it does their 'genuine concern' about the playing group
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Dero said:
I do sometimes wonder whether the reason Dank is not chased by the club is because he was working to the brief given to him.
Click to expand...
Wonder no more.

That's a bingo.
 
ManWithNoName said:
It's like you've not read my post at all and just looked at my club of support.

People have been found guilty before in cases that end up being overturned. Before it was overturned does that mean we KNEW they did it? Of course not. There's a difference between being found guilty and knowing for a fact. If you don't understand that, then I dunno because it's pretty basic.

And before you throw your toys out of the pram: I don't dispute the verdict. I don't think it will be overturned if they try. I think they probably were given something illegal. But I don't KNOW that. Neither do you.
Click to expand...

I did read your post and I was responding to it directly and without having a go at you.

Knowing something like that is arguably impossible, neither of us can know something (whatever knowing means) without experiencing it. Therefore we rely on other agents in order to know things (heuristics if you will). Usually for example we rely on science and its facts proven to scientific standards of proof. In doping there is a standard of proof which has been met; therefore fact.
 
DapperDon said:
That was the earth shattering news?

Didn't a player have an in depth interview to start this whole thing rolling?
Click to expand...

Really, I can't be bothered doing an audience impact analysis here.

If you think that 4 Corners painted a good picture of your club, well, I salute you.
 
The 747 said:
I did read your post and I was responding to it directly and without having a go at you.

Knowing something like that is arguably impossible, neither of us can know something (whatever knowing means) without experiencing it. Therefore we rely on other agents in order to know things (heuristics if you will). Usually for example we rely on science and its facts proven to scientific standards of proof. In doping there is a standard of proof which has been met; therefore fact.
Click to expand...
Well we know Lance Armstrong did because you had multiple people, including him, saying so. IMO the only real way we can know is multiple sources who were involved saying so, or positive tests.

But that's just my way of defining "knowing". Others may define it differently of course.
 
Lord of the Pies said:
After hearing Tim Watson on SEN this morning and watching Hal Hunters parents on 4 Corners, I feel sorry for Jobe. At least Hal's folks main concern was their sons welfare, Tim on the other hand was comforted by the fact, that some of the supplements taken where found to be non harmful.

Father of the year
Click to expand...

So many people have been brought to a pretty low place over this. Like anything I suppose, the more directly you're involved the harder the hit. Someone threw the pebble into the pond though didn't they? Let's look over there again.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Just interested said:
Some of this 'ground' was reworked and fertilised by the jury findings in the Dank defo action last week.

This whole shemozzle has always had the feel of the criminal. When the defo jury found the alleged defamers had a 'defence in truth', and the summary mentioned 'reckless', up popped "Men's rea', the essential element in standing up a criminal allegation.

Some people are still concentrating on it being necessary for a young fella like Hunter to pursue Dank civilly to get his question(s) answered. That's nonsense - where are all the publicly funded agencies, with accountabilities to administer the law of the land?

Where are Customs (sorry, Border Farce), the TGA, the AFP (this crosses state and national borders), the Pharmacy Board, the DHHS (they administer pharmacy licences in Vic), the AHPRA, the Sports Integrity unit within the Federal Health Dept (it was already operating in 2012), the Sports Integrity Unit within Vicpol (it was formed by Baillieu IN RESPONSE to Aperio). Have any of those agencies even opened a file, let alone knock on any doors?

As for Marsh and the Players' Association, he needs significant time in a reeducation gulag.

Hunter (and his Mum, to give due credit) shouldn't have to be doing this.

And, on Hunter's Mum, the entirely admirable Doc Stevens, the Niall article mentioned earlier shows she is not a late arrival to the show. e.g.

“After Essendon's self report to ASADA in 2013, Hunter said he told the club's welfare officer "my mum's going to be furious about this." He said Dr Stevens had produced parts of the WADA code at a parent meeting at the club. "From what I can gather, it raised a lot of eyebrows."

That coitanly shows Mum hasn’t arrived late which, for mine, deals with the cynics.

And, ya gotta love a Mum who attends ‘Parent Teacher Night’ brandishing the WADA Code!!

The rest of the parents would have done a whole lot better if they’d gone beyond ‘raised eyebrows’, sidled up to (probably) the only “Dr” in the room with some guts and an apparent ethical base, and asked “What’s that document all about, Dr Stevens?”
Click to expand...

Wonder if we have found "Sarah"?
 
floki said:
Problem with plausible deniability as a tactic is once you are committed, you're committed, there's no recanting or standing at the front gate with the mea culpa "we got it wrong", when the tactic turns to shit you're fornicated and not in a nice way.
Click to expand...


Cover-ups are hard bloody yakka aren't they.
 
ahhhhhh said:
http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2016-03-21/club-statement

How can a club that genuinely mean the above, welcome back the one of the main reasons for the program with welcome arms?
Click to expand...
Essendon Football Club is a vastly different place today than it was in 2012 and has implemented significant governance, compliance and integrity reforms across all areas of its organisation.
Click to expand...
But our new chairman wants to have the bloke who was a cornerstone of where the club has fallen to back at the club as a rallying point for the fans.
It would be like Carlton welcoming Stephen O'Reilly and John Elliott back with open arms
 
MaddAdam said:
Really, I can't be bothered doing an audience impact analysis here.

If you think that 4 Corners painted a good picture of your club, well, I salute you.
Click to expand...

Well you got on your horse early in the week and proclaimed that there would be earth shattering news made with this interview, something that amused you. Well there wasn't so you are just getting called out like you like to do that to other posters.
 
hirdylloydy1 said:
Civil law standard of proof - clear and convincing proof

Cas - comphortable satisfaction

I would say civil law has a higher burden of proof
Click to expand...
I would say you need to apologise to both your English teacher and whoever taught you legal studies
 

Remove this Banner Ad

4 Corners (21/3/16) - Actual show at around pg 25

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top