SaberFang

Herald Sun in overdrive taking advantage of the whole situation by running a sustained Hird the Golden Boy narrative. Shockingly transparent stuff.

Just another classic Gillon "Dealmaker" special.

The whole thing makes me sick. The entire narrative that News Corp have attempted to form around the Essendon players is disgusting and hypocritical beyond belief.

So Jobe's refusing to give back the actual medal? Makes his pathetic pontificating about how much he was a man of honour and intergrity even more vomit-worthy, if he cut one of Gil's famous deals to keep the medal in exchange for a PR statement. And makes the AFL even more pathetic. To echo the above, I'd give this corrupt corporation (barely consider it a sport anymore) away were it not for the Dees.

What's the point of doping to win an Olympic medal? Wouldn't that be the most hollow victory imaginable? It's like using warp pipes to beat Super Mario Bros.

Surely that's the end of it, then?

Pathetic, the guy is clearly just wasting everyone's time now and has no intention of following through on the appeal. Basically he knows the system and knows how to waste everyone's resources; he's just disrespecting the whole process. In the real court system, Magistrates can just throw out vexatious litigants and prevent them from pulling this crap. Clearly this works differently with the AFL Tribunal.

Unsurprising. An inconvenient truth that completely destroys the entire narrative he's spent years fabricating. So what does he do? Sweep it under the rug, pretend it never happened, and within 24 hours he continues on his merry way! First rule of media propaganda: ignore the facts that don't suit your agenda.

I don't know Zaha personally but I'm assured he knew exactly what was going on (as did all players) and wanted no part of it. The "don't like needles" excuse was a fabrication to get teammates off his back. It's interesting how he was shunned from the leadership group and treated like crap by Hird in the years following his refusal to partake in the program, isn't it?

I'm trying to see your point of view on the topic but is this your main point of contention? That ASADA have fabricated evidence or rigged the system to find the players guilty? At no point has any player accused ASADA of fabricating evidence. No player has ever denied lying to interviewers about their off-site injections. If ASADA were inventing evidence to find them guilty, would every player and their pet dogs not be screaming about this to the media? Would there not have been a reference to such an accusation in any of the multiple court cases over the years? And would the media narrative not be slightly more substantial than, "they were all duped, but they're all really great blokes"? I'm not saying ASADA are infallible; I think they've been made to look fairly incompetent throughout this entire saga, largely due to the endless obstacles and roadblocks put in place by both Essendon and (more discretely) the AFL. Not one party involved with the AFL has made the process easy for them, obfuscating at every turn (not to mention tip-offs to destroy evidence before investigators had a chance to reach Windy Hill).

T'was a typo, have fixed that one (meant to say all of the players lied). It was established in the brief of evidence following one of the many verdicts that the players, who were receiving off-site injections, did not disclose this information to ASADA when specifically asked if they were receiving off-site injections. Every single player lied to ASADA's interviewers when asked this question.

Quite funny how Robbo never had an article pondering why none of the players admitted to ASADA interviewers about receiving off-site injections. Every single player, to a fault, lied when questioned about whether they were receiving injections. I guess that's just an inconvenient element of the "good guy" narrative we'll sweep to the side, hey?

Zaharakis had no issues refusing to partake in the program. Every player had a choice, naivety is no excuse for willingly allowing hundreds of mystery injections enter your body. Nobody had a gun to their heads.

Robbo presented another view? Well yeah, if a subjective, wholly biased Essendon supporter using blatant lies and mistruths to present an "opinion" that he's been instructed to present by high-ranking Essendon fans who hold senior positions at News Corp is your definition of presenting another view, sure. You're well within your rights to not consider that rubbish. Personally I'll take the side of ASADA, WADA, the Swiss High Court and the Court of Arbitration for Sport who all agreed these players are convicted drug cheats, over the gutter journalism of a drunk. And I have no doubt there are people who have fallen for the systematic, media-driven "poor players" narrative. I'm very relieved the overwhelming majority see right through it (and I'm certainly not getting my statistics there from the "pack mentality" of Demonland).

Frankly this makes Jobe's inaction, as a leader and captain of that young list, where newly drafted players were looking up to him for guidance and leadership, all the more shameful. The endless "good guy" narrative wore thin years ago. It's reminiscent of the endless anti-Trump media campaign in the US. People saw through it and got tired of being told how they need to think and behave, what is acceptable and what isn't. Just as people see right through the mindnumbingly biased pro-drug-cheat propaganda that's been pedaled by brown-nosing journalists desperate to curry favour with AFL HQ and maintain their cushy media accreditations. And for the record, I was not pro-Trump. Merely drawing a parallel that people are getting fed up with the media telling us how to think. I would struggle to find a single non-Essendon supporter who doesn't see through the rubbish that Robbo is pedalling. The damage he's done to his own and News Corp's reputation (if gutter journalism is a reputation you can even damage) is incalculable.

I don't think there's anything wrong with having an open discussion or well-argued disagreements. I think DJD is just saying try not to labour on repetitious points that aren't grounded in reality; ie, trolling for the sake of trolling. I haven't got much else to say on this matter. With Jobe handing back the medal (undoubtedly after being tapped on the shoulder), the matter is basically finished. What a downright shame we have yet another stage-managed drug fiasco for the AFL to move onto.

It's hilarious that they play Hawthorn in round one. Could you possibly ask for a less timid, vocal and arrogant opposition crowd to "celebrate" the return of your guilty, convicted drug cheats against? They will be booing in full force. Let's not forget the Sam Mitchell incident, and the fact your drug cheating captain cost him a Brownlow! It will be ten times worse if he isn't stripped of it!

The fact that Jobe hasn't handed this in already is an indictment on whatever remnants of integrity the bloke had.

Let's analyze Jobe's Brownlow votes by each year of his career: 2015 7 2014 8 2013 17 2012 30 2011 15 2010 16 2009 10 2008 5 2007 5 So he polled almost twice as many Brownlow votes in the year he is accused of doping than any other year of his career. Of course, I'm sure that's just a stunning coincidence, right Gil? Likewise that his polling plummeted in half two years running once the doping program ceased.

I know, you can't expect the AFL to have considered this outcome in the 9 months they've had to consider this outcome. Especially when it was obvious this outcome was going to occur. I mean, let's be reasonable here.

Ah, yes, The Exorcist! A classic!

Just as well Gil's on $2.5 million a year to make such "heartbreaking," "difficult" decisions.

Why even allow a convicted drug cheat to make a presentation to defend themselves? Does Rory Sloane or any other suspended player get that opportunity? Why ask the other two relevant players why they deserve it instead? Why do they need an entire month to make a decision that, to me, is as black & white as Citizen Kane? Because, as with everything the AFL does, they manufacture outcomes to have the best effect on their bottom line.

Farcical, a whole month until a meeting to DECIDE if he should keep it. [censored] laughable.

The AFL article mentions that the Commission must choose between adhering to the WADA code or finding an "extenuating circumstances" clause to get him off. Seems very black and white to me, they either ignore the code and risk ASADA coming over the top again (which worked out really well last time, didn't it Gil?) or adhere to the bloody code they are signatories of!