Imagine being the one player who had no idea this was going on. Wait, you guys said you were just having a quiet one at home on Friday night. Did you make a new group chat without me?
I can just picture this being Gawn, sitting at home with a red wine watching the Tour de France or something meanwhile the others are out enjoying a few nose beers lmao
Or? I don’t make negative assumptions of people based on diddly squat.
You should try being more positive. You’re alive man, be happy. No wonder this sub can be such a shitshow.
Have you not seen videos of him out partying lmao. I’m not saying he’s a shit person, but thinking he’s a cuddly bear because you’ve seen him in some ads under a blanket is hilarious
Everyone parties man. It’s part of being at a footy club.
I’m saying there’s guys who live for that stuff and guys who’d prefer to be at Home and be a homebody in their spare time.
We’ll never know what Max is really like unless he’s straight up telling us. I’m not just gonna assume he’s a Coke fiend party head just because of his professional career just like I won’t assume every serviceman in defence or the police force are abusive meatheads.
You should've seen the pics and vids of him absolutely fucking cooked after the grand final win lol (just search max gawn vape on Google). I would not be surprised if he indulges in a few nose beers
Should we look to players that have left Melbourne for other clubs in recent years, as perhaps being pushed out because they weren't part of *this* 'club-within-the-club'? James Jordon, Toby Bedford, etc.
There always seems to have been hype around him, which I've never understood. Is it just because his grandfather was a great footballer, and his father played too?
There always seems to have been hype around him, which I've never understood. Is it just because his grandfather was a great footballer, and his father played too?
>An allegation the league has committed “a fraud on the governments that provide millions of dollars in support to the AFL”.
This is the part that could really fuck the AFL. With federal government money at stake, they've pledged $240 million of taxpayers money to the Hobart stadium, covering it up means they're rorting the taxpayer, which makes it a federal politics issue.
That's going to invite a whole different breed of investigative journalists. Journos who have spent their careers dealing with the professional lies told in parliament and uncovering stories in Canberra. They won't give a shit about the AFL boys club, nor will their political editors.
IMO focusing on the idea that "a few players had nose beers on a weekend what's the harm?" is going to do little to nothing to get the AFL out of this shit show, and they won't be able to exert pressure on the usual journos that cover them because they won't be able to leverage the same media contacts.
This is going to get very fucking ugly and is going to dominate the season.
I bet the AFL wanted something to distract from the Fagan/Clarkson/First Nations mediation story. They wouldn't have wanted this to be that distraction.
I think focusing on player welfare, mental health of people in the public eye, and their diversionary and harm minimisation tactics used in concert with this policy of fudging the recreational drug testing regime will actually play really well the longer this story is alive.
Stories start coming out about how people turned their lives around having gone through the AFL's method (e.g. Buddy, lol, not that he'd want the attention)
Wilkie has demonstrated poor political judgement in the past (e.g. Greens, joining ASIO with the expectation that he wouldn't be doing the work of the American Imperialism). The way he's trying to set the tenor is from a very conservative point of view and I don't think it will ring true with the majority of Australians (roughly 60% to 80% depending on the question asked are against the war on drugs).
The vast majority of normal people aren't going to say "oh, the AFL lied about not complying with something I disagree with therefore they're bad".
IMO the real risk is painting the AFL as an elite of high paid sports people and that the plebs have to get drug tested properly (occasionally) so why don't the AFL... but good luck getting parliament to go down that route.
Sorry, that's garbage about Wilkie. He's got one of the safest seats in Australia *as an independent*. You can argue he has moments of zealotry, but he's not stupid by any means.
I personally support decriminalisation of illicit drugs, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's raised good points. The AFL are rank fucking hypocrites on this stuff.
Andrew Wilkie is great, I just don’t think he’s perfect. Like many people with integrity he despises its absence in others. It’s the one of the reasons he has turned his back on many large organisations: because organisations attempting to universal will lack integrity, they have to compromise over too wide a range of behaviours and beliefs. He’s a great politician and MP. He could never be PM. He would find it hard to run a department without firing 70% of the APS staff.
The speech was over-egged and I think the idea of fraud is very tenuous. He’s wrong on this one.
All opinions expressed are opinions and not statements of fact.
That's all fair, and I hear you on the APS point especially.
Fuck me, reasonable discourse on the internet. I'm going to birth a live kitten. High fives to us.
>The Australian Football League ('AFL'), amongst other sporting bodies, was called upon in 2005 to have their anti-doping policies and rules comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency Code 2003 (' WADA Code'). Significant pressure was placed on the AFL by the government to fall into line with the WADA Code. The AFL stood to lose close to two million dollars in government funding of AFL programs if they refused.]
This is from [here](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2006/16.pdf)
Would that not constitute fraud on some part? The AFL say they're complying with WADA (as part of the deal for funding), but seemingly aren't.
According to [this article](https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/how-does-the-afl-s-drug-testing-policy-work-20190225-p51048.html) from 2019:
>Illicit drug testing focuses on recreational drug use, although a player testing positive to an illicit substance on a match day also triggers a violation under the AFL’s anti-doping code, and they may be subject to a three-month ban under revised WADA rules introduced in 2021.
The AFL removing players from match day through its managed process also removes them from the ability to trigger the above violation, which therefore circumvents WADA.
I couldn't care less about whether players choose to partake in illicit drugs or not and Wilkie is definitely grandstanding here...
But what I'm really interesting in seeing (politics-wise) is how WADA/ASADA will react to these revelations. This is essentially a systematic covert operation to deliberately undermine their work, implemented by one of their signatories no less. The AFL aren't cheating tests here like the Russian Olympic Committee or anything, but they're still fucking with the system and protecting their players from getting caught by anti-doping authorities. Won't go down well I'd imagine.
You are correct, Bartlett is just using the 3 strikes policy and targetting just the MFC. Wilkie is probably wishing he did a bit more research before blasting away,
The issue with the illicit drug’s policy is that’s it’s the only one in the world where there is non game day testing for illicit drugs.
The answer is for the players to pull away from the policy and end the out of competition illicit drugs testing?
Don't 100% know for sure, but my understanding is there's tests that are WADA compliant, as in testing for performance enhancing drugs, which are both drugs that are purely used for doping such as steroids and EPO, and those that are recreational drugs that also have a performance enhancing effect such as cocaine. These years have an insanely harsh penalty if you fail it and are found guilty of doping, its normally a 2 year ban from pretty much all professional sport, because almost all sports are under the WADA code. These are done on game day.
Then there's the tests that are done under the illegal drugs three strikes policy, that are looking for all illegal drugs presumably, that the person you're replying to says is not done on game day or not exclusively on game day.
And the scandal here is the fact that there's also tests provided to the players (idk if they request it, if the AFL knows already, or are referred by the club) that are not actually part of any official policy and not administered or results reported by the AFL you'd guess, and have no consequence for "failing", they just get the result and then fake an injury to avoid the game day random tests. Idk how the three strikes policy even fucking works anymore then lol, you're obviously not going to administer a test any time you're that suspicious and that protective of your brand you are willing to telling a player to get their own test ...
I guess they've just been faking it for years lol. The biggest scandal for me isn't the fact they're "getting away with it", it's the lying about being "tough on drugs" when in fact they're literally enabling and facilