46 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I'd agree with this essentially. For me the ruse is it's really an opinion piece jacketed as a clinical assessment.

Have you read Le Grands book?

51 minutes ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

Actually, I don't think that's their job. Their job is to either (1) report the news in an unbiased manner or (2) provide analysis or opinion. Unfortunately, it's not always clear when a journo is writing or speaking as to which they are doing.

Sorry, but while I agree that #1 is their direct job, the aim of doing so is to achieve what I stated, either by themselves under #2 or by providing the data so someone else can do so. Otherwise journalism is just entertainment.

12 minutes ago, H_T said:

Have you read Le Grands book?

Have read some. Yes. As soon as my son gives me back his copy I'll finish it. Suffice to say gave read enough do far to see how he's painting it ( and over )

 

Suffice to say I wasn't wasting any of my money on it...but as eldest is a Bomber (forgive him)  and as I am firmly of one opinion ( not his ) he thought he'd read up on it....is about as close to any semblance  of what's gone on he's prepared to go.

Who was runner up in the Brownlow in 2012?

Just out of curiosity.

Just now, H_T said:

See thread - "Bringing the game into disrepute" by LH.

 

I thought it should be mentioned here due to dear Andrews calls to the EFC. Perhaps he has form. Happy to remove if you think it duplicates info.

19 minutes ago, H_T said:

 

He doesn't know the truth, that's exactly it. It's a quote used by a father of one of the players - not Chip's view. It's used to promote the book. 

It states "Chip's access to key players on both sides.." highlighting a balanced take. 

Big, you're right that it could have been a quote from anyone, could have been one from early on like...Kyle Reimers at the very start with the interview with Barrett. Tim is a big name, father of the year, etc, why not use a quote from a popular figure? 

Let's not forget there is also an essendon player (guernsey) on the front also with a syringe saying the biggest drug scandal - biased there? C'mon..

 

My issue so much that it was Tim in the quote, it was that it was Tim and his quote is saying read this if you want the truth. They don't go together as Tim doesn't know the truth. If the quote was more along the lines of 'this is an in depth study in the search for the truth then I have far less issue. The way it looks is that he is after EFC supporters to read it and take it as truth because their legend Tim said it is the truth. 

It raises questions to me for two reasons;

1- If Tim thinks it is the truth then is it really as the 'truth' Tim knows has been managed by the club from day one.

2- It seems a call to EFC supporters to read this, it is true, see your legend Tim said its the truth.

Could well be innocent and it could be a well balanced book, I haven't read it as I don't take chip all that seriously due to the few other things I have read of his, but this quote isn't a good look.

12 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Who was runner up in the Brownlow in 2012?

Just out of curiosity.

Mitchell/Cotchin

On 15 December 2015 at 9:45 PM, willmoy said:

Has anyone actually bothered to ask Ess supporters what they think.

Has any Media gone out to them and asked things like "what do you think of your club and its actions and its coach"

Will it be done after the decision. I wonder.

One of my friends (aged mid 50s) had what he describes himself as a pathological man crush on Hird; now he cannot watch, listen, read anything about Essendon at all.  Totally disillusioned.  

54 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

I don't purport my offering as anything but opinion except where reporting a fact.

I haven't written a book pretending one is the other

 

The book has a lot more factual content than much of the pulp fiction being pedalled on here.

2 minutes ago, H_T said:

Mitchell/Cotchin

Tim Watson has been flogging amino acids since his first retirement from football.

I remember the Musashi ads back then.

His link with EFC,Channel Seven,The AFL etc is too cosy for mine.

In their own words Musashi have been "pushing the boundaries" since 1987.

The Brownlow must be stripped from Jobe and we are naive to think Watson and Co haven't been using Amino acids of varying legality for years.

 

1 hour ago, Sir Why You Little said:

I agree completely  i heard Watson Snr say a lot in the early days of this whole thing. Never sounded convincing to me

What has ALWAYS astounded me is that the parents of all the 34 players have remained almost silent. 

Were they paid to "Shut it" & how much?

Was there ever someone as conflicted and so inept, He's put the club before his family. Shameful

Without having wasted my time reading let alone buying the Book my slant on this would be when, chronologically, does the book actually kick off. If it starts around about 2012 then that would be indefensible because this party started long before that. To me that's like starting a Diary in June. You don't start planning an operation of this magnitude on the spur of the moment. The best comparison is permaculture and that takes years.

