Bombers 1. accused of asking Mick Gatto to help fix doping mess and 2. covering up Medicare fraud

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

It's a bit akin to saying Nah it's not stalking when a guy breaches his AVO and calls some girl at night when drunk.

They're both criminal acts.

One guy called the CEO of an organisation to a meeting and threatened to release information if not paid money. Information that wasn't even true, just that would stick

Yeah, sideshow. Let's investigate the flung mud instead. Wow

Not instead, as well.
Charter apparently had evidence that would get the players off, but wanted cash for it. Isn't that extortion, or is it just payment for services?

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

It's a bit akin to saying Nah it's not stalking when a guy breaches his AVO and calls some girl at night when drunk.

They're both criminal acts.

One guy called the CEO of an organisation to a meeting and threatened to release information if not paid money. Information that wasn't even true, just that would stick

Yeah, sideshow. Let's investigate the flung mud instead. Wow

You're stretching it a bit there Lance.

He didn't say it wasn't true.


And also, for some reason Tanner specifically used the Gatto bit as an example of something that wasn't true - only to be found out to be full of shit only hours later.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You're stretching it a bit there Lance.

He didn't say it wasn't true.


And also, for some reason Tanner specifically used the Gatto bit as an example of something that wasn't true - only to be found out to be full of shit only hours later.

the threat was: "Mud sticks, even if it isn't true".

But sure, maybe it's all gospel truth and he just said that but actually meant something completely different to what that means every other time it's ever used?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

If there wasn't mud then there can be no blackmail

if the dirt was adequate, why threaten the mud?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Not instead, as well.
Charter apparently had evidence that would get the players off, but wanted cash for it. Isn't that extortion, or is it just payment for services?

firstly, this is blackmail, not extortion, although I'm aware I used the wrong word earlier. Secondly, that is a ridiculous analogy because extortion is in no way akin to payment for services and if you're not aware of the difference you should study up before continuing the conversation

 

[GreyCrow]

if the dirt was adequate, why threaten the mud?

To speed up the cleaning

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It's a bit akin to saying Nah it's not stalking when a guy breaches his AVO and calls some girl at night when drunk.

They're both criminal acts.

One guy called the CEO of an organisation to a meeting and threatened to release information if not paid money. Information that wasn't even true, just that would stick

Yeah, sideshow. Let's investigate the flung mud instead. Wow

It's only a criminal charge because you say it is. It's way too early to be making absolute statements like that.

You do realise it's possible for both scenarios to be true? Maybe they did commit a criminal offence with their blackmail attempt. But the allegations against Essendon can still be true.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

It's only a criminal charge because you say it is. It's way too early to be making absolute statements like that.

You do realise it's possible for both scenarios to be true? Maybe they did commit a criminal offence with their blackmail attempt. But the allegations against Essendon can still be true.

maybe, although I'll point out yet again the phrase mud sticks even if it's not true.

And fwiw I couldn't care less if this is "investigated", although I'm interested in what people's views are on how that might happen. Given that, you know, the police have been called in to investigate blackmail, and there doesn't seem like a whole lot of criminality in the allegations for them to investigate, even if the police were in the habit of victim-blaming and investigating the claims of the blackmailer. So maybe you can fill me in how that would work?

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Mud sticks is an overused cliche

I fail to see why anybody would bother to lodge allegations with workcare without an element of fact in their statement .

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Man, St Kilda are $11m in debt FFS!

Essendon could not field a team for a decade and still walk back in with 60k members and get primetime fixtures from the AFL.

St Kilda and any of the other indebted clubs in Vic have been ripped off by the AFL. In essence they were required to pay off the AFL's sale and lease back of Eithad. They AFL agreed to excessive ground rent in order to get the facility paid off. Just give these clubs 5% equity of Eithad (which is fair since they paid for the damn thing) and the problem is solved.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

It's a bit akin to saying Nah it's not stalking when a guy breaches his AVO and calls some girl at night when drunk.

They're both criminal acts.

One guy called the CEO of an organisation to a meeting and threatened to release information if not paid money. Information that wasn't even true, just that would stick

Yeah, sideshow. Let's investigate the flung mud instead. Wow

Problem is some people got preferential treatement eg Hird, million bucks do do nothing whereas others were cut. Plus they saw the weapon get a big pay out.

Greed.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

the threat was: "Mud sticks, even if it isn't true".

But sure, maybe it's all gospel truth and he just said that but actually meant something completely different to what that means every other time it's ever used?

You're stretching it.

I'm not commenting either way necessarily, as I don't see what Elliott's old man said or did to Campbell as really that relevant. Once again, it's a distraction from the main issue, which is - what did the players take, who knew and how much did they knew.

But to take a line from what is clearly a 'response article' by Essendon/the AFL and ascertain straight out that this means he lied - is stretching it, and naive.


The most intriguing part is that two ex-employees have made some massive claims of a cover up, to which they have sworn by and stated they'd swear by again in court.

To give it a big 'pfffft' because one of their dads used the term 'mud sticks, even if it isn't true' is head in the sand stuff.

 

[Doss]

Why would someone utter the phrase "mud sticks even if it isn't true" (or whatever the exact wording was) unless they were planning/threatening to make...lo and behold, untrue allegations?

Ask yourself that.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Mud sticks is an overused cliche

I fail to see why anybody would bother to lodge allegations with workcare without an element of fact in their statement .

