No matter how much Hinkley carried on about "doing the right thing" by their players and "players come first", they have history here.

How does the doc reviewing the video make a so called "error" when Aliir was clearly laying prostrate for at least 30 seconds plus AND only managed to get up with assistance from the 2nd Doctor attending him.  By the way who was the 2nd doc??

Add to this the fact that he wasn't getting up of his own accord and was effectively encouraged and maneuvered by the attending Doc plus trainers to do so only AFTER Jones had sat up of his own accord with the assistance of Port's other Doctor?

This is seriously as bad as it gets in terms of Port seemingly flouting and thumbing their nose at the protocols as far as Aliir was concerned.

If the AFL attempt to sweep this one under the rug without a serious penalty they have rocks in their heads.  It will come back to bite them big time if they don't bring the hammer down.

Edited August 1, 20232 yr by Demon Dynasty

1 hour ago, John Crow Batty said:

I worked with a highly respected neurologist for several decades who was regarded by many in the medical profession  including myself to be a genius. His management of brain injury and epilepsy was second to none. He saved and improved many lives. He turned out to be a pedophile. 

i know of a similar doctor story, but i won't go into it because he jumped in front of a train before he could be charged.   he was president of our football club and at one time president of the ama.  he donated a lot of money and time to the club.

you just never ever know

1 hour ago, BDA said:

So true. as soon as a client starts telling me how honest they are i get suspicious. 

bit like corporate virtue signalling, eh?

9 hours ago, hardtack said:

I don’t think that it was about winning the local derby, otherwise they probably would have cleared Jones as well… obviously he was unable to continue and so the ‘migraine’ call.  

I believe it was all about their upcoming match against Geelong next weekend… they did not want to go into that game minus two important players. I would have loved to see the AFL force them to sideline those players for two games, not just the one… and a full investigation to determine whether the club doctor was under any pressure to make that call.

Maybe they should be, like Essendon, banned from finals this year, or docked points.  

And AHPRA should, though probably will not, investigate the Port doctor for potential conflict of interest.  Ethics requires a doctor to put the patient's interest above the employer's interest, in every case.  (Didn't happen with Essendon and Reid, of course)

2 hours ago, chookrat said:

There is probably a case that failing to run Aliir Aliir through the concussion protocols, could in isolation be seen as a mistake, but combined with Lachie Jones being subbed out with a 'migraine', only for both players to show concussion symptoms on the Monday cannot possibly be a mistake but a deliberate act to circumvent the AFL's concussion protocols. This is a very serious matter.

The questions that come to mind are:

1. How will Port Adelaide explain this to the AFL.

2. What sanctions will the AFL impose on Port Adelaide. I don't think fines will cut it and I don't believe draft sanctions are appropriate given their impact os delayed. Docking premiership points makes sense given their immediate impact and that they directly address the short term incentive to play concussed players, noting I'm not sure the penalty if a club does this during finals.

3. Will the medical regulator review the Doctors medical registration. I'm not sure the should be trusted to advise people on medical matters.

4. Is this something WorkSafe could get involved in or is this too low level, without sufficient legislative cover, for them to get involved in.

as above

6 hours ago, John Crow Batty said:

Add Rozee when cleaned up by Hunter as posted previously. As I have said before Port were the biggest abusers of the injury sub rule when it was in place. They have nothing but contempt for health and well being rules and were allowed to get away with their mockery of the concussion protocols for far too long. The AFL have really messed up by not pulling Port into line earlier.

Maybe they have got a slightly different take on Essendon’s catch phrase ‘whatever it takes’

30 minutes ago, Wodjathefirst said:

Maybe they have got a slightly different take on Essendon’s catch phrase ‘whatever it takes’

 

The new CEO of AFL started off on a good foot....where the bloody hell is he?

https://wwos.nine.com.au/videos/afl/afl-2023-kane-cornes-defends-port-adelaide-doctor-over-aliir-aliir-concussion-drama/clkrseax3003t0jl2kbc414z1
 

shocked I tell you

6 hours ago, Satan said:

https://wwos.nine.com.au/videos/afl/afl-2023-kane-cornes-defends-port-adelaide-doctor-over-aliir-aliir-concussion-drama/clkrseax3003t0jl2kbc414z1
 

shocked I tell you

Kane Kornes is the David Brent of the AFL.

The AFL will try and sweep this under the rug because that's what they do.

