-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Channel 7 - have your say
- Thread starter kmah8
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Re: Channel 7 apology
anyone who respects the players privacy, and who is comfortable enough in his own life and doesent feel the need to pry into someone elses, anyone who says live and let live, well we couldnt care less what footballers do on their own time, any more than i dont care what YOU do in your own time
its fairly obvious which camp you sit in
the only people who feel these players have let down their team are the drugs are bad, puritanical wowsers who spend their ****ing lives telling other how to live theirs, busybodies who like nothing better than to force their morals onto other people in their own homeswhy is it that most posters kicking up a storm over this support the same club?
defensive. defensive. defensive.
when instead they should be disgusted with the players involved. but of course, they're heroes who can do no wrong.
they don't deserve their status as role models.
I'm sure the supporters of the club invovled were cheering these players (as per normal) on the weekend when they really should've been heckling/abusing these individuals who have (whether people like it or not) disrespected their club, it's purpose and the history of it.
anyone who respects the players privacy, and who is comfortable enough in his own life and doesent feel the need to pry into someone elses, anyone who says live and let live, well we couldnt care less what footballers do on their own time, any more than i dont care what YOU do in your own time
its fairly obvious which camp you sit in
Re: Channel 7 apology
these players don't deserve leniancy.
name and shame is the game.
Channel Seven might be wrong but the AFL's soft, marshmallow, weak, pathetic joke of a three strikes and you might be in a little trouble, sort of, maybe policy is far worse.
ignoring the obvious.And Channel Seven DIDN'T know the consequences of going public!
I want whatever it is that you're smoking! NOT!!
BTW, in my job I work with medical records all the time - and if I so much as THOUGHT about disclosing that information without the third party's authority, I'd have my arse kicked all the way to Darwin & back.
these players don't deserve leniancy.
name and shame is the game.
Channel Seven might be wrong but the AFL's soft, marshmallow, weak, pathetic joke of a three strikes and you might be in a little trouble, sort of, maybe policy is far worse.
Re: Channel 7 apology
I think all supporters should remember that something like 40 to 50 players have tested positive to "recreational" drugs in the past couple of years.
Lets assume the numbers mentioned Friday of ~7 at one club are correct, then that still leaves another 30 to 40, some of them at YOUR club.
On another matter I would love some of the heros on these boards to speak to a bloke down the pub the way they speak to each other here. There would be many many mice at that pub methinks.
I think all supporters should remember that something like 40 to 50 players have tested positive to "recreational" drugs in the past couple of years.
Lets assume the numbers mentioned Friday of ~7 at one club are correct, then that still leaves another 30 to 40, some of them at YOUR club.
On another matter I would love some of the heros on these boards to speak to a bloke down the pub the way they speak to each other here. There would be many many mice at that pub methinks.
Mighty Reds
Senior List
- Mar 14, 2007
- 202
- 0
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC, GSW
Re: Channel 7 apology
I agree people resort to those tactics when they can't back up their own arguments. Find some middle ground and move on.
I agree people resort to those tactics when they can't back up their own arguments. Find some middle ground and move on.
Re: Channel 7 apology
see things in whatever shade you wish. be Arsene Wenger if you wish.
I'd be just as disgusted if players from my club were in the same situation. particuarly senior/hero/role models players.
And ftr, I don't talk any differently on here than I do at the pub, with friends, family, at the football or anywhere. I have a viewpoint. Like it or not. I really couldn't give a ****.
Unfortunately when it comes to this incident, for whatever reason I'm not sure I can take your viewpoint seriously.
curtains. shade. blinds. blindfold. dirty sunglasses.
see things in whatever shade you wish. be Arsene Wenger if you wish.
I'd be just as disgusted if players from my club were in the same situation. particuarly senior/hero/role models players.
And ftr, I don't talk any differently on here than I do at the pub, with friends, family, at the football or anywhere. I have a viewpoint. Like it or not. I really couldn't give a ****.
