you and me both brotherseriously though this is far worse than what was done to braun, (though that was very wrong too) but i dont think the fact that it happened 2 weeks ago is helping things now
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Cry Baby Footballers!!
- Thread starter Ishy
- Start date
- Tagged users None
you and me both brotherseriously though this is far worse than what was done to braun, (though that was very wrong too) but i dont think the fact that it happened 2 weeks ago is helping things now
Braun has the right of reply thru the courts. these players probably dont
seriously though this is far worse than what was done to braun, (though that was very wrong too) but i dont think the fact that it happened 2 weeks ago is helping things now
indeed, and channel 7 probably didnt do anything immoral and certainly nothing illegal to get the information last time, they probably just rang up and asked anyone who had spent more than 3 minutes with aker in the last few years.
this time it was certainly immoral and they may end up facing charges, as well
The saying from hero to zero comes to mind.
Actually Ch7 probably did something wrong in giving out braun's name. It is defamation. If Aker reported this by phone to the hotline set up to report these thing and only spoke about it in private conversations, he should be clear. the court will look at his article and see if he made reasonable attempts to hide the identity of the player which it can be argued he did as he gave a number of conflicting bits of info.
in the most recent case, Ch7 must have known that medical records are confidential no matter how they are obtained. the changes to the privacy laws late last year would have only served to magnify the need to keep these things confidential. Yet they stupidly defied federal laws, i hope they cop it big time.
Whilst the ethics of some people out of this whole fiasco will come under question, petty strikes and boycotts do nothing.
Nothing worse than seeing those bums on TV do it - thinking they have a brain.
Nothing worse than seeing those bums on TV do it - thinking they have a brain.
Sounds to me like you're having a bigger cry than them
Good on em, completely reasonable response.
$780 million allows Channel 7 to broadcast the footy (too bad they sold their crowd effects mic's to pay for it) but not to belittle the stars of the game. They players should boycott the Brownlow!!!!
So you would not be upset about your confidential medical records being the lead story on the news? shyuh right.
I watched the 5 minute report on 7 before the injuction was in place, didn't hear any names, so exactly whose doctor patient privilege has been broken?
AFL's spin machine is obviously working a treat with the nuff nuffs.
No the "AFL spin machine" got it right.
Doctor patient privilege was broken the moment someone outside the doctor patient relationship found out about the details. Just because 7 did not divulge all the details does not mean the privilege wasn't broken. breaking of a medical/legal privilege is not about quantity, the fact that someone outside the relationship now knows the details indicates the privilege is broken.
On a side note, you say/type the word privilege enough... it starts to sound/look funny.
Solstice Raver
Club Legend
That's fine then. I'll have a chat with your boss and get him to sign off me going down and paying your GP for and posting your entire medical file here on Big Footy.
I don't have the right. Your boss doesn't have the right and you GP certainly doesn't have the right. The only person who does have the right is you, to your privacy.
These are real people just like you and are entitled to their privacy, regardless to how much of a vouyer you are.
Thanks, Mrs Howard, but we all still think Dylan is the biggest flog in football.
Channel Seven acted in a morally reprehensible, very possibly criminal, manner in their purchasing medical records and airing the details. They bought the rights to show football on TV, not to treat players with contempt. They're getting nothing less than they deserve.
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.
frankc
Club Legend
What a tool - how about you publish your personal medical records on this forum? What about if someone stole your medical records and published them.
What has salary got to do with it? Sounds like your the typical ignorant person who beleives just becuase someone earns a significant amount of money anything related to them if fair game.
Good on the AFLPA.
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.
In this case no... but thats offering Braun little or no confort. I think that one was worse as there was absolutely no evidence in that case...
Channel 7, you've done it again!
But that would nto be entirely correct. Eastern state players did come out in support of Braun. However, what C7 did this time is so much more unethical and concerning than naming Braun when it was already known by so many in footy circles. At least in that situation Aker got the ball rolling.
lets not let the facts stand in the way of a good ol' us v them argument.
there are some eagles supporters that think the whole eastern seaboard is out to get them. When in reality, they are out to get everyone but themselves.
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???)
- Banned
- #73
Is that you Bruce ??
- Mar 15, 2006
- 8,419
- 6,557
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
I thought this was about Ben Johnson.
carry on.
carry on.
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.
But details from the records were provided for public edification. Very poor form indeed and, from my understanding of it, a breach of privacy laws.
If the network (and the caring, sharing people that they colluded with) were as concerned as they claim to be about the problem of drugs in football and the footballers in question, why didn't they take the records to AFL house, film themselves doing so and broadcast that - thus placing the problem publicly in the AFL's lap and ensuring that the story was about the problem? If the concern is about the prevalence of drug use amongst AFL players and how the policy is not working this would be appropriate action.
Having said that, who's to say that the policy hasn't worked for the unfortunate individuals whose records were stolen? When were the tests done? Did the fact that they were caught lead to them undertaking rehab? If so, when did they complete rehab? Whose to say that these are not mistakes from the past that have come back to haunt them through the illiegal acts of others?
I am not an apologist for drug dealers and suppliers, or users who refuse to recognise they have a problem and consequently make life hell for everyone around them. Given where the records were stolen from, it would appear that these guys recognised the problem and were attempting to do something about it. Let them, and all other addicts, regardless of whether they play football or work in the media to earn their crust, get on with doing so.
Similar threads
