Cry Baby Footballers!!

[SOT4]

No they wouldnt, no-one would be pushing up the price, they'd get what was offered and that's all.

He listed 3 different networks and you're saying that thered be no competition. I can't believe 7 would employ someone as stupid as you obviously are.

 

[SOT4]

Oh thank god we have you being judge, jury and executioner and finding a network that hasn't even been charged with anything guilty.

By the way, a small point, no players were named.

Are you Dylan Howard? If so may I take this chance to say you are edit

 

[FuManchu]

Nope...can't bring ourselves to do it (this time ). Braun got mostly support from everywhere, and his case certainly didn't warrant a black ban on a media organisation.

This new thing is much worse, and particularly as it's the second 'offence' with regard to the network in recent times not doing the right thing by the players. Would hope even the silliest Eagles fan wouldn't suggest this has anything to do with East v West (and how silly am I - wonder how many posts it will be before I get shown up by???)

I'm glad that you see that this incident is far worse than any drug accusation or drug taking that has occured within AFL ranks.

Ch7 have gone way too far this time and I dont care how bad the drug taking culture is at this club, I hope those named go Ch7 big time.

 

[plugger47]

They did however name the club.....kinda narrows it down a bit don't you think.?

Let's say you are a player in the local Bowls club which has 40 or so registered players

You have a problem with gambling on the Pokies at the club so you seek professional help, say from the local GP or AA or whatever.

Next thing you know, your club is being named on national TV as harboring a nest of problem gamblers based on the your doctor's files which the TV station got from an unnamed "source" who found your file in a gutter.

"It's a fair cop" says you.

Come off it.

An individual's right to privacy should not be compromised by that individual's profile in the community.

The fact that it happens far too often, is an indictment on the Media rather than the indivdual himself.

There is no "right" to privacy in this country.

 

[Mr Lizard]

There is no "right" to privacy in this country.

Yes there is, plonker47. Here is a media release to get you started.

The media is exempt from this privacy act, but they are supposed to behave ethically in return for the privilege.

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

To all those sooky footballers whinging about Channel 7 and black banning them, perhaps you should think about where a large chunk of your salary is coming from??? hmmm that's right, the $780 Million that 7 & 10 paid for the TV rights.

Perhaps if you're all going to have a cry about a couple of players privacy being breached (it wouldnt have been breached had they not done something wrong in the first place), then you might be happy to relinquish any payrises over the net few years that you would otherwise not have received but for the TV rights money!!

Grow up and stop behaving little spoilt immature children!!! or get out of the spotlight and let someone else have a go!

i reckon the AFL should take the rights off 7 and give them back to 9 for bring the game into disrepute !

 

[plugger47]

Yes there is, plonker47. Here is a media release to get you started.

The media is exempt from this privacy act, but they are supposed to behave ethically in return for the privilege.

Read the Act you clown. The Victorian health privacy legislation applies to HEALTH organizations obligations. It does not bestow a "right" of privacy on the patient. Private sector media organizations are not subject to the Victorian legislation. I wrote a major legal analysis on the law of medical information. There is no right in tort or constitutional right in this country to privacy. Goose

 

[JBMelb]

Let them give Seven the silent treatment, in fact while they are at it why don't they just do us all a favour and give all the media the silent treatment. Lets face it they don't offer any sensible comments anyway, just the same thing day in day out. Anything they have to say adds NOTHING to the coverage of the game, never has never will.

Please don't anyone take what I am saying the wrong way. There has been a huge amount of wrong on everyones part. I am not taking sides, but just pointing out things the way that I see them. And yes for the record I do believe that Seven were in the wrong for buying medical records. I will say though that the original claims by the woman that she "found them in the street" is plausable. It is about 12 months ago that medical records from a clinic near me were just found in the street.

The ALFPA are playing a game and have effectively sucked in most of the public to divert the attention from a number of facts.

There are two entirely seperate issues here and they are blowing another up way out of proportion to cover up the other, the involvement of players in illegal drugs. Yes Seven bought and broadcast medical records. Did they name the names of any of the players? No they didn't (although you would think they had the way Gale, Vlad and co keep ranting), therefore there hasn't been the breach of privacy that the AFLPA have convinced everyone that there has been.

Seven weren't the first to broadcast details of this. It was on Ten that players from Club X were involved in drugs. It happened, I saw and heard it. No they didn't buy the medical records, but they obviously had knowledge of them. Why aren't Ten banned they made public as much as Seven did?

This isn't a surprise to anyone. According to some journalists in recent days, there have been rumours about players from the club named for the last six months.

The Police have confirmed the report in todays Herald Sun that they were investigating allegations of a player from that same club for dealing in April of this year. Does the Herald Sun get banned for making that public?

If the players and the AFLPA want to be taken seriously with all of this then they either ban all media outlets or none. Regardless of the "beat up", Seven didn't make public any more than any other media organisation has. There was no injuntion in place on Friday night when the report ran, so if they intended on naming and shaming, they had the perfect and one time opportunity to do so. They wouldn't have been saving it up for another day, they would have known full well that someone would run off to the courts to get an injunction as soon as it was out.

Everyone just needs to take a step back and think very carefully. The players need to stop beating this up and give their "ban" the flick. Really the only ones that care about whether they have anything to say or not are the fans. As I said I doubt Seven could care too much if they don't talk to them or not, doesn't add much if anything to the coverage of the game in my opinion anyway.

 

[No1SwansFan]

so you are saying that it is fine for people to have their privacy invaded and their medical records made public, as long as the person that did it was the person who paid their salary?

Big deal channel 7 paid for some documents incriminating players of drug use. If they didnt who was next 9, 10 a magazine or newspaper. Who knows but why take it out on 7 cause they were offered to them first. They are in the spot light they need to deal with it. Its the joys that come with a celebrity status.

 

[HAWKS HEROES]

Big deal channel 7 paid for some documents incriminating players of drug use. If they didnt who was next 9, 10 a magazine or newspaper. Who knows but why take it out on 7 cause they were offered to them first. They are in the spot light they need to deal with it. Its the joys that come with a celebrity status.

9 and 10 already said no we don't want to touch this ! as 7 should have done the same !

 

[JBMelb]

9 and 10 already said no we don't want to touch this ! as 7 should have done the same !

Maybe they didn't pay for the records, but 10 reported it first!