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

[Doss]

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

A fair post. Mud does indeed stick even if it isn't true.

However, when you remember that this was apparently said in the context of Elliot Jr being unhappy with his payout...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

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

not stated as a threat?

The guy has called the CEO of an organisation he is trying to extract money from; and outlines his plans to take what he knows to the press if he isn't given a certain amount of money; and during this he suggests that mud sticks even if it isn't true; and your read on this is that it isn't a threat, he's just shooting the breeze? Do you envisage he said it with an apologetic tone as well, maybe just trying to help poor Xav by explaining how the world works?

Say what?

 

[Satan]

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.

Maybe campbell borrowed the tape recorder from carlton and on the other side of the tape is the Carlton Alavi conversation

 

[Satan]

not stated as a threat?

The guy has called the CEO of an organisation he is trying to extract money from; and outlines his plans to take what he knows to the press if he isn't given a certain amount of money; and during this he suggests that mud sticks even if it isn't true; and your read on this is that it isn't a threat, he's just shooting the breeze? Do you envisage he said it with an apologetic tone as well, maybe just trying to help poor Xav by explaining how the world works?

Say what?

Maybe Elliott was drunk ? There is form

 

[Doss]

Maybe campbell borrowed the tape recorder from carlton and on the other side of the tape is the Carlton Alavi conversation

um...yeah.

 

[kozi]

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.

Reading too much into it. The cliche most likely wasn't premeditaded and instead was simply thought of and said on the spot. Not everything is calmly calculated beforehand with a specific motive.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

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.

Essendon supporters again trying to rationalise and extrapolate what a pissed angry guy may have said late at night. Sure he may have said " I can make up shit".....but it doesnt mean the stuff he has alleged in teh calm light of day presumably with lawyers assisting him IS shit....

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

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

Hey, he is innocent, it was self defense.

 

[imperial_oz]

not stated as a threat?

The guy has called the CEO of an organisation he is trying to extract money from; and outlines his plans to take what he knows to the press if he isn't given a certain amount of money; and during this he suggests that mud sticks even if it isn't true; and your read on this is that it isn't a threat, he's just shooting the breeze? Do you envisage he said it with an apologetic tone as well, maybe just trying to help poor Xav by explaining how the world works?

Say what?

Nope, you misunderstand the intent of my post. I was not commenting on his intentions just on possible interpretations.

I can't reliably comment on his intentions without having that quote in the context of the entire conversation. Nobody can. It could quite easily have been intended as a baseless threat to extort money or it could have been given as a an argument in favour of eliciting a response. That will be up to the police in the first instance to form an opinion and then possibly later for a jury to form an opinion.

Just on that, alternative possibilities must be considered. If you have to reach a burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt, you have to consider any potential reasonable doubts ofr the whole thing won't fly. Your assumption that it was issued as a threat to extort money may well be the correct one but it may not be. You need the whole conversation to put it in context in my view. Without that context, any assumption is just that, an assumption. The jury will get the whole conversation if it gets that far.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Reading too much into it. The cliche most likely wasn't premeditaded and instead was simply thought of and said on the spot. Not everything is calmly calculated beforehand with a specific motive.

ah another outstanding piece.

So, your take is, we are reading too much into taking what he has said at face value; yet in the same breath you are able to divine his true intentions and motivations, which are exactly the opposite to what he said. And, we're reading too much into it.

Bravo!

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Essendon supporters again trying to rationalise and extrapolate what a pissed angry guy may have said late at night. Sure he may have said " I can make up shit".....but it doesnt mean the stuff he has alleged in teh calm light of day presumably with lawyers assisting him IS shit....

I think you're a bit confused dude. This was said by Elliot Snr, at daytime (otherwise known as the calm light of day), in a cafe, to Xavier Campbell's face...

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Nope, you misunderstand the intent of my post. I was not commenting on his intentions just on possible interpretations.

I can't reliably comment on his intentions without having that quote in the context of the entire conversation. Nobody can. It could quite easily have been intended as a baseless threat to extort money or it could have been given as a an argument in favour of eliciting a response. That will be up to the police in the first instance to form an opinion and then possibly later for a jury to form an opinion.

