Bluey's Dad

I posted this in another thread but can't remember which. At my son's kinder, there's a photo of every kid under each AFL team, showing which kid goes for who. Collingwood are at number 1 with 6 I think, with Melbourne and Richmond with 5 kids each. Then there's one poor kid right at the end under a Melbourne Victory logo, had to giggle. Kinder is in Berwick (City of Casey), so I'm assuming that's why our representation is high. Then again, it could be an anomaly, one kinder is hardly a massive sample size. Still, it's encouraging

Then get out of the thread man, honestly. If drugs in the AFL and the media reporting of that issue isn't important to you, then why bother reading this thread? Edit: and clearly, many people care (on both sides of the argument)

They weren't 'suckered in', as my [unfortunately] repeated posts about their disclosure forms indicate. They also aren't pilloried, at least in any medium that counts. Sure, we have a go here and probably other forums do too, but the media coverage has been overtly favourable to them, and that's the medium that counts. Part of my issue with the whole sorry saga is that the media has given them a very light ride, something that would not have been extended to any other drug cheat in any other code or country. Jobe's done his time and he can come back. Fine. But the media needs to stop with this victom/hero/good bloke stuff.

Your option doesn't wash with what we know. We know the players were told it was 'thymo'. We know this because of player texts revealed at the CAS hearing. If they were told it was safe and legal, they would have disclosed it on the forms. If it's safe and legal, there's nothing to hide, they should have written it on the forms. They can't have forgot, we've heard evidence that there were hundreds of injections. How do you forget hundreds of injections, even if you think they're legal, on a drug form? I take your point about club culture and how hard it must have been to counter it, but as I said, the the lack of disclosure on their ASADA forms is damning, as is the ability of Zaharakis to counter that culture and say no. You are correct when you say none of us know, and this is really unfortunate. IMO they have not been suitably punished, the penalty should have been longer. But yes, they have served their punishment time and are entitled to return and we need to move on. What really gets my goat up is the media painting Jobe as some sort of returning hero. He's not. He's a drug cheat who's done his time who's now returning to sport, and that's why I started the thread.

Because of the non-disclosure on the ASADA forms. IMO, this is the single biggest indictment of player guilt. We know that no player disclosed 'thymo' on their ASADA forms. We also know because of player texts that they knew they were taking something referred to as 'thymo'. No one has offered an explanation for this lack of disclosure that doesn't indicate that the players were at least partially complicit. I see 3 scenarios: 1 - They were told not to disclose. Red flag, should have done some research at this point as to what was going on. 2 - 34 players all accidentally left off the same injection in their form. Seems extremely unlikely. 3 - A culture of silence around the injections was heavily implied, leading the players not to disclose. I believe this is the most likely scenario. However, it is also a massive red flag like option 1, and the players should have started asking questions at this point.

Is your relationship with Jobe good enough to ask him why he didn't disclose 'thymo' on his ASADA testing form? Good enough to ask him what he thought when his thighs grew to monstrous levels in such a short time span? Good enough to ask him what went through his head when he was injected in an anti-aging clinic? Good enough to ask him why Zaharakis said no? Good enough to ask him if he's one of the players who know exactly what the players took, as Heppell said he knows on AFL 360, but wouldn't actually reveal it? Good enough to ask him why some players know what it is - Heppell, but others do not - Hal Hunter? Good enough to ask him if he'll retain his brownlow if his appeal succeeds on a procedural technicality? You're in a unique position to ask some very interesting questions here.

Well, I guess that's something...

Media fawning all over Jobe Watson this morning like he's a war hero or something. Makes me sick. Sorry, not much to contribute, but really disappointed in the way his return is being framed.

I hadn't watched it at all before this year TBH, but decided to watch the episode with Jesse Hogan and assumed people on here were just exaggerating regarding Robbo. I was wrong. He really did look and sound drunk, and his questions were inane and irrelevant. Won't watch it again.

They did, and a bunch of teams exploited it and tanked to get PPs. The AFL's solution wasn't to improve this transparent and consistent system, but to remove the transparency and consistency. Good job AFL, good job.

We clearly interpret the facts differently I guess. But yes, in a few years when we have the benefit of hindsight, I will buy you a celebratory premiership beer and we can review our respective opinions, no doubt with increasingly inept attempts to gaslight each other as our inebriation takes hold. One condition though: we have to invite my North supporting brother so that he can watch us debate the degrees of how crap his team is/has become. We may also need a designated driver.

On any other day, I'd answer you. But today, I won't, because you'll try to contort my answer.

