Manly's Sports Science Unit To Be Audited

[MWSE]

Sharks have struggled their entire history to get and hold onto sponsors. Sure the current innuendo may have played a part, but to blame it entirely for having a lack of sponsors or a major sponsor or a ground sponsor wouldn't be entirely accurate.

Agreed. And of course it was that dribbler Rothfield that wrote that story. The Sharks MAY just be using this investigation as a scapegoat to cover their failings in marketing and sponsorship.

 

[bones]

MB, the announcement did not 'label every sport in Australia as potential cheats and criminals'. That is not what it said at all.

And don't worry too much Rex. My guess is HH & Co are also appalled at the slur on all drivers that we all have to submit to random breath tests.

Maybe they haven't heard of the concept, 'prevention is better than cure'?

Some may prefer a covert gathering of evidence. To make sure we can scapegoat a few feckless individuals. In order to keep the rest of the game's image 'clean'.

But is that really the game's image? Clean. Really? In very recent times we have already seen monumental cheating in the NRL by corrupt officials. We have already had one infamous case of match-fixing.

The modern game has made some advances, but the fact remains it has a somewhat shady past. Our game was not traditionally known as a bastion of principled behaviour and good citizenship. The leagues club environment provided ongoing links with gambling and associated 'undesirable elements'. And every so often there were whispered rumours of player atrocities being successfully hushed up by influential clubs - with the help of their mates in the press.

These factors combined to give the game a reputation. Occasionally it even had the whiff of a certain low-grade, unsophisticated corruption. Never openly exposed to the bright light of public scrutiny, of course. Well, apart from when the ex-boss of the whole game was disgraced and almost brought down an entire state government with the web of corruption that was uncovered around him.

The game in the past had a reputation for thuggish-ness. Sure, there have always been the clean-cut, honourable Frank Hyde types. But equally the game was known for its ruffian element, who would routinely engage in acts of thuggery on-field, and quite possibly off-field.

Yet HH and some others are adamant the game is pure and does not deserve the slur cast on it.

The use of PEDs has been an obvious elephant in the room for years - how can we say there is no risk of large-scale cheating and corruption? Even as the boss of ACC is telling us there is? And why is it not possible that the announcement was designed, as claimed, to protect the good name of our sports, and try to head off an imminent PR disaster?

No-one is saying the game is clean. The investigation should absolutely go ahead to weed out the cheats. But why was it so important for them to hold that press conference? Why didn't they simply continue on with the investigation until they had enough evidence to charge players, officials or clubs with something? Once they have that evidence then release names. What purpose did the press conference serve? To compare it to breath testing is not a fair comparison. Breath testing saves lives and they can hardly catch drink drivers using intelligence gathering.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Some issues cannot even begin to be seriously addressed without openly acknowledging that they are issues. Even though, as MB correctly points out above, sometimes the innocent are viewed with suspicion due to the actions of others.

Some issues can only be fought by raising awareness, and exposing beliefs or attitudes that enable offending conduct. In some areas the guilty may not be likely to get caught, let alone successfully prosecuted.

Integrity in pro sport is now alleged to be such an issue.

"The work the Australian Crime Commission has done has confirmed that organised crime has a tangible and expanding role in the provision of prohibited substances to professional athletes, and this is facilitated by some coaches and support staff."

If the problem is potentially large - as is alleged - isn't it possible the long term damage to the sports and the innocent competitors could actually be far worse if this issue continued to be swept under the carpet, raised only in hushed tones and whispers?

 

[Hamster Huey]

Some issues cannot even begin to be seriously addressed without openly acknowledging that they are issues. Even though, as MB correctly points out above, sometimes the innocent are viewed with suspicion due to the actions of others.

Some issues can only be fought by raising awareness, and exposing beliefs or attitudes that enable offending conduct. In some areas the guilty may not be likely to get caught, let alone successfully prosecuted.

Integrity in pro sport is now alleged to be such an issue.

"The work the Australian Crime Commission has done has confirmed that organised crime has a tangible and expanding role in the provision of prohibited substances to professional athletes, and this is facilitated by some coaches and support staff."

If the problem is potentially large - as is alleged - isn't it possible the long term damage to the sports and the innocent competitors could actually be far worse if this issue continued to be swept under the carpet, raised only in hushed tones and whispers?

Who has suggested this matter be swept under a carpet? Nobody here and nobody in the media.