I doubt anyone could say with a straight fact that there isn't an element of fact in it. Of course there is, more than just an element I dare say. But nor can you say it's all gospel, particularly when you take into account that the motive of the claimant is clearly for financial gain, as evidenced by the subsequent action of releasing the information after making threats to do so.

Anyway, investigate away. Although you haven't explained how that will happen.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Problem is some people got preferential treatement eg Hird, million bucks do do nothing whereas others were cut. Plus they saw the weapon get a big pay out.

Greed.

unfortunately for these dickheads they are trying this on after the worst they can do is not much at all. The Weap had the chance to presumably scuttle the defence of the players, so he got his hush fund and can dry those tears with crisp fifties.

These chumps have got no such leverage. Greed indeed.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Bloody hell, I really thought the Dons were going to have a whole season without this shite in the background, clear air and all that, a solid chance to play footy and move on.

How long until a permalink to the HTB is restored to the main board?

 

[doppleganger]

Why would someone utter the phrase "mud sticks even if it isn't true" (or whatever the exact wording was) unless they were planning/threatening to make...lo and behold, untrue allegations?

Ask yourself that.

People can often mix up their words when talking in cliches

Travis Cloke the best example - cut to the talk with smoke and shadows behind the window or something

Yet people are grabbing onto some supposed phrasing as if it is gospel and mounting entire arguments based on it.

Essendon been trying to bury information the whole way along, anybody who believes anything coming from that camp has rocks in their head.

 

[Doss]

Meanwhile of course, everything this bloke says must be true. Gotcha.

 

[gavaniacono]

Cognitive dissonance versus doublethink. Should be close.

 

[evo]

It's almost like smart phones have a recording function these days.

It doesn't mean you turn it on every time you're around your workmates.

What a bizzare environment down at Tulla.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You're stretching it.

that's what she said

I'm not commenting either way necessarily, as I don't see what Elliott's old man said or did to Campbell as really that relevant. Once again, it's a distraction from the main issue, which is - what did the players take, who knew and how much did they knew.

I'm interested, how the hell is that the main issue? I mean, you do realise, right, that the players have been found guilty of breaching the anti drugs code and have served their penalty, right?

So, the answer is pretty simple. They took TB4 and AOD. Some of the players at least knew, along with Dank, Hird, Thompson, Evans and Robson; and they probably knew quite a bit.

So again, how exactly is that the main issue and why are you so keen to dismiss what appears to be blatant blackmail, a criminal act?

But to take a line from what is clearly a 'response article' by Essendon/the AFL and ascertain straight out that this means he lied - is stretching it, and naive.


The most intriguing part is that two ex-employees have made some massive claims of a cover up, to which they have sworn by and stated they'd swear by again in court.

To give it a big 'pfffft' because one of their dads used the term 'mud sticks, even if it isn't true' is head in the sand stuff.

Maybe you can answer what others don't seem to then. How will this be investigated? I'd love to know, so please enlighten me.

And, even if it was, what exactly are you hoping for? To find out that EFC met Mick Gatto? Oh gee, the horror? That Bomber used coke? Yikes, stop the press.

You find it interesting that they have sworn by this and will do so in court, but you don't find it interesting that instead of doing so they've just released the information to the Herald Sun when they were obviously told to tell their story walking by the EFC? Who surely would have either tried to suppress the info with a hush money payout which everyone seems to think they are willing to do, or declined to call in the police if they felt they had even a tiny chance of incriminating themselves?

Yes, that is interesting. Just not in the way you think.

 

[Doss]

It doesn't mean you turn it on every time you're around your workmates.

What a bizzare environment down at Tulla.

Hey I can't say I like the idea of someone secretly recording me either.

But if Campbell had a sense that the discussion with Elliot might go down the path it appeared to, I can see why it happened in this case.

 

[imperial_oz]

Why would someone utter the phrase "mud sticks even if it isn't true" (or whatever the exact wording was) unless they were planning/threatening to make...lo and behold, untrue allegations?

Ask yourself that.

I'll disagree with you there.

Taking the statement simply at face value, it is an accurate statement. Mud sticks even if it isn't true. Thats not stated as a threat (by me) but as a statement of actual fact.

I'm not endorsing his actions but that statement can be read multiple ways.

You can say mud sticks and that part is demonstrably true. It sticks better if there is a factual basis but it will stick anyway. One very famous example is the 'known to be fabricated' Principles of the Elders of Zion. Completely made up yet that 'mud' has come to stick generations later. I'm sure you can come up with hundreds of examples without any real effort.

I have no idea whether the mud he was going to throw has any truth or otherwise but you are reading too much into that statement that may not in fact be true

 

[Lance Uppercut]

People can often mix up their words when talking in cliches

Travis Cloke the best example - cut to the talk with smoke and shadows behind the window or something

Yet people are grabbing onto some supposed phrasing as if it is gospel and mounting entire arguments based on it.

Essendon been trying to bury information the whole way along, anybody who believes anything coming from that camp has rocks in their head.

Yep, ignore what he's precisely said, and justify it by some ridiculous means, and then continue to assume everything he says is truth because it fits your preconceived world view.

What was that I said earlier about watching the cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias? Brilliant!

 

[Satan]

Meanwhile of course, everything this bloke says must be true. Gotcha.

#nooneargueswithmick