daisycutter

ok....then that would be a hearsay witness as distinct from a firsthand witness

you need to reword that, swyl. it's not clear what you mean

must seem a bit like a local derby, clint 😆

bad case of stage fright can understand how suns beat swans

link? or copy/paste

didn't expect to get a lesson on greek mythology on demonland 😂

but dodoro is certainly "a drain"....... as is essendon

yes, a sizable number would and many of those would see it as some form of redemption and sainthood

i'm sure the journo is smart enough to know he hasn't got nearly all the "facts" yet and certainly not all the context. he's dug up some allegations that he has no reason yet to doubt and gone with it. he's done nothing wrong and got a good scoop. i'm sure he realises there will be many more twists and turns to come and he'll have many more stories to publish. no need to read anymore than that into it.

fair enough in mcdonalds case i was just talking generally about players having ops post-season to clean up injuries they've been carrying and playing through don't get me wrong, i'd love to get a good run-down from the club of all the players having post season ops, but it seems fairly common practice we only find out much later

i never said he didn't believe them (i don't even know) but what I did say is that it is irrelevant in the scheme of things. I don't just believe a story is true just because i think the reporter "probably" thinks it is true.

what the reporter "thought" is really irrelevant and besides you or i don't actually know what he thought. It was a story....full stop. now, if he had said in the article that he personally thought their story was true, legal would probably have told him to remove that statement.

i don't think there was much legal risk when you are just reporting on accusations by others. as long as he can prove the accusations were made (e.g. audio etc) that would suffice. the reporter wasn't writing a personal opinion piece and by technically (even if contrived) offering a right of reply he covers himself further. the legal approval to print in no way is an indication that any of the accusations are accurate

i can solve sudoko puzzles in my dreams. does that count?

yes, it's a tough one for the club and the media because it just opens up another huge can of worms, so i can understand why nothing is being said publicly by club or media. if adem doesn't get the job we'll probably never know if this was a factor

there's quite a few peptide supporters who say there is a "hawthorn" cloud hanging over adem's head and he should be ruled out (at this time) for the coaching position as a precautionary measure

more likely he was advised by a lawyer to say nothing on short notice to a journalist he certainly wasn't obligated

after the 2018 ef the club supposedly had 11 (icr exact number) players sent for operations. we didn't find out about this for 6 months or more and even then with little detail. so there is nothing unusual about this and because it is out of season player privacy probably comes into play

so how come the abc get it wrong occasionally and get successfully sued? you shouldn't over generalise. each case is specific

I think they hand balled it to avoid any conflict of interest given the severity of the accusations

just a thought. could he have been given a 4 yr extension when he already had 1 yr left on an existing contract? this would explain some reporting it as 4 yrs and others at 5 yrs

plus if a deal can't be made he might decide to stay lol lol lol not serious

i think jeelong should rightly be the favourites i think the swans can make a close game of it i don't really much care who wins, but if pushed, i'd prefer a swans win i just hope it's a close game to watch

if i understand it correctly the afl integrity unit are not conducting the afl inquiry. it is to be outsourced to an an independent group the composition of which is yet to be announced