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

One of my friends (aged mid 50s) had what he describes himself as a pathological man crush on Hird; now he cannot watch, listen, read anything about Essendon at all.  Totally disillusioned.  

friend.........

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

2 hours ago, monoccular said:

One of my friends (aged mid 50s) had what he describes himself as a pathological man crush on Hird; now he cannot watch, listen, read anything about Essendon at all.  Totally disillusioned.  

keep this friend, he has a strong moral compass.  

 

9 hours ago, binman said:

To avoid post announcement spin perhaps you can provide succinct answers to the following questions ...

Don't hold your breath, still waiting re the "I'll get back to you with details" from page 171.

Anyway, back in the real world, agree with your predictions - though re 2), I can't see what in the code would allow them to be found guilty and still be available this year. 2 years less credit for provisional less 6 months for no significant fault would be 13 ½ months.

Helping...and no significant fault are out the window.

NSF is next to impossible to bag.

They "knew" something.

As to helping

38 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Don't hold your breath, still waiting re the "I'll get back to you with details" from page 171.

Anyway, back in the real world, agree with your predictions - though re 2), I can't see what in the code would allow them to be found guilty and still be available this year. 2 years less credit for provisional less 6 months for no significant fault would be 13 ½ months.

What "provisional" 6 months? Was there a period where no attended training or drew a salary?

39 minutes ago, CBDees said:

What "provisional" 6 months? Was there a period where no attended training or drew a salary?

From what's known, provisional is 4 ½ months. It covers the period from when the SCN's were issued till when the players were cleared by the tribunal.

They continued training, but were ineligible for competitive matches. Them's the rules.

Agree with the above on "no significant fault" and how difficult it is to establish, but perhaps they (players) can make it stick.

36 minutes ago, bing181 said:

From what's known, provisional is 4 ½ months. It covers the period from when the SCN's were issued till when the players were cleared by the tribunal.

They continued training, but were ineligible for competitive matches. Them's the rules.

Agree with the above on "no significant fault" and how difficult it is to establish, but perhaps they (players) can make it stick.

It doesn't make sense to count the provisional suspension. The intention of it is to count to a suspension coming from the hearing but not disadvantage you if you are cleared. They got cleared and it was no disadvantage. To count it now when it is not continuous goes against that intention. It may well happen but it doesn't sit right with me. 

You won't get nsf to fly by forgetting to mention hundreds of jabs.

CAS aren't buying it either hence their dragging in of players and raising the idea of concern.

2 years minus provisionals. Deal with it Essendon... All your doing.

1 hour ago, bing181 said:

From what's known, provisional is 4 ½ months. It covers the period from when the SCN's were issued till when the players were cleared by the tribunal.

They continued training, but were ineligible for competitive matches. Them's the rules.

Agree with the above on "no significant fault" and how difficult it is to establish, but perhaps they (players) can make it stick.

Being ineligible for "competitive matches" (i.e. Playing Magner & Co. in the NAB Challenge) is hardly a penalty when they drew a salary.

40 minutes ago, CBDees said:

Being ineligible for "competitive matches" (i.e. Playing Magner & Co. in the NAB Challenge) is hardly a penalty when they drew a salary.

That whole debacle was farcical. T'was all nudge nudge wonk wink between the AFL and the Hill. All boys club stuff.

But,alas, it will count. That's all though. 

4 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

T'was all nudge nudge wonk wink between the AFL and the Hill.

Nothing to do with it. The AFL was simply applying the rules on provisional suspension as they exist in the WADA code.

Whether you agree with it or not is a separate question.

Am I right that it turns out this saga has to date cost James a cool $1¾m in legals to get where he is today and now he's having a shot at the club's insurer to recover some or all of it back?

He might no longer be a hero in the world of football but to many in the legal profession, he still rocks!!!

 

7 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Am I right that it turns out this saga has to date cost James a cool $1¾m in legals to get where he is today and now he's having a shot at the club's insurer to recover some or all of it back?

He might no longer be a hero in the world of football but to many in the legal profession, he still rocks!!!

 

 

Jack.....you are assuming he has paid his bills!!