Let's look at it from a purely sporting endevour; the NRL holds a presser and puts 16 club bosses on the stage and reveals that they have information about salary cap rorting that affects a couple of clubs, and nothing else.

Now from that release what do you suppose is going to happen? Code-wide mayhem, speculation, innuendo and finger-pointing.

Compare that instead to the NRL having the evidence and releasing this info once they have a clear breach and ready punishment. The code is still on notice due to somebody being caught and punished, and none had to sit around for weeks/months while trying to run a business under the black cloud of suspicion.

 

[Masked Eagle]

The media "beat up" really has been not what they have concentrated their report on, but what they have barely touched the surface on and thats the links with organised crime. The report warns of the risks, and how there is links with crime figures and people within the sporting world and the potential for that to do plenty of harm, in particular the possibility of match fixing.

I think the current public scrutiny may indeed be worth it in the long run. If it has put clubs/players on notice (particularly with the players having involvement with criminals) that these things are being watched and if the players are breaking these relationships or are more aware of these relationships and ability to avoid them in the future then the black eye sport got in this country has been worth it.

 

[Hamster Huey]

The media "beat up" really has been not what they have concentrated their report on, but what they have barely touched the surface on and thats the links with organised crime. The report warns of the risks, and how there is links with crime figures and people within the sporting world and the potential for that to do plenty of harm, in particular the possibility of match fixing.

I think the current public scrutiny may indeed be worth it in the long run. If it has put clubs/players on notice (particularly with the players having involvement with criminals) that these things are being watched and if the players are breaking these relationships or are more aware of these relationships and ability to avoid them in the future then the black eye sport got in this country has been worth it.

That could have been done without the song and dance.

Send the ACC/ASADA to audit/brief all the clubs (NRL and AFL, and anyone else it appears to be an issue with in professional sport) and outline to them direct what their concerns are broadly and that they have a few leads they are keeping an eye on.

No names or clubs outed, just a realisation that if you're doing something wrong, you may soon find yourself jobless in the sport.

Joe Public gets the gist that the ACC/ASADA are 'cracking down' and we give it a '...yeah, whatever,' without the implication of codes, clubs and players that are more than likely innocent.

 

[Rex]

Not so Rex. Here is Lundy's transcript and you work out if I am being unfair:

"The Australian Crime Commission today released the findings of a 12-month investigation into the integrity of Australian sport and the relationship between professional sporting bodies, prohibited substances and organised crime.

In response the Gillard Government together with Australia’s major professional sports have announced tough new measures to crack down on the use of performance enhancing drugs and unethical behaviour in sport.

The Australian Crime Commission investigation (codenamed Project Aperio) was supported by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Four key areas were examined:

The market for Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs (PIEDs)
The involvement of organised criminal identities and groups in the distribution of new generation PIEDs
The use of World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibited substances by professional athletes in Australia
Current threats to the integrity of professional sport in Australia.

Key findings

The investigation identified widespread use of prohibited substances including peptides, hormones and illicit drugs in professional sport.

It also found that this use has been facilitated by sports scientists, high-performance coaches and sports staff.

In some cases, players are being administered with substances that have not yet been approved for human use.

The ACC also identified organised crime identities and groups that are involved in the distribution of PIEDs to athletes and professional sports staff.

The ACC report notes increasing evidence of personal relationships of concern between professional athletes and organised criminal identities and groups. This may have resulted in match fixing and the fraudulent manipulation of betting markets.

“The Australian Crime Commission has found that professional sport in Australia is highly vulnerable to infiltration by organised crime,” Mr Clare said.

“Multiple athletes from a number of clubs in major Australian sporting codes are suspected of currently using or having previously used peptides, potentially constituting anti-doping rule violations. Officials from clubs have also been identified as administering, via injections and intravenous drips, a variety of substances.”

The report concluded that some coaches, sports scientists and support staff of elite athletes have orchestrated and/or condoned the use of prohibited substances. Some sports scientists have indicated a preparedness to administer substances to elite athletes which are untested or not yet approved for human use.

The Australian Crime Commission also found that illicit drug use by professional athletes is more prevalent than previously indicated in official sports drug testing program statistics.

The work the Australian Crime Commission has done has confirmed that organised crime has a tangible and expanding role in the provision of prohibited substances to professional athletes, and this is facilitated by some coaches and support staff.

The Australian Crime Commission has referred its findings in relation to suspected criminal activity to relevant law enforcement agencies including the Australian Federal Police and all State and Territory Police Forces.

