Bombers scandal: charged, <redacted> and <infracted>

[PJ_12345 1,098]

carlton, Collingwoods surgical record in 2005, west coast to get Gaff and Darling. All on par with us.

Freo chasing a home final isnt tanking its player management which is fine

They withdrew 12 of their best players for no reason and got thumped by 119 points, but magically they could all play the next week and beat Carlton and also play against Hawks in an elimination a couple of weeks later and only lose by a quarter of the original margin.

They benefited from deliberately losing a game. In my mind that's tanking.

[Crompton's the man 660]

Even without the Essendon saga I don't think Lloyd would have provided much of value. I think his old team mate Scott Lucas is a much better analyst of the game.

It would have been a really interesting year with Grant Thomas on the panel.

It has not been quite the same with Matthew Llapdog replacing Grant Thomas, has it?

I wonder whether he could be persuaded to come out of retirement to offer a few comments and a little perspective?

Could be worth a listen

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

I don't think that Brock's comments on their own would have been enough to justify the inquiry. I believe that his comments, when coupled with Bailey's, caused the investigation.

Just a view.

Liberatore. Fevola.

[Deeman 1,528]

Well, at least there's one thing that James Hird achieved in 2013 that Mick Malthouse could never do - get Carlton into the top eight.

[DemonFrog 1,356]

I've heard a different explanation.

For years Vlad maintained the line that there was no such thing as tanking. Suddenly, when his back was turned and he was at the Olympics, the McLean interview presented the opportunity to his rival to lay charges likely to embarrass the boss. It was a political ploy that misfired because, as AD demonstrated this week, you don't mess around with him.

It had nothing to do with social misfits and we as a club happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

My view is that Vlad and his group of thugs are all a bunch of DH

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'll leave it to Redleg to slug it out with you.

You've used one too many trains and boats trying to squirm out of the hole you've dug for yourself on this one.

I would have thought this thread and other like it which associates of your closed are testimony to the silly,misguided and at times grubby vendettas you have perpetrated about Wilson and at times others in protection of administration at MFC that has been profoundly incompetent and out of their depth.

[Hulett Packard III 166]

Before you and some of your mates hijacked it to once again bag the previous admin, "this thread" was about Essendon.

Remember?

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Which comments are you referring to and who made them?

My understanding is that we had already been investigated by the AFL and cleared, as AD confirmed. AD also said we did nothing wrong and that was in a Caro column.

There was not the slightest hint at all, that we would be investigated again, until Brock's comments OTC.

Now please stick to the facts and the argument. You said Brock's comments only reinforced others. You therefore suggest that it was not Brock's comments that got us investigated, but rather others to which he merely added.

Please elaborate.

For a start, the earlier " investigations" were little more than reactive one on one chats with people previously involved on their own. The AFL for its own measure had been in denial and the football world had been suspicious of a whitewash on the topic since 2009. The media had always been suspicious of MFC antics during 2009.and McLeans and Bailey comments brought it to head.

There is an irony in your comment about sticking to the facts.

And Bob has correctly stated that Brock's comments together with Baileys trigger the investigation.

[Redleg 41,758]

There is an irony in your comment about sticking to the facts.

And Bob has correctly stated that Brock's comments together with Baileys trigger the investigation.

Rhino I am not sure what you mean about the irony as I believe that I generally play the issue on here not the man. Sometimes we agree and other times we don't, but that is normal for honest debate.

I believe I have stuck to the facts and if you don' t, I am disappointed.

I have only one issue in this discussion with you and that is IMO Andersen ran with this while AD was away on the back of Brock's comments, whether or not they were coupled with Bailey's, which incidentally had already been investigated 18 months earlier and not repeated by him since. So I fail to understand how Bailey's comments of 18 months earlier which had been cleared can be coupled with Brock's.

Of course that is not my real point and I will repeat it. The AFL investigated US and no one else despite others making worse allegations against other clubs and despite an acknowledgement in the media that we were one of SEVERAL clubs that tanked.

Yes we tanked, but so did others, but we were the least powerful of those clubs and copped it.

[DemonFrog 1,356]

Rhino I am not sure what you mean about the irony as I believe that I generally play the issue on here not the man. Sometimes we agree and other times we don't, but that is normal for honest debate.

I believe I have stuck to the facts and if you don' t, I am disappointed.

I have only one issue in this discussion with you and that is IMO Andersen ran with this while AD was away on the back of Brock's comments, whether or not they were coupled with Bailey's, which incidentally had already been investigated 18 months earlier and not repeated by him since. So I fail to understand how Bailey's comments of 18 months earlier which had been cleared can be coupled with Brock's.

Of course that is not my real point and I will repeat it. The AFL investigated US and no one else despite others making worse allegations against other clubs and despite an acknowledgement in the media that we were one of SEVERAL clubs that tanked.

Yes we tanked, but so did others, but we were the least powerful of those clubs and copped it.

We were found not guilty of Tanking, so I can agree with you comment there.

What would have happened if we were found guilty?

[old55 23,801]

I'm not sure that Doc Reid's request for an open hearing is going to play out all that well for Jimmy. If Doc Reid insists he's completely innocent then surely it's going to make Jimmy look a bit guilty?

[Redleg 41,758]

I'm not sure that Doc Reid's request for an open hearing is going to play out all that well for Jimmy. If Doc Reid insists he's completely innocent then surely it's going to make Jimmy look a bit guilty?

Not necessarily. Jimmy blames it all on a rogue scientist.

[beelzebub 23,388]

Not necessarily. Jimmy blames it all on a rogue scientist.