Maybe a high profile suspension of a player for high contact this coming week (we don't take this lightly)

Kane Cornes is hopelessly biased. Anything he says about Port should be ignored. Most other pundits try to be balanced about their former club but not Cornes. I don’t mind him in general but he’s just a mouthpiece when it comes to Port. 

31 minutes ago, BDA said:

Kane Cornes is hopelessly biased. Anything he says about Port should be ignored. Most other pundits try to be balanced about their former club but not Cornes. I don’t mind him in general but he’s just a mouthpiece when it comes to Port. 

Yeah look I have to agree, he's way too close. We're talking about taking the decision out of player and club's hands because of a conflict of interest and I think this extends to Kane.

Edited August 1, 20232 yr by layzie

How is this story tracking - I've been away a couple of days, any heat from the AFL? 

The more I think about it the more I think Port have blatantly cheated here. No test for Aliir and Jones subbed off with a "migraine" reeks something dodgy. You could understand a tiny amount if one of those but not both together.

I'm no lawyer nor know the exact rules but surely this is bringing the game into disrepute, ie; "abuse of position in order to obtain a benefit"?

If the AFL are serious about their head injuries then I think a harsh penalty of a decent fine, stripped of the one game premiership points for which they have erred in and loss of draft pick. Either all 3 or a combination of 2.

11 minutes ago, SFebes said:

How is this story tracking - I've been away a couple of days, any heat from the AFL? 

The more I think about it the more I think Port have blatantly cheated here. No test for Aliir and Jones subbed off with a "migraine" reeks something dodgy. You could understand a tiny amount if one of those but not both together.

I'm no lawyer nor know the exact rules but surely this is bringing the game into disrepute, ie; "abuse of position in order to obtain a benefit"?

If the AFL are serious about their head injuries then I think a harsh penalty of a decent fine, stripped of the one game premiership points for which they have erred in and loss of draft pick. Either all 3 or a combination of 2.

The penalty has to be severe to kill this kind of egregious flouting of the rules once and for all. 

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by John Crow Batty

29 minutes ago, SFebes said:

How is this story tracking - I've been away a couple of days, any heat from the AFL? 

The more I think about it the more I think Port have blatantly cheated here. No test for Aliir and Jones subbed off with a "migraine" reeks something dodgy. You could understand a tiny amount if one of those but not both together.

I'm no lawyer nor know the exact rules but surely this is bringing the game into disrepute, ie; "abuse of position in order to obtain a benefit"?

If the AFL are serious about their head injuries then I think a harsh penalty of a decent fine, stripped of the one game premiership points for which they have erred in and loss of draft pick. Either all 3 or a combination of 2.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Port didn't win any premiership points in this particular game. And if premiership points are to be a penalty for this type of offence, they should be deducted whether a team wins or loses.

Surprise Surprise, nothing from the AFL. 

1 minute ago, La Dee-vina Comedia said:

I'm not sure I understand this point. Port didn't win any premiership points in this particular game. And if premiership points are to be a penalty for this type of offence, they should be deducted whether a team wins or loses.

I know they didn't win, which is why your bolded part is exactly what I meant.

" stripped of the one game premiership points for which they have erred in"  Poorly worded maybe. They should be stripped of 4 premiership points (whether win or loss) for the game they have erred in.

28 minutes ago, SFebes said:

I know they didn't win, which is why your bolded part is exactly what I meant.

" stripped of the one game premiership points for which they have erred in"  Poorly worded maybe. They should be stripped of 4 premiership points (whether win or loss) for the game they have erred in.

I think it needs to be 8 points to properly disincentivise this behaviour. 

Let's say a key player is concussed. The team conclude they can only win if the player plays on. The team wins and gains 4 points. Perhaps they are caught and lose 4 points. Thus, the team has broken even and are in the same position as if they had subbed the player out and lost the game. However, there is the chance that the team might both win AND avoid being caught thus gaining 4 points (and the player's availability for the following week). So, from an amoral probabilistic perspective, there is an incentive to cheat.

The threat of losing 8 points would be a serious disincentive for a home and away game but I am unconvinced this is sufficient for a final (if it were to apply to the subsequent season). Forfeiting the game seem's drastic; imagine the grand final being over 5 minutes into the first quarter when a team return a concussed player to the field! The TV executives would be apoplectic!  

As other's have said, moving towards independent doctor's, like in the NRL, seems inevitable. 