ASADA and other regulatory agencies will undertake additional investigations on the basis of the Crime Commission findings."

MB – You have replied with almost 500 words trying to answer one simple request - to show where they specifically said what you alleged they said. Can you not support your allegation? If you want to base your assertions on what they actually said, rather than on what you imagine they said, then simply show the sentence or couple of sentences which support your allegation. Either they said it or they didn’t.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Joe Public gets the gist that the ACC/ASADA are 'cracking down' and we give it a '...yeah, whatever,' without the implication of codes, clubs and players that are more than likely innocent.

Hmm, yes, and exactly how would Joe Public get that gist if there was no announcement? By osmosis?

And if the informed public reaction is 'yeah whatever', then where is the damage to the innocents?

Public awareness of the links between PEDs and organised crime, and the associated risk of match fixing once athletes are compromised by those links with organised crime, has surely multiplied exponentially almost overnight. How many people involved in pro sport in this country do you think missed hearing of this newsflash bulletin? Any?? They are all on full alert now and far more aware of the issues, and the risks.

I am no apologist for the Labor Party, and I'm definitely no champion of the cause of law enforcement. Quite the contrary However I am always amused and slightly suspicious of outrage and indignation, and I do occasionally feel inclined to comment when the proponents of said outrage and indignation rely on flawed logic. Such as during this debate.

 

[Rex]

Please, Rex. Don't try and frame me as a 'Kent' or 'Hadley' because of my opinion.

We've just had a potential major sponsor walk from talks with the Sharks under the shadow of these allegations. To date, there is NO information out there to pin anything on the Sharks past except for innuendo and circumstancial 'evidence'.

My gripe has NEVER been that there isn't likely a problem; it has been the nature of the release of this report and the subsequent impacts on innocent parties.

Not seeking to frame you Hamster, just pointing out who you have firmly aligned with.

It seems we're agreed that there likely IS a problem? A huge one? Possibly.

If so, do we focus on the substance or the form?
The substantive or the superficial?
Face the problem or shoot the messenger?

Seems the focus in this thread (and in the media) is on shooting the messenger, on the superficial, on the form? Agreed? Does this concern you at all?

So you would prefer to blame the media in this case, even though the whole release process was aimed specifically to be broadcast widely, with emotive language utilised by those present when outlining 'there is a problem'?

I think that when you boil down the issue here, across the board people agree almost unanimously that the way in which the release of this ACC report was done, was far from the best way.

It was force-fed to a hungry media looking to run the story on sports next big thing, but quickly were frustrated at the lack of information after the press conference.

Some of the vocal media types take that frustration and want to ask, '...is there really a problem,' while some of us are frustrated in seeing codes, clubs and players names tarnished at this time, for no good reason.

I don't blame the media Hamster. The media do what the media do. They take a smidgeon of facts to give a story credibility, then express opinions dressed as fact. And the opinions they choose are ones which cause hysterical reactions in a gullible public. Predictably. People take on these thoughts as their own, and as the truth, not realising they are mere opinions designed to cause emotive reactions.

We have all experienced the likes of Hadley and Kent reporting on the Brett Stewart case. Have we learned nothing? Do we reject their opinions when unfavourable and gullibly accept them when favourable? Are we such puppets to our emotions and to their manipulation of our emotions?

Unanimity of opinion doesn't impress me in the slightest. People can be stupid. Mobs even more so.
Could universal agreement be a warning sign of group-think Hamster? And of seeking an easy and comfortable scapegoat?

Your thought that there is no good reason for the actions of the various authorities is nothing more than an unsupported assumption currently being pushed by certain media, and those with political agendas.

---

No-one is saying the game is clean. The investigation should absolutely go ahead to weed out the cheats. But why was it so important for them to hold that press conference? Why didn't they simply continue on with the investigation until they had enough evidence to charge players, officials or clubs with something? Once they have that evidence then release names. What purpose did the press conference serve?

Fair enough questions Bones.

And are you fixed into a position with answers to those questions?

Is it possible in your mind that the method was appropriate and justified?

 

[WAMF]

In the hundreds of posts on this subject by Rex, has anyone seen him, even partially, admit that the situation could have been handled better by those in the 'know' and those in control?

I know that most others here aren't anywhere near as arrogant and have at least conceded that the press conference timing was simply wrong.

Rex seems unprepared to give an inch and is mighty quick to label others. Much prefers to play the man, rather than the ball.
He is completely right, we are all very wrong because it's Rays fault.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Was it wrong? Nothing I have heard convinces me it was wrong.