Unfortunately when it comes to this incident, for whatever reason I'm not sure I can take your viewpoint seriously.
Re: Channel 7 apology
Now you are getting carried away.
the reason recreational drugs have no place in the AFL are simple.
Firstly they place an excessive strain on players when they are already exposed to excessive stresses from the demands of training and playing and the potential is there for players to have cardiac problems at some stage during exertion where non use of drugs would have lessened that risk
Secondly, the players get paid handsomely to be at their peak 24/7 from the time pre season starts to the last match of the season. Their contracts forbids the use of illicit drugs. A club would have good reason to be aggrieved that a player who gets on it after a match would be below his optimum peak for up to two to three days just as the body still deals with the after effects of recreational drug use. If you dont believe that the body has a lag effect, go to the gym the next day or day after and see how your performance suffers. Use of amphetimine can have the effect of muscle wasting, it doesnt necessarily eat into the fat reserves. It depletes long term energy levels.
the clubs should be comfortable in the fact that their players they pay well, will turn up to all training sessions primed and 100%, not suffering from the effects of a post match binge.
Now you are getting carried away.
the reason recreational drugs have no place in the AFL are simple.
Firstly they place an excessive strain on players when they are already exposed to excessive stresses from the demands of training and playing and the potential is there for players to have cardiac problems at some stage during exertion where non use of drugs would have lessened that risk
Secondly, the players get paid handsomely to be at their peak 24/7 from the time pre season starts to the last match of the season. Their contracts forbids the use of illicit drugs. A club would have good reason to be aggrieved that a player who gets on it after a match would be below his optimum peak for up to two to three days just as the body still deals with the after effects of recreational drug use. If you dont believe that the body has a lag effect, go to the gym the next day or day after and see how your performance suffers. Use of amphetimine can have the effect of muscle wasting, it doesnt necessarily eat into the fat reserves. It depletes long term energy levels.
the clubs should be comfortable in the fact that their players they pay well, will turn up to all training sessions primed and 100%, not suffering from the effects of a post match binge.
Re: Channel 7 apology
You wouldnt be as open minded if Nathan Buckley's medical records were on display.
You wouldnt be as open minded if Nathan Buckley's medical records were on display.
Re: Channel 7 apology
there is no way at all or under any circumstances that this information should be made public.
i see what you are saying, but even if i agreed with all of that, there is STILL no call for naming and shaming, as it nobodies business but the club's. players should still be able to expect privacy and confidentiality. just because they are paid well doesent mean they give up basic human rights
there is no way at all or under any circumstances that this information should be made public.
- Oct 9, 2006
- 22,755
- 29,518
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Super Tottenham....from the Lane.
Re: Channel 7 apology
I just hope that you continue to take the moral high ground when one of your own is outed for recreational drug use. There would almost certainly be players at every AFL club guilty of such misdemeanors. What position will you take then?
I just hope that you continue to take the moral high ground when one of your own is outed for recreational drug use. There would almost certainly be players at every AFL club guilty of such misdemeanors. What position will you take then?
Re: Channel 7 apology
These players deserve leniancy because they are not bad people. Because of their profile public naming would cause a greater punishment than would befit the crime.
If a young person makes a mistake that hurts no one but themselves should they be publically humiliated? NO!
Would you have liked it if your peers/family/church/community knew you groaped a girl at high school or had done something eaqually as shameful before you were truely responsible and knew better. Many people forget that underage smoking and drinking are also illegal yet do not bat an eyelid or consider their own foybles.
The only thing that could come from shaming these young men is the destruction of their lives. Remember taking drugs harms the person taking them more than it hurts anyone else.
What if a player we set up at a nightclub? Someone slipped something into their drink perhaps. How do we know if a player is truely introuble if we base our assesment on one incident. The system the AFL has is designed by experts with the players best interest in mind.
Save kneejerk reactions to reflexes, when peoples lives are involved thought and compassion are needed.