Let's see how dodgy the AFL are themselves are with how they handle this. You can't have this sort of thing happening and gotten away with yet rub players out for weeks for things like tackling techniques.

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by SFebes

21 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

Poor bloke.

https://www.hawthornfc.com.au/news/1392757/max-lynch-retires
 

I saw this reported yesterday - and watched the clips of his speech to his teammates

Could not have been a more timely, and frankly tragic, reminder of what is at stake here in terms the duty of care Port owes its players and the discussion as to whether Port breached that duty of care. 

A young bloke, who grew up dreaming of Brownlow's and flags has had those dreams shattered.

In 20 years time, when Max is in his mid forties, not even Hawks fans will remember him. Hopefully his brave decision to retire now means he wont be still suffering in some way from the impact of his concussion, but there ain't no guarantees that will be the case.  

On that front, the AFL, the footy community and footy fans face a looming philosophical inflection point. 

In Max's Lynch's case he wisely accepted the medical advice and has decided to retire.

What happens when a player rejects that advice and decides they want to play on? Paddy McCartin for example.

Some might argue that every individual has that right. But should the AFL and/or clubs take that choice out of their hands?

Where does the responsibility to protect an individual's health lie?

As an employer, the AFL and clubs have a responsibility for the health and well being of its employees and for ensuring a safe working environment.

But no matter what the AFL does moving forward to minimise and mitigate the risks of concussion there will always be players getting concussed. 

 

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by binman

Just can’t see it being premiership points. It might have been if they had won though. I think it should be a first or second round draft picks and a huge fine with much of it suspended. ie 300k with 200k suspended taken from the soft cap. 

I somewhat accept what Cornes is saying. I don't think we should rush to hang their doctor over this mistake. As best we can, the focus should be on the club as a collective and not an individual. 

Having said that, it's a mistake that simply never should have been made. In 2023, with everything we're doing on concussion, with the focus, the lawsuits, the dozens of players who are forced to sit out games because they tackled a player dangerously even when that player had no issue, it is impossible to understand how Port Adelaide decided it was OK to not put those two players through full concussion tests.

The AFL has to make a big example out of this. It has to be a massive punishment. Whether it's a fine as part of the soft cap, draft pick penalties, premiership points, whatever, it has to hit hard. The AFL needs to show itself outwardly to care and to signal to clubs that you can't get these things wrong.

If they are avoiding doing concussion test with their players when it is obvious to many, what is happening at training sessions, etcetera?  

Run their whole squad through assessments, brain scans, blood analysis and anything else that can diagnose brain problems (monthly psych reviews).

If they are not a responsible institution, then put them through the ringer. May act as a deterent in the future, if they find their time consumed by assessments, because of a poor decision or mistake.

Edited August 2, 20232 yr by kev martin

The doctor saying it was a “mistake” is such a cop out and smacks of a pattern of prior behaviour that escaped any serious scrutiny or challenge. The contemporaneous conduct of all those around the doctor at the time supports such a conclusion. When finally pulled up (and because it is so obvious) the doctor says it was a “mistake”.  Puulleeese. 

Re: Alirr not doing a test, I'm a bit ignorant here towards the testing process, but you'd assume clubs would be adequately staffed to handle simultaneous concussion testing? 

1 hour ago, titan_uranus said:

I somewhat accept what Cornes is saying. I don't think we should rush to hang their doctor over this mistake. As best we can, the focus should be on the club as a collective and not an individual. 

Having said that, it's a mistake that simply never should have been made. In 2023, with everything we're doing on concussion, with the focus, the lawsuits, the dozens of players who are forced to sit out games because they tackled a player dangerously even when that player had no issue, it is impossible to understand how Port Adelaide decided it was OK to not put those two players through full concussion tests.

The AFL has to make a big example out of this. It has to be a massive punishment. Whether it's a fine as part of the soft cap, draft pick penalties, premiership points, whatever, it has to hit hard. The AFL needs to show itself outwardly to care and to signal to clubs that you can't get these things wrong.

That is what it will all be about FOCUS. The Doctor will pay his dues in the very lucrative sporting arena of one could construe having let down many people. However the AFL are letting the players down, your sons and daughters down and ethical sponsors like Macs, Toyota etc.

Cornes is inconsequential and a biased headlight rabbit.

What happens when players get injured in a GF in front of millions of people both here and overseas and back he wobbles onto the ground> NOT FUNNY.