OK here is one false premise of the argument that it was wrong:

False premise #1: The problem of crooks in pro sports could have been handled effectively just by prosecuting the wrongdoers and chucking them out.

That is false for the simple reason that it's so hard to detect the wrongdoers and very difficult to obtain enough proof to support a prosecution, let alone a conviction.

There is simply no evidence to support the proposition 'most crooks will get caught'. There is ample evidence to suggest the opposite, and that the only ones who get busted are either unlucky unpopular or particularly stupid.

Does anyone seriously think otherwise?

 

[Ralphie]

In the hundreds of posts on this subject by Rex, has anyone seen him, even partially, admit that the situation could have been handled better by those in the 'know' and those in control?

I know that most others here aren't anywhere near as arrogant and have at least conceded that the press conference timing was simply wrong.

Rex seems unprepared to give an inch and is mighty quick to label others. Much prefers to play the man, rather than the ball.
He is completely right, we are all very wrong because it's Rays fault.

Don't take it personall WAMF, Rex usually plays the man rather than the ball. I have some personal experience of his high and mighty personal attacks.

 

[bones]

Please, Rex. Don't try and frame me as a 'Kent' or 'Hadley' because of my opinion.

We've just had a potential major sponsor walk from talks with the Sharks under the shadow of these allegations. To date, there is NO information out there to pin anything on the Sharks past except for innuendo and circumstancial 'evidence'.

My gripe has NEVER been that there isn't likely a problem; it has been the nature of the release of this report and the subsequent impacts on innocent parties.

Not seeking to frame you Hamster, just pointing out who you have firmly aligned with.

It seems we're agreed that there likely IS a problem? A huge one? Possibly.

If so, do we focus on the substance or the form?
The substantive or the superficial?
Face the problem or shoot the messenger?

Seems the focus in this thread (and in the media) is on shooting the messenger, on the superficial, on the form? Agreed? Does this concern you at all?

So you would prefer to blame the media in this case, even though the whole release process was aimed specifically to be broadcast widely, with emotive language utilised by those present when outlining 'there is a problem'?

I think that when you boil down the issue here, across the board people agree almost unanimously that the way in which the release of this ACC report was done, was far from the best way.

It was force-fed to a hungry media looking to run the story on sports next big thing, but quickly were frustrated at the lack of information after the press conference.

Some of the vocal media types take that frustration and want to ask, '...is there really a problem,' while some of us are frustrated in seeing codes, clubs and players names tarnished at this time, for no good reason.

I don't blame the media Hamster. The media do what the media do. They take a smidgeon of facts to give a story credibility, then express opinions dressed as fact. And the opinions they choose are ones which cause hysterical reactions in a gullible public. Predictably. People take on these thoughts as their own, and as the truth, not realising they are mere opinions designed to cause emotive reactions.

We have all experienced the likes of Hadley and Kent reporting on the Brett Stewart case. Have we learned nothing? Do we reject their opinions when unfavourable and gullibly accept them when favourable? Are we such puppets to our emotions and to their manipulation of our emotions?

Unanimity of opinion doesn't impress me in the slightest. People can be stupid. Mobs even more so.
Could universal agreement be a warning sign of group-think Hamster? And of seeking an easy and comfortable scapegoat?

Your thought that there is no good reason for the actions of the various authorities is nothing more than an unsupported assumption currently being pushed by certain media, and those with political agendas.

---

No-one is saying the game is clean. The investigation should absolutely go ahead to weed out the cheats. But why was it so important for them to hold that press conference? Why didn't they simply continue on with the investigation until they had enough evidence to charge players, officials or clubs with something? Once they have that evidence then release names. What purpose did the press conference serve?

Fair enough questions Bones.

And are you fixed into a position with answers to those questions?

Is it possible in your mind that the method was appropriate and justified?

---

No, not fixed into a position. I can't be if all the information they allegedly have has not ben revealed.
Whether the method is appropriate and justified or not, cannot be determined until the end result in all this is known. If no-one is caught and charged then the answer will be a resounding 'no'. But has all the furore created by the press conference been justified because there is, in your words, "possibly" a problem?

 

[WAMF]

Gould leads Panthers in show of unity against doping report

Date February 20, 2013

IN an extraordinary display of unity in the face of unspecified Australian Crime Commission allegations levelled against his club, Penrith supremo Phil Gould led 350 members of his organisation into an ASADA briefing yesterday afternoon.

