daisycutter

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

if you are referring to the abc article, it was simply a reprint of the hfc independent report. little more that just a leak of someone else's work and repeated as allegations from said report. as such there was no reason for the abc to back it up other than to verify the existence of the independent report.

strange though that three coaches were explicitly named yet had not been questioned or offered a right of reply not implying anything other than lack of consistency

i think a lot of us are thinking the same

north certainly got their nuts caught in the vice i'd imagine they'd be furious at not getting a heads up (from afl or hfc)

just to be a pedant, the journalist wasn't giving an opinion, merely reporting the accusations made by others in a report provided by a consultant to the hfc. as long as a journo is reporting allegations as allegations and not as fact they are on pretty safe ground legally

what an horrific allegation(s). i'm simply left incredulous. so many ramifications possible here. the tentacles could spread to many unexpected areas. no point in being predudicial or hypothetical at this time, as it will probably take a long time to all unravel i'm going to need a shed load of popcorn

well if they don't i'm sure some fan will take your cash and use his card for you

didn't "fake trade" give you a hint? 🤣

glad to see you got the of/have right, md 👍

you don't like red and blue??? i'm sure that can be rectified, eh, uncle?

ah, but i was asking (for a friend) if your comment about "champagne comedy" was sarcasm so hard to tell these days 🤔

was that meant to be sarcasm? asking for a friend