These players deserve leniancy because they are not bad people. Because of their profile public naming would cause a greater punishment than would befit the crime.
If a young person makes a mistake that hurts no one but themselves should they be publically humiliated? NO!
Would you have liked it if your peers/family/church/community knew you groaped a girl at high school or had done something eaqually as shameful before you were truely responsible and knew better. Many people forget that underage smoking and drinking are also illegal yet do not bat an eyelid or consider their own foybles.
The only thing that could come from shaming these young men is the destruction of their lives. Remember taking drugs harms the person taking them more than it hurts anyone else.
What if a player we set up at a nightclub? Someone slipped something into their drink perhaps. How do we know if a player is truely introuble if we base our assesment on one incident. The system the AFL has is designed by experts with the players best interest in mind.
Save kneejerk reactions to reflexes, when peoples lives are involved thought and compassion are needed.
Re: Channel 7 apology
No, there in no need to name and shame them. The use of confidential medical reports is a disgrace. A far bigger disgrace than West Coast allowing a known drug user to keep playing and exposing him to further health risks. At least that player had a choice in that decision. These players would have expected the mechanism put in place to rehabilitate and the right to privacy to remain in place.
Re: Channel 7 apology
God Crypt dont get logical mate. You will get the typical "self righteous" response.
God Crypt dont get logical mate. You will get the typical "self righteous" response.
Re: Channel 7 apology
more adults believe in santa, dude
hahha your still pushing that barrow? you know there is precisely one person on the planet that thinks that is what happened?
more adults believe in santa, dude
Re: Channel 7 apology
I really think there is confusion on what this is about.
1. AFL players taking recreational drugs
2. An individuals privacy being breached
Now look at the circumstances at how this came about. Didnt point 1 only occur due to point 2 occurring?
Agree there should be no drugs in the AFL but how this situation came about is the issue, hence the reaction from the disgusted AFL players.
Essentially, if channel 7 go unpunished, every medical record of every single AFL player should be available to the public - what a pathetic precedent. These guys are paid athletes but nobody deserves that sort of violation of trust.
I really think there is confusion on what this is about.
1. AFL players taking recreational drugs
2. An individuals privacy being breached
Now look at the circumstances at how this came about. Didnt point 1 only occur due to point 2 occurring?
Agree there should be no drugs in the AFL but how this situation came about is the issue, hence the reaction from the disgusted AFL players.
Essentially, if channel 7 go unpunished, every medical record of every single AFL player should be available to the public - what a pathetic precedent. These guys are paid athletes but nobody deserves that sort of violation of trust.
Re: Channel 7 apology
I think most non west Coast supporters belive west Coast turned a blind eye to allow Cousins to keep playing for as long as it suited west Coast.
hahha your still pushing that barrow? you know there is precisely one person on the planet that thinks that is what happened?
more adults believe in santa, dude
I think most non west Coast supporters belive west Coast turned a blind eye to allow Cousins to keep playing for as long as it suited west Coast.
Re: Channel 7 apology
Whether or not seven was right or wrong, they reported on information that we have now found out are illegeal documents.
Many people on here are critcising seven for naming the club, but how many of them were on here wanting to know if it was their club or not. There was no complaining about whether it was wrong then, most people were just concerned whether it was their club or not.
Channel 7 had the documents, but other radio and television stations had stories on it. Both SEN and 3AW talked about it, just not mentioning clubs as they didn't have the documents. Channel 10 named the club on their bulletin yet nothing has been said about them. I know that they didn't purchase the 'illegal' documents, but they still named the team, before 7 did
Whether or not seven was right or wrong, they reported on information that we have now found out are illegeal documents.
Many people on here are critcising seven for naming the club, but how many of them were on here wanting to know if it was their club or not. There was no complaining about whether it was wrong then, most people were just concerned whether it was their club or not.