After Gould met ASADA last Thursday, he asked the officials to relay the same message to the entire organisation, who he said had been dragged through the mud since being implicated in the Australian Crime Commission report.

Coach Ivan Cleary led the first-grade side, followed by every player and official at the club from the Harold Matthews to the Windsor Wolves, into Panthers Leagues Club at 4.30pm on Tuesday for a dose of reality.
Phil Gould.

"It smears the name and the brand of a lot of innocent people" ... Phil Gould. Photo: Brendan Esposito

The Panthers have been informed that they have an ''extremely low'' involvement in the report because of a minor link to a key person in the investigation.
Advertisement

Despite the club admitting that no past or present players were involved in the drug fiasco, Gould couldn't hide his frustration over being linked to the scandal that has rocked Australian sport.

''There is no doubt that this has been damaging, not just here at Panthers, but to other people - Australian sport and most clubs have been implicated in it,'' Gould said.

''It smears the name and the brand of a lot of innocent people. That's something you don't get back in a hurry. We are bitterly disappointed that even though we have such a minimal risk exposure to this, from day one our name has been thrown around as part of that report.'' Unlike other NRL clubs, the Panthers haven't lost any sponsorship or corporate support as a result of the investigation.

They say they have nothing to hide, hence they asked ASADA out to the foot of the mountains to tell the players and staff of their investigations. Penrith Panthers Group chief executive Warren Wilson said the club was considering legal action after their reputation was tarnished as a result of the implication. ''We've got a legal team on our behalf that's been engaged,'' he said. ''We'll have a look at all that. We're not shying away from that. We can put our hand on our heart and say as an organisation we've done nothing wrong.''

Gould was firm in his stance that ''ASADA are our friend not our enemy'', giving his full support to their inquiry despite the club's public embarrassment.

''When you are implicated or have your name linked to something like this, and as serious as this, there is a massive amount of people it affects,'' he said. ''That's why it's totally unfair and totally unnecessary that this was played out in the public arena like it was.

''Even with our very minimal risk and low priority from day one, the public would perceive us part of the very serious allegations that were made in the report.'' The Panthers were keen to reiterate their innocence and clear any concerns their players and staff might have.

Wilson believes Tuesday's briefing was a show of strength at the club and a clear indication of their stance on the matter.

''We've taken the high road on everything here,'' Wilson said.

''We've had a look at all our policies internally and all our procedures and methodologies. This was all part of the whole exercise of going through this and basically saying we're not going to hide, we're not going to cower.

''We're belt and bracing our whole operation here to make sure that it's all right and it's all done properly.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/gould-leads-panthers-in-show-of-unity-against-doping-report-20130219-2epm4.html#ixzz2LNtShSqN

 

[Hamster Huey]

Joe Public gets the gist that the ACC/ASADA are 'cracking down' and we give it a '...yeah, whatever,' without the implication of codes, clubs and players that are more than likely innocent.

Hmm, yes, and exactly how would Joe Public get that gist if there was no announcement? By osmosis?

And if the informed public reaction is 'yeah whatever', then where is the damage to the innocents?

Public awareness of the links between PEDs and organised crime, and the associated risk of match fixing once athletes are compromised by those links with organised crime, has surely multiplied exponentially almost overnight. How many people involved in pro sport in this country do you think missed hearing of this newsflash bulletin? Any?? They are all on full alert now and far more aware of the issues, and the risks.

I am no apologist for the Labor Party, and I'm definitely no champion of the cause of law enforcement. Quite the contrary However I am always amused and slightly suspicious of outrage and indignation, and I do occasionally feel inclined to comment when the proponents of said outrage and indignation rely on flawed logic. Such as during this debate.

Joe Public would find out very quickly through social media and/or media outlets that clubs were visited and the gist of the reason would be touched on. If all clubs/players were earmarked, we'd not be as concerned about finding out more.

If that concept of news leaking out and how the fans absorb it varies depending on the way it's released doesn't compute with yourself, I'd be very surprised.

The ACC report has nothing to do with us supporters involvement in sport; it's about connections between sports/clubs/players and illegal matters. If the players are fully briefed on the quiet on what's happening, do you think they're less likely to absorb the news, especially if it is bad in their own case?

If anything, I'd be surprised if the far broader release didn't do more damage in shutting down lines of communication that could have been harvested for more definitive info.