Just on that, alternative possibilities must be considered. If you have to reach a burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt, you have to consider any potential reasonable doubts ofr the whole thing won't fly. Your assumption that it was issued as a threat to extort money may well be the correct one but it may not be. You need the whole conversation to put it in context in my view. Without that context, any assumption is just that, an assumption. The jury will get the whole conversation if it gets that far.

look, that's fair enough, but it also may be exactly as it sounds. And in reality, you're actually proving my point as I'm using it to illustrate that there is doubt about what is said. It's a bit ironic that you're saying this to me, when I am the one who is asserting that you can't take what is said at face value; rather than, say, the people who seem to think you can take it at face value, despite the flashing red light of a guy using a phrase which - potentially - could indicate he's happy to say anything as long as it gets him what he wants, in an apparent blackmail attempt.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Maybe Elliott was drunk ? There is form

there is?

 

[jenny61_99]

The PED stuff has been dealt with. The players have done their time.

This is blackmail. And apart from labelling it despicable as an afterthought you can't seem to focus on anything else than Evil Essendon.

How was Elliot made a scapegoat? His father just wanted to make a buck out of it

You are calling for their heads for blackmail because it is illegal.... no such calling for heads when we learned they were plugging players full of experimental drugs. And there was no afterthought about me calling blackmail despicable. It was all part of the conversation. Evil Essendon? LMAO Essendon aren't evil. Just the idiots that drove and subsequently tried to cover up the doping. I mistakenly included Elliot in the scapegoat claim. I actually don't know anything about him or his circumstances. Do you know anything about his situation? (Serious question).

 

[imperial_oz]

look, that's fair enough, but it also may be exactly as it sounds. And in reality, you're actually proving my point as I'm using it to illustrate that there is doubt about what is said. It's a bit ironic that you're saying this to me, when I am the one who is asserting that you can't take what is said at face value; rather than, say, the people who seem to think you can take it at face value, despite the flashing red light of a guy using a phrase which - potentially - could indicate he's happy to say anything as long as it gets him what he wants, in an apparent blackmail attempt.

I'm not disagreeing with you. It started out as a response to Doss.

As for taking it at face value, we agree on that. You can't take it on face value in isolation.

The funny thing is, if it makes it into court, one lawyer will screaming about threats at the top of his/her lungs while the other will be screaming about some alternative interpretation That automatically precludes being able to take it at face value as you say.

 

[Cripps 'n' Blue Bloods]

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.

I'm surprised you need this shit spelled out for you.
If there's any truth to it and they can back it up, then they make a complaint and provide the evidence to the relevant authorities. It's not that bloody hard. You keep trying to link the blackmail and the other allegations. The blackmail will be handled as blackmail, if there's any meat around the other allegations, that will be dealt with IF Wallis and Elliott follow through with it.
You mention Gatto and the coke, but fail to mention the witness and evidence tampering (not sure the police could do anything with that seeing as it wasn't a court of law, but surely ASADA could double dip and hit the club for interfering with a doping investigation), the sexual harassment (which you've previously brushed off as a HR problem) and the criminal act of medicare fraud.

The blackmail charges (not that they've actually been charged yet) won't stop that from happening. It might cast a shadow over their claims, but if they have any proof, that will cover that.

 

[jenny61_99]

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.

Yep. Completely shot himself in the foot there.

 

[Bluez Rule]

hop

Maybe campbell borrowed the tape recorder from carlton and on the other side of the tape is the Carlton Alavi conversation

hopefully its a TEAC 90 min tape not a 35

 

[Lance Uppercut]

You are calling for their heads for blackmail because it is illegal.... no such calling for heads when we learned they were plugging players full of experimental drugs. And there was no afterthought about me calling blackmail despicable. It was all part of the conversation. Evil Essendon? LMAO Essendon aren't evil. Just the idiots that drove and subsequently tried to cover up the doping. I mistakenly included Elliot in the scapegoat claim. I actually don't know anything about him or his circumstances. Do you know anything about his situation? (Serious question).

excuse me, I wanted Hird gone long before he did, and as I said all along, I wanted to wait until or if the case was proven. You know, due process?