Channel 7 had the documents, but other radio and television stations had stories on it. Both SEN and 3AW talked about it, just not mentioning clubs as they didn't have the documents. Channel 10 named the club on their bulletin yet nothing has been said about them. I know that they didn't purchase the 'illegal' documents, but they still named the team, before 7 did
Re: Channel 7 apology
Ari, I think this boils down to whether Dylan bought information which any right minded person would have more than just suspected of being stolen, and whether he really considered the publication of information that was private between patient and Doctor.
Dylan is the only person who can answer this question, but it does appear that the entire forum here are very sceptical that these documents were found in the gutter, the finder could not return them to the office because the gate was locked, and then the finder went about flogging the documents to various media companies for $3000.
So, yes! I think reporters do have certain ethical standards that they should meet.
Ari, I think this boils down to whether Dylan bought information which any right minded person would have more than just suspected of being stolen, and whether he really considered the publication of information that was private between patient and Doctor.
Dylan is the only person who can answer this question, but it does appear that the entire forum here are very sceptical that these documents were found in the gutter, the finder could not return them to the office because the gate was locked, and then the finder went about flogging the documents to various media companies for $3000.
So, yes! I think reporters do have certain ethical standards that they should meet.
Re: Channel 7 apology
you are the only one who has interpreted it the way you have, and even after hundreds of posts espousing this opinion, noone else seems to have taken it up
why is that, do you reckon?
most non west Coast supporters believe what woosha said on TFS.
you are the only one who has interpreted it the way you have, and even after hundreds of posts espousing this opinion, noone else seems to have taken it up
why is that, do you reckon?
Re: Channel 7 apology
No, point 1 occured because some players did the wrong thing by their club, by their contract. Point 2 occured because some unscrupulous people in the media preyed on the poor judgement of those involved in point 1 and some dishonest acts by outsiders.
No argument here. This is a bigger issue than the use of drugs in the AFL
No, point 1 occured because some players did the wrong thing by their club, by their contract. Point 2 occured because some unscrupulous people in the media preyed on the poor judgement of those involved in point 1 and some dishonest acts by outsiders.
No argument here. This is a bigger issue than the use of drugs in the AFL
Re: Channel 7 apology
channel 7 went public with stolen documents from which they payed for..........gee they do have more resources than little old tim lane.......
channel 7 went public with stolen documents from which they payed for..........gee they do have more resources than little old tim lane.......
Re: Channel 7 apology
Agree with you! Also, Ch7 did not name any players, only named one club.......the real issue is getting swept under the carpet as usual by the AFL.........and as for the players boycotting Ch7 and/or the Brownlow........what a bunch of little sheep they are!! following along behind the leader..............we will continue to watch Ch7 in our house....
Agree with you! Also, Ch7 did not name any players, only named one club.......the real issue is getting swept under the carpet as usual by the AFL.........and as for the players boycotting Ch7 and/or the Brownlow........what a bunch of little sheep they are!! following along behind the leader..............we will continue to watch Ch7 in our house....Re: Channel 7 apology
the club admitted it knew of cousins problem in July (if not before that) and chose to severely punish him by writing a letter (a letter!!!!!). A disingenuous act if I have ever seen one. he was in breach in July as much as he was in breach in March this year. They chose the most advantageous time to suspend him.
Woosha told porkies before the footy show, saying there was no drug problem at the eagles, then later said that 6 to 7 players admitted to use. he cant be believed. the club towed the same line only to admit it was wrong.
the club admitted it knew of cousins problem in July (if not before that) and chose to severely punish him by writing a letter (a letter!!!!!). A disingenuous act if I have ever seen one. he was in breach in July as much as he was in breach in March this year. They chose the most advantageous time to suspend him.
Re: Channel 7 apology
keep pushing it though, i know its your thing
your in an especially rare group if you think woosha lied about something
yes yes yes iv heard it all before mate, its been answered a dozen times to the satisfaction of anyone who is not a halfwit or a troll
keep pushing it though, i know its your thing
your in an especially rare group if you think woosha lied about something
Similar threads