Great 'scare campaign' to prevent trouble, but terrible in trying and backup the very grim claims of it being our 'darkest days in sport' when what the report provides doesn't indicate that there is actually enough to warrant police investigations.

---

Please, Rex. Don't try and frame me as a 'Kent' or 'Hadley' because of my opinion.

We've just had a potential major sponsor walk from talks with the Sharks under the shadow of these allegations. To date, there is NO information out there to pin anything on the Sharks past except for innuendo and circumstancial 'evidence'.

My gripe has NEVER been that there isn't likely a problem; it has been the nature of the release of this report and the subsequent impacts on innocent parties.

Not seeking to frame you Hamster, just pointing out who you have firmly aligned with.

It seems we're agreed that there likely IS a problem? A huge one? Possibly.

If so, do we focus on the substance or the form?
The substantive or the superficial?
Face the problem or shoot the messenger?

Seems the focus in this thread (and in the media) is on shooting the messenger, on the superficial, on the form? Agreed? Does this concern you at all?

So you would prefer to blame the media in this case, even though the whole release process was aimed specifically to be broadcast widely, with emotive language utilised by those present when outlining 'there is a problem'?

I think that when you boil down the issue here, across the board people agree almost unanimously that the way in which the release of this ACC report was done, was far from the best way.

It was force-fed to a hungry media looking to run the story on sports next big thing, but quickly were frustrated at the lack of information after the press conference.

Some of the vocal media types take that frustration and want to ask, '...is there really a problem,' while some of us are frustrated in seeing codes, clubs and players names tarnished at this time, for no good reason.

I don't blame the media Hamster. The media do what the media do. They take a smidgeon of facts to give a story credibility, then express opinions dressed as fact. And the opinions they choose are ones which cause hysterical reactions in a gullible public. Predictably. People take on these thoughts as their own, and as the truth, not realising they are mere opinions designed to cause emotive reactions.

We have all experienced the likes of Hadley and Kent reporting on the Brett Stewart case. Have we learned nothing? Do we reject their opinions when unfavourable and gullibly accept them when favourable? Are we such puppets to our emotions and to their manipulation of our emotions?

Unanimity of opinion doesn't impress me in the slightest. People can be stupid. Mobs even more so.
Could universal agreement be a warning sign of group-think Hamster? And of seeking an easy and comfortable scapegoat?

Your thought that there is no good reason for the actions of the various authorities is nothing more than an unsupported assumption currently being pushed by certain media, and those with political agendas.

---

No-one is saying the game is clean. The investigation should absolutely go ahead to weed out the cheats. But why was it so important for them to hold that press conference? Why didn't they simply continue on with the investigation until they had enough evidence to charge players, officials or clubs with something? Once they have that evidence then release names. What purpose did the press conference serve?

Fair enough questions Bones.

And are you fixed into a position with answers to those questions?

Is it possible in your mind that the method was appropriate and justified?

---

All you've done Rex is concentrate on my opinion as being based on what some of those less trustworthy in the reporting game, are apparantly stating (which I have to take your word on given I haven't read/seen anything produced by either on this matter).

There seems to be a pagent here for dismissing opinions because 'clearly that person can't think for themselves'.

In your quest to label me you are missing the differences between what I suggest and what Kent/Hadley are apparantly focused on.

I am not interested in shooting the messenger....if they've got a message to pass.

It looks very much like the ACC/ASADA were pushed to a very public microphone in an untimely and unorganised manner to relay a half-prepared message that can't be discussed. Is that their fault? I don't know; does the 'Boss Made Me Do It' hold up?

How about the sports heads present? They clearly had only a very broad idea of the report before being present and eventually had to press harder post-release to find out exactly how their sports were (potentially) affected. Is that their fault? Guess we can apply the 'Don't Step On The Toes Of The Funders' rule here.

So how about the media? Talked up story with massive ramifications for Australian sport and a high-profile release of a report that damns sport at the 'highest levels'. Sitting, waiting, listening.....so where is the specifics? Ask question; well-blocked response. Probe deeper; can't respond legally. Ask if there is anything else to add; not at this time. We've got copy waiting on something from this so what do we do? Activate standard 'Media Speculation' mode.

So who's left of the messengers that day and what was their purpose for being there and does their performance mean that ACC/ASADA have been hampered from continuing surveillance and/or investigations?

 

[Rex]

Please, Rex. Don't try and frame me as a 'Kent' or 'Hadley' because of my opinion.

