Good idea. If possible, me too.rama_fan wrote:However if someone would like to private message me who is suspected it would be appreciated!!
Hawks in Crisis?
- j-mac31
- Essendon Legend
- Posts: 15233
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 2:13 pm
- Location: The city of brotherly love (Detroit)
I don't think that we should know private medical records of players.
BUT
I don't think that AFL should suppress names of players caught for two reasons:
1. We seem to find out anyway.
2. I think clubs and fans deserve to know. Any club with a player caught once should learn, so that they are no as surprised when (if) that player gets a third strike.
And clubs should know if they are trading for a player caught once or more. surely it would not be fair if a player rocked up at a club and recorded his third strike at his first training session with his knew club. Fans would go mental as well. If it was "public knowledge", at least the club would know it was taking a risk or simply wouldn't take it in the first place.
BUT
I don't think that AFL should suppress names of players caught for two reasons:
1. We seem to find out anyway.
2. I think clubs and fans deserve to know. Any club with a player caught once should learn, so that they are no as surprised when (if) that player gets a third strike.
And clubs should know if they are trading for a player caught once or more. surely it would not be fair if a player rocked up at a club and recorded his third strike at his first training session with his knew club. Fans would go mental as well. If it was "public knowledge", at least the club would know it was taking a risk or simply wouldn't take it in the first place.
Aaron Francis is the Messiah.
- Megan
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 12378
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:08 pm
- Location: Location Location.
I know I shouldn't quote my source as bigfooty because that ruins the cred right there but...
"Ch7 is restrained from publishing any of the names or clubs or any detail relating to medical treatment of players or other information disclosed by them"
The AFL added....."Any media agency who intends to re-produce or re-publish any information to which the order applies run the risk of being in contempt of Court".
Are we a media agency? I don't know.
"Ch7 is restrained from publishing any of the names or clubs or any detail relating to medical treatment of players or other information disclosed by them"
The AFL added....."Any media agency who intends to re-produce or re-publish any information to which the order applies run the risk of being in contempt of Court".
Are we a media agency? I don't know.
Proud member of 'Cult Hird'.
-
- High Draft Pick
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:13 pm
- Location: Under cover, deep in the heart of Carlscum territory
f*** the AFLMegan wrote:I know I shouldn't quote my source as bigfooty because that ruins the cred right there but...
"Ch7 is restrained from publishing any of the names or clubs or any detail relating to medical treatment of players or other information disclosed by them"
The AFL added....."Any media agency who intends to re-produce or re-publish any information to which the order applies run the risk of being in contempt of Court".
Are we a media agency? I don't know.
If we are not supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat ?.
Gee f****** wizz. What a wank. So where is the defamation? A person's name is on a medical record saying they have certain drugs in their system. It is a fact not a fabrication. If this is the sort of legal reaction to a fact, then no player should have their blood alcohol reading released in the media when they have been caught drink driving and the test results appear on a medical record - BAC. Piss poor.
- tonysoprano
- Club Captain
- Posts: 4639
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:31 pm
- Location: Perth
agree - if its a fact - then surely it can't be defamatory.BenDoolan wrote:Gee f****** wizz. What a wank. So where is the defamation? A person's name is on a medical record saying they have certain drugs in their system. It is a fact not a fabrication. If this is the sort of legal reaction to a fact, then no player should have their blood alcohol reading released in the media when they have been caught drink driving and the test results appear on a medical record - BAC. Piss poor.
-
- High Draft Pick
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 11:15 pm
- Location: Ballarat
Quite seriously...we could definitely do names. Definitely.
I think your 3 points for meeting the standard of defamation sound correct j-mac, but you then need to look at the damage this defamation has caused in order to determine the amount of damages. You need to show actual damage. Hurt feelings don`t count. The amount of damange from a BomberTalk poster suggesting you took some drugs would be lucky to amount to $5.
Anyway if you`d like me to just shut up someone please pm me the alleged names and I`ll walk away happy
On a side note I`ve brought up before, this circus again shows what a ridiculous idea it is to have the AFL (and any employer) trying to police the use of recreational drugs. Police is the most important word there, because IT`S THE f****** POLICE`S JOB. LET`S JUST PLAY FOOTY FFS.
I think your 3 points for meeting the standard of defamation sound correct j-mac, but you then need to look at the damage this defamation has caused in order to determine the amount of damages. You need to show actual damage. Hurt feelings don`t count. The amount of damange from a BomberTalk poster suggesting you took some drugs would be lucky to amount to $5.
Anyway if you`d like me to just shut up someone please pm me the alleged names and I`ll walk away happy
On a side note I`ve brought up before, this circus again shows what a ridiculous idea it is to have the AFL (and any employer) trying to police the use of recreational drugs. Police is the most important word there, because IT`S THE f****** POLICE`S JOB. LET`S JUST PLAY FOOTY FFS.
- bomberdonnie
- Champion of Essendon
- Posts: 8575
- Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: Old Hobart Town
Hawthorn might have 7 players with a problem,but to me 7 seem to have a Much Bigger one.
It was they who BUGGERED UP the BRAUN case,yet they will probably escape,because WEST COAST are DITHERING as to whether to sue a Sponser.
Whilst it was 7 in Melbourne that named BRAUN,TVW PERTH is still part of LITTLE KERRY'S Happy Family.
Be buggered if anyone can believe their source.Did she honestly believe we'd SWALLOW that nonsense about her handing 7 the Imfo,that it was in the players' benefit?
Or the fact that somehow,she just found this material lying outside in the Gutter?What was GIDEON HAIGH'S little dig in OFFSIDERS this morning?
It was they who BUGGERED UP the BRAUN case,yet they will probably escape,because WEST COAST are DITHERING as to whether to sue a Sponser.
Whilst it was 7 in Melbourne that named BRAUN,TVW PERTH is still part of LITTLE KERRY'S Happy Family.
Be buggered if anyone can believe their source.Did she honestly believe we'd SWALLOW that nonsense about her handing 7 the Imfo,that it was in the players' benefit?
Or the fact that somehow,she just found this material lying outside in the Gutter?What was GIDEON HAIGH'S little dig in OFFSIDERS this morning?
And Channel 7 may be in trouble. I hope so, serves them right for paying some hag for a "news breaking" story. Could be a costly month for them.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html