You made a false comparison to try to undermine my point, and now you're trying to trap me into making my own comparison. I'm not having any of it Stuie. I clearly rate North's list over the past 5 years as better than you do, and believe their coach over that time has under delivered on the potential of that list. On this basis, I think he's a crap coach. I guess that you attribute North's limited success to Brad Scott. I attribute what I think is under performance of a good list to Brad Scott. We see it differently.

I never made the comparison Stuie, so you using other people's claims of one coach being good to undermine my argument that a different coach is bad falls flat. Not sure I can make it any clearer for you than that.

lol, Stuie, if you don't think that I think Roos is a genius, then there's no reason to make the statement. Using other people's opinions of Roos as a comparison to mine of Scott is just silly. You understand how that makes no sense right? I also didn't say that winning a flag is a measure of a good coach, which is what you are implying I've said. I don't rate Scott, or his record. You do. I get it. Differing opinions on a footy forum. Shocked. Edit: all this comes from me making a joke about Brad Scott not knowing what he's doing. lel

3 for Frawley was a result of our ladder position. That's how FA compo works. You are assigned a band based on the length and value of the contract the player is given, and based on their earnings in the final year at your club. Those bands are tiered, NOT GIVEN PICKS. That's how Hawthorn got pick 17 or 18 or whatever for Franklin and we got 3 for Fawley. Ladder position determines the end compo. It actually makes sense, because a crappier team losing a good player hurts more than a good team losing a good player. The Scully case is not comparable because it was a one-off obtained because of GWS's generous raiding program, and again the AFL determined that the compo is partially based on contract dollars. As we know, Scully got a massive deal. Neither of these cases were AFL handouts. Having said all of that, yes the AFL has looked after us, just not in the above cases. They looked after us in the form of financial aid, and of course, with Roos and Jackson. If the AFL chose to offer that sort of support to the Lions, fine. But awarding them a PP is contradictory to what they told us and the public. I don't mind the Lions getting a PP. What I mind is the AFL applying different rules to different clubs.

I actually reckon his list has been good and has under performed over the past few years.

I never called Roos a genius, don't put words in my mouth Stuie. And we both know Roos was coming off a much, much worse base, but I don't want to make any comparisons so I'll leave it there. With the list Scott has had, he should have done much better. He hasn't. I have no idea how much or how little a development coach has on a list, but the buck stops with the head coach and they get the credit or blame. No one sits around saying 'Gee that Collingwood 2010 flag was excellent, Brad Scott the development coach must be reason'. I think his record is crap because his list in that time has had so much potential. He's squandered it, and now North are about to fall off a cliff.

Off the back of a 12 win season where he should have done much better, and a belting in an elimination final? 13 wins in 2015, plus 2 finals wins. Gone backwards. Sure I can. He's a crap coach. Playing record not relevant to coaching ability, as I said, see Bucks and Hird.

No, he doesn't. He's already admitted he made a mistake with the timing of his forced retirement announcements. He falsely accused umpires of targeting Lindsay Thomas. Plus, as has already been stated I think in this thread, being a premiership player does not automatically make you a good coach. See Hird and Buckley. As for Boomer, who I didn't actually comment on above, I do dislike him. But I also think he's a very very good player who could contribute to our list. The fact that I dislike him doesn't mean I don't think he can contribute.

This is based on the assumption that Brad Scott knows what he's doing. I would never, ever make that assumption.

He's certainly got a weaker midfield to crack into than Wagner did. I'm guessing that's why he picked the Lions in the first place.

or Geelong...

Wow. 'Asked to go with the story', a step further than my own conspiracy theory. Chris Kaias was a great source of clarity during the ongoing media misinformation saga (if that poster is indeed him). Tweet from Andy Maher. Still nothing solid (what bf post is), but very disturbing. Fits the narrative of the players knowing what was going on. Good link, thanks Ted

Or it was a flimsy excuse to get himself out of the regime without pissing everyone off. Or he said no and made up the needles thing when it all came out, to cover for his mates. Like I said before, the players' lack of disclosure on their ASADA testing forms indicates that they were complicit. They knew, they hid it. Otherwise it's a bloody big coincidence that 34 players 'forgot' they were taking 'thymo' when filling out their forms. From there, I infer that Zaharakis knew, didn't get involved, and made some [censored] up about needles so he didn't have to take a moral high ground stance or rat out his friends. Sounds pretty clever to me. But really, who knows, right? The truth is buried at the bottom of a shredder.