We've just had a potential major sponsor walk from talks with the Sharks under the shadow of these allegations. To date, there is NO information out there to pin anything on the Sharks past except for innuendo and circumstancial 'evidence'.

My gripe has NEVER been that there isn't likely a problem; it has been the nature of the release of this report and the subsequent impacts on innocent parties.

Not seeking to frame you Hamster, just pointing out who you have firmly aligned with.

It seems we're agreed that there likely IS a problem? A huge one? Possibly.

If so, do we focus on the substance or the form?
The substantive or the superficial?
Face the problem or shoot the messenger?

Seems the focus in this thread (and in the media) is on shooting the messenger, on the superficial, on the form? Agreed? Does this concern you at all?

So you would prefer to blame the media in this case, even though the whole release process was aimed specifically to be broadcast widely, with emotive language utilised by those present when outlining 'there is a problem'?

I think that when you boil down the issue here, across the board people agree almost unanimously that the way in which the release of this ACC report was done, was far from the best way.

It was force-fed to a hungry media looking to run the story on sports next big thing, but quickly were frustrated at the lack of information after the press conference.

Some of the vocal media types take that frustration and want to ask, '...is there really a problem,' while some of us are frustrated in seeing codes, clubs and players names tarnished at this time, for no good reason.

I don't blame the media Hamster. The media do what the media do. They take a smidgeon of facts to give a story credibility, then express opinions dressed as fact. And the opinions they choose are ones which cause hysterical reactions in a gullible public. Predictably. People take on these thoughts as their own, and as the truth, not realising they are mere opinions designed to cause emotive reactions.

We have all experienced the likes of Hadley and Kent reporting on the Brett Stewart case. Have we learned nothing? Do we reject their opinions when unfavourable and gullibly accept them when favourable? Are we such puppets to our emotions and to their manipulation of our emotions?

Unanimity of opinion doesn't impress me in the slightest. People can be stupid. Mobs even more so.
Could universal agreement be a warning sign of group-think Hamster? And of seeking an easy and comfortable scapegoat?

Your thought that there is no good reason for the actions of the various authorities is nothing more than an unsupported assumption currently being pushed by certain media, and those with political agendas.

---

No-one is saying the game is clean. The investigation should absolutely go ahead to weed out the cheats. But why was it so important for them to hold that press conference? Why didn't they simply continue on with the investigation until they had enough evidence to charge players, officials or clubs with something? Once they have that evidence then release names. What purpose did the press conference serve?

Fair enough questions Bones.

And are you fixed into a position with answers to those questions?

Is it possible in your mind that the method was appropriate and justified?

---

No, not fixed into a position. I can't be if all the information they allegedly have has not ben revealed.
Whether the method is appropriate and justified or not, cannot be determined until the end result in all this is known. If no-one is caught and charged then the answer will be a resounding 'no'. But has all the furore created by the press conference been justified because there is, in your words, "possibly" a problem?

---

Then if you are genuinely not fixed into a position, and are awaiting results, Bones, then you are way, way ahead of some.

It seems Annersley doesn't agree with your view of the value of the announcement being dependent on people being caught and charged. He sees important value in it right now. Do you know why?

You're quoting of me as saying there is "possibly" a problem is inaccurate. I said it seemed "likely" and was "possibly" huge. But what you or I think of the chances is unimportant, it's the people in the know who are most in the know.

The furore has you worried. To what extent is furore media driven? And is the media controllable by the people who interact with the media? If you have the secrets of how to control the media, please let Toovey, Brett Stewart, etc, know them.

---

In the hundreds of posts on this subject by Rex, has anyone seen him, even partially, admit that the situation could have been handled better by those in the 'know' and those in control?

I know that most others here aren't anywhere near as arrogant and have at least conceded that the press conference timing was simply wrong.

Rex seems unprepared to give an inch and is mighty quick to label others. Much prefers to play the man, rather than the ball.
He is completely right, we are all very wrong because it's Rays fault.

So I take it this means you can't find even a sentence or two sentences to support your allegation of what was said then? You misrepresented the truth then?

And you divert into another allegation to hide this? Playing the man WAMF?

---

All you've done Rex is concentrate on my opinion as being based on what some of those less trustworthy in the reporting game, are apparantly stating (which I have to take your word on given I haven't read/seen anything produced by either on this matter).

There seems to be a pagent here for dismissing opinions because 'clearly that person can't think for themselves'.

In your quest to label me you are missing the differences between what I suggest and what Kent/Hadley are apparantly focused on.

I am not interested in shooting the messenger....if they've got a message to pass.

It looks very much like the ACC/ASADA were pushed to a very public microphone in an untimely and unorganised manner to relay a half-prepared message that can't be discussed. Is that their fault? I don't know; does the 'Boss Made Me Do It' hold up?

How about the sports heads present? They clearly had only a very broad idea of the report before being present and eventually had to press harder post-release to find out exactly how their sports were (potentially) affected. Is that their fault? Guess we can apply the 'Don't Step On The Toes Of The Funders' rule here.

So how about the media? Talked up story with massive ramifications for Australian sport and a high-profile release of a report that damns sport at the 'highest levels'. Sitting, waiting, listening.....so where is the specifics? Ask question; well-blocked response. Probe deeper; can't respond legally. Ask if there is anything else to add; not at this time. We've got copy waiting on something from this so what do we do? Activate standard 'Media Speculation' mode.

So who's left of the messengers that day and what was their purpose for being there and does their performance mean that ACC/ASADA have been hampered from continuing surveillance and/or investigations?

Hi Hamster. I appreciate your thoughtful response. Your careful separation of the issues, suggests emotional maturity and credibility, in my eyes at least.

You said:
"It looks very much like the ACC/ASADA were pushed to a very public microphone in an untimely and unorganised manner"

This is appearances. Maybe true, maybe not. And if true, we could only speculate on the reasons. And speculation is not truth. Let's assume it was true, what reasons could there be?

eg A scenario may be that Essendon got whiff of the threat, confessed, and this pushed the button for a hasty announcement.

Another possible scenario is that the authorities saw the threat as too great to wait. That it would be irresponsible and negligent to hold off on an announcement. And part of the reason for the announcement was to immediately break the perceived links between the criminal element and the sportspeople. And no doubt this would be a result of what has been done if links existed. People at risk would have backed right off.

Another possible scenario is that the announcement was politically motivated. And there is light years of difference between seeing this as a possibility and stating it as fact - which has been a consistent thread on these discussion forums and in the media since it started. To jump to rash conclusions like this, based on inadequate evidence, is the exact same flaw as caused what was done to Brett Stewart. 2 plus 2 does not equal guilty, no matter what media shock jocks say.

The situation faced by the authorities is a very difficult one. Peptides are not found in urine tests, most drugs tests are urine tests, and even the blood tests will be lucky to detect them. Not being able to prove it in court does not mean it is not a major problem. Al Capone would never have been caught for his worst crimes without creativity. Similarly Lance Armstrong and drug tests. Calls for proof beyond doubt as the only basis for any action are simplistic and unrealistic.

What damage would have been done to anyone if the public wasn't insanely emotionally reactive? None. Zero. Zip. People would wait and see what happens, and would not prejudge.

And who most feeds and cultivates this insane emotional reactivity in the public? Until we see, we are their puppets. Mere hamsters on a spinning wheel.

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

Jeez some of you love this stuff !!

 

[WAMF]

Having a bet each way now I see, Rex?

IMO, you're heading to pretty low territory if you need to compare this with Brett's case. The two are nothing alike.
There's not even an allegation levelled at any individual for a start and most importantly, there have been no charges laid, not even a player identified.

Your post above is the first I've read where you actually concede this could have been politically motivated, but you lose credibility when you suggest there's no evidence to support this.
What you are stating is that all the reasons that were given about why the Govt would be more than happy to have had their woes off the front pages at the time, are a bunch of lies.

I think you show your true colours when you become defensive, Rex.
I'd say there are more reasons why this could be politically motivated, than reasons for it not being politically motivated.

But we'll continue to agree to disagree.

Life must be tough at the moment for you rusted on Labor fans.

 

[MWSE]

I think you show your true colours when you become defensive, Rex.
I'd say there are more reasons why this could be politically motivated, than reasons for it not being politically motivated.

But we'll continue to agree to disagree.

Life must be tough at the moment for you rusted on Labor fans.

Same can be said for you there bud. Standard WAMF political hand grenade with zero constructive comments.

 

[WAMF]

I think you show your true colours when you become defensive, Rex.
I'd say there are more reasons why this could be politically motivated, than reasons for it not being politically motivated.

But we'll continue to agree to disagree.

Life must be tough at the moment for you rusted on Labor fans.

Same can be said for you there bud. Standard WAMF political hand grenade with zero constructive comments.

Incoming.....