How weak is Adam Selwood?

Read this link

I have no doubt he said what was claimed and now instead of hiding and being thankful for pretty much getting away with it, he sues John Laws for commenting on the rubbish that spewed from Selwood's mouth.

Adam Selwood you really are a disgrace.

Just what the AFL needs... another West Coast player making headlines.

John Laws deserves any litigation that lands in his lap

John Laws deserves any litigation that lands in his lap

yep he is a scumbag and hypocrite of the highest order but l'm GM and think he did say what he was accused of and should just let it slide

How weak is Adam Selwood?

Read this link

I have no doubt he said what was claimed and now instead of hiding and being thankful for pretty much getting away with it, he sues John Laws for commenting on the rubbish that spewed from Selwood's mouth.

Adam Selwood you really are a disgrace.

so you have no doubt? do you have any proof?

he should sue him ofcourse, im sick of all the trash talk about afl players!

so you have no doubt? do you have any proof?

Why would Headland make up something like that? It's exactly the kind of thing I've heard come from people's mouths. Mostly about mothers or sisters to infuriate someone.

he should sue him ofcourse, im sick of all the trash talk about afl players!

You mean like the trash talk that Selwood said against a little girl?

you know what? i culdnt care less what he said. if he said bad luck. i understand why headland got worked up but it doesnt excuse headland punching him. if he did say something, he wouldnt of known who the tat was of. it just looks like a girl. if headland cant walk away from an obviously stupid taunt like that he is missing few up above. it was never proved that he ever said anything so he prob has a right to sue. but i couldnt care less about either party because to me its a big non issue.

you know what? i culdnt care less what he said. if he said bad luck. i understand why headland got worked up but it doesnt excuse headland punching him. if he did say something, he wouldnt of known who the tat was of. it just looks like a girl. if headland cant walk away from an obviously stupid taunt like that he is missing few up above. it was never proved that he ever said anything so he prob has a right to sue. but i couldnt care less about either party because to me its a big non issue.

i agree with you and sam newman did aswell on the footy show...selwood made a fictional comment about the tatoo which he probably didnt know was des's daughter....and fair enough that des would get [censored] off but to punch somebody and then not get penalised for it (that's why i considered booing him at the melb v freo game but then didnt cos i felt sorry for him), and if des really had a problem about it, there are much more mature ways to deal with things off the field...

How weak is Adam Selwood?

Read this link

I have no doubt he said what was claimed and now instead of hiding and being thankful for pretty much getting away with it, he sues John Laws for commenting on the rubbish that spewed from Selwood's mouth.

Adam Selwood you really are a disgrace.

Stupid's the word I would have used here.

Does he have any idea of the costs involved in a failed defamation case are?

Oh please, what Selwood said and what he was accused of saying are two completely seperate things. Just an innocuous comment that may have crossed the line, but nothing like the story that came out. For Headland to drag Selwood's name and character through the mud, just to get off his 6 week suspension was one of the lowest acts in football I can remember.

Oh please, what Selwood said and what he was accused of saying are two completely seperate things. Just an innocuous comment that may have crossed the line, but nothing like the story that came out. For Headland to drag Selwood's name and character through the mud, just to get off his 6 week suspension was one of the lowest acts in football I can remember.

Ahh common sense, well said Arem !!!

And by the way why should anyone have to put up with the kind of crap that John Laws spews about people and situations he knows nothing about.

The media (who had tried and convicted Selwood on nothing more than Headland, a known flogs, say so, because it sells better than the uncontroversial alternative), aren't and should never be above reproach and should be held accountable for their comments. As for Laws, he has been getting away with bloody murder on Sydney radio and has done so for years for the sake of ratings. Although he is not as popular or powerful as he once was and has recently announced his retirement.

I have no problem with this whatsoever, you are able to defend yourself in this world, but it comes down to who you wanted to believe when it first happened.

sorry to be ignorant, but is john laws the one with the golden microphone??

sorry to be ignorant, but is john laws the one with the golden microphone??

Oh yeah, thats him !!!

yeah hes a tool..thanks for that

yeah hes a tool..thanks for that

Yes he most definitely is, and you're very welcome !!!

Headland, a known [censored]

Yeah what she said.

Headland's an authentic, first-class [censored], both on and off the field.

you know what? i culdnt care less what he said. if he said bad luck. i understand why headland got worked up but it doesnt excuse headland punching him. if he did say something, he wouldnt of known who the tat was of. it just looks like a girl. if headland cant walk away from an obviously stupid taunt like that he is missing few up above. it was never proved that he ever said anything so he prob has a right to sue. but i couldnt care less about either party because to me its a big non issue.

Headland got off because the tribunal found Selwood said the words alleged. So it is OK to belt someone and then again an hour later, in a game, if they say nasty things about your family. Then at the same tribunal in the next case, they found that Selwood did not say those nasty things he was alleged and found to have said. See how simple things are at the AFL.

I didn't mean to reopen the Selwood V Headland debate.

Just thought it was hypocritical to sue someone for saying bad things about you because you said bad things about someone else.

I didn't mean to reopen the Selwood V Headland debate.

Just thought it was hypocritical to sue someone for saying bad things about you because you said bad things about someone else.

Yes but in stating that you are inferring that Selwood did in fact say something along those lines, and ignoring the argument that he may not have said anything (or anything nearly as harsh as what he was accused of) at all. And thats really what your point lives or dies by; it cannot be hypocrisy if Selwood never said all the things that Headland claimed he did. Also, John Laws voicing his opinions on public radio is far different to Selwood having a word in Headlands ear in the middle of a packed Subiaco.

For what its worth, I thought Selwood had his name unfairly dragged through the mud. He probably said something a bit stupid, but I fancy Headland blew it right out of proportion in an attempt to vindicate himself. The typically spineless manner in which the tribunal handled the whole affair did Selwood absolutely no favours either.

headland is [censored]! he on field antics against us this year ath the G will tell you why is