Elliot was Hird's dogsbody. A nobody, and I mean that as respectfully as it can be said. But a nobody, who was just trying to make a buck out of this bullshit

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Yep. Completely shot himself in the foot there.

From a 'court of public opinion' aspect, yes. But in a real world aspect, how can we know that? We've only seen a snippet of the conversation, have no idea of the context and don't even know where the dad fits into the whole thing!


The old man didn't even make the claims did he?

Two other 'disgruntled employees' did, and the claims were made well before the 'mud sticks' conversation. So for mine, as usual, this is a smokescreen and distraction for the real issue.


Two ex-employees, up to their nuts in the saga, have made claims and sworn by them - and stated that they'd swear on them again in a court of law if required.

The response so far from Essendon and the AFL has been - 'yeah but, one of their dad's said 'mud sticks' in a conversation we had! These guys are whackos man!'


The only other response from Essendon, once again, has been found to be a lie. Or at the very least, more weasel words.

 

[Bluez Rule]

AFL season rolls around, things have been quiet. Let's throw out the words 'Essendon' and 'saga' and see what happens

 

[Satan]

hop

hopefully its a TEAC 90 min tape not a 35

120 too thin break easily

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

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.

Did he ever make the untrue allegations he was planning to make?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I'm surprised you need this shit spelled out for you.
If there's any truth to it and they can back it up, then they make a complaint and provide the evidence to the relevant authorities. It's not that bloody hard. You keep trying to link the blackmail and the other allegations. The blackmail will be handled as blackmail, if there's any meat around the other allegations, that will be dealt with IF Wallis and Elliott follow through with it.
You mention Gatto and the coke, but fail to mention the witness and evidence tampering (not sure the police could do anything with that seeing as it wasn't a court of law, but surely ASADA could double dip and hit the club for interfering with a doping investigation), the sexual harassment (which you've previously brushed off as a HR problem) and the criminal act of medicare fraud.

The blackmail charges (not that they've actually been charged yet) won't stop that from happening. It might cast a shadow over their claims, but if they have any proof, that will cover that.

and yet, if they could go to these "relevant authorities", why the hell haven't they, instead of releasing it publicly to damage EFC as retaliation for not paying them money?

But thanks for spelling it out for me. Maybe I can return the favour?

The fact you think ASADA could prosecute EFC on this is absolutely laughable. You clearly have no idea about what ASADA are or how they work. There is no ADVR called "interfering with a doping investigation". There can be no Show Cause notice issued for this. ASADA can't prosecute a club, they can only ever prosecute athletes. They are not a statutory body. They have no capacity to "penalise" EFC even if they could investigate them, which they can't, because ASADA have no power other than the AFL agreement to abide by their code, and the ONLY penalty ASADA can ever "issue", is by prosecuting their case to the AFL Tribunal, which then issues the penalty itself according to their own anti doping code, and I can absolutely guarantee you there is no provision in that for what you are suggesting.

The amount of shit wrong about that statement is absolutely mind-boggling.

So, your "relevant authorities" are reduced to, what? EFC Human Resources department? AHPRA? Even though the claims are so dodgy the Herald Sun's lawyers have clearly advised them to redact the name of the person allegedly involved?? Who else? The police, for their allegations of cocaine use? Not trafficking, but simple use? Ah... yeah good luck with that.

So thanks again for the lesson and for spelling it out for me. Much appreciated.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

From a 'court of public opinion' aspect, yes. But in a real world aspect, how can we know that? We've only seen a snippet of the conversation, have no idea of the context and don't even know where the dad fits into the whole thing!


The old man didn't even make the claims did he?

Two other 'disgruntled employees' did, and the claims were made well before the 'mud sticks' conversation. So for mine, as usual, this is a smokescreen and distraction for the real issue.


Two ex-employees, up to their nuts in the saga, have made claims and sworn by them - and stated that they'd swear on them again in a court of law if required.

The response so far from Essendon and the AFL has been - 'yeah but, one of their dad's said 'mud sticks' in a conversation we had! These guys are whackos man!'


The only other response from Essendon, once again, has been found to be a lie. Or at the very least, more weasel words.

the court of public opinion is the only court this will ever be heard in. That's why they did it, because they had no other recourse. See my post above. What exactly are you expecting to come from the allegations?