What's the chances though that in an open hearing various lines of questioning might brig to bear evidence that some might just not want aired ?

In many ways the Doc's outcome is more damaging ( possibly ) than that of the other Amigos. if the Doc aint careful he may find himself on the path to being struck off. Then what does he do. He's got a lot to lose. Thats when things get interesting , when self preservation trumps supposed allegiance.

[old dee 23,922]

What's the chances though that in an open hearing various lines of questioning might brig to bear evidence that some might just not want aired ?

In many ways the Doc's outcome is more damaging ( possibly ) than that of the other Amigos. if the Doc aint careful he may find himself on the path to being struck off. Then what does he do. He's got a lot to lose. Thats when things get interesting , when self preservation trumps supposed allegiance.

That is exactly the position he finds himself in now bb.

Accepting AFL charges could trigger a case for him to be struck off.

He really has no choice IMO but to fight it to the death.

[beelzebub 23,388]

That is exactly the position he finds himself in now bb.

Accepting AFL charges could trigger a case for him to be struck off.

He really has no choice IMO but to fight it to the death.

He does indeed have to fight.... and I cant see any prisoners taken from here on in. He's on his todd !!

[sue 9,151]

What's the chances though that in an open hearing various lines of questioning might brig to bear evidence that some might just not want aired ?

In many ways the Doc's outcome is more damaging ( possibly ) than that of the other Amigos. if the Doc aint careful he may find himself on the path to being struck off. Then what does he do. He's got a lot to lose. Thats when things get interesting , when self preservation trumps supposed allegiance.

He's no spring chicken. Does he do any medical work outside of the club? I'd guess very little (yes, I'm guessing), so I don't think he'd be worried about being struck of except for the shame of it. That of course could loom large in his mind. I don't know if a quack can retire and de-register himself to dodge being struck off.

[Cards13 9,117]

He's no spring chicken. Does he do any medical work outside of the club? I'd guess very little (yes, I'm guessing), so I don't think he'd be worried about being struck of except for the shame of it. That of course could loom large in his mind. I don't know if a quack can retire and de-register himself to dodge being struck off.

Yea Sue his whole practice is founded on past players and there families!!! Everyone loves him and trusts him with thier children. He is an angel sent down from heaven to tend for the sick and injured amongst the Essendon family.

[beelzebub 23,388]

Sue. You dont think a Doctor would mind being struck off ?

He earns a living thereafter how?

Most docs would be mortified, not ashamed to be struck off.

He is a qualified professional . The rest are jumped up fortunates.

Be very surprised if Reid doesn't fight tooth and nail.

[sue 9,151]

Sue. You dont think a Doctor would mind being struck off ?

He earns a living thereafter how?

Most docs would be mortified, not ashamed to be struck off.

He is a qualified professional . The rest are jumped up fortunates.

Be very surprised if Reid doesn't fight tooth and nail.

Why do you ask that? I did say it would loom large in his mind which would be for all the reasons you list.

I can also understand that he may enjoy being a doctor until he drops. But he is surely at an age when he could retire, ie doesn't need a job to survive. I'm raising the question, can he just quietly drop out of being a quack? If he can do that and thus simply avoid the possibility of the shame/mortification of being struck off, fighting might indicate he thinks he has a good case. Or it might indicate he is even more of a stubborn fool than Hird. If he cannot quietly drop out and is sure to be struck off if he loses, then he might fight tooth and nail even with a weak case.

(Personally I'd like a younger doctor who is more likely to be up-to-date, but old enough to have had enough experience. And if she writes a letter, ensures she follows up on it.)

[old dee 23,922]

He's no spring chicken. Does he do any medical work outside of the club? I'd guess very little (yes, I'm guessing), so I don't think he'd be worried about being struck of except for the shame of it. That of course could loom large in his mind. I don't know if a quack can retire and de-register himself to dodge being struck off.

Sue he has a thriving business that operates out of Epworth Hospital.

Very much a hard working Doctor.

[Redleg 41,758]

He does indeed have to fight.... and I cant see any prisoners taken from here on in. He's on his todd !!

I think his case would be isolated in a Court to what if anything he did wrong, not what others may or may not have done.

[Redleg 41,758]

Sue. You dont think a Doctor would mind being struck off ?

He earns a living thereafter how?

Most docs would be mortified, not ashamed to be struck off.

He is a qualified professional . The rest are jumped up fortunates.

Be very surprised if Reid doesn't fight tooth and nail.

It won't happen. The AFL will wait until it dies down and do a deal, where what he admits, doesn't affect his livelihood. Watch this space.

[deanox 10,025]

He's no spring chicken. Does he do any medical work outside of the club? I'd guess very little (yes, I'm guessing), so I don't think he'd be worried about being struck of except for the shame of it. That of course could loom large in his mind. I don't know if a quack can retire and de-register himself to dodge being struck off.

He works with Peter Larkins and Andrew Daff in a very large (and expensive) sports medicine practice at the Epworth.

[jazza 1,323]

I think his case would be isolated in a Court to what if anything he did wrong, not what others may or may not have done.

exactly,produce evidence that your time at EFC is on the up

okay, I have a letter I wrote to the coach explaining why we should stop inje ooops

close this case bombers before you shoot bambi

[Sir Why You Little 37,242]

So when will the Player infraction notices begin to arrive??

Next week. I love the way most media outlets have reported the story as if it is all finished and done.

If there are 100+- players around Australia already being targetted this dirty saga has only just begun.

Essendrug are still in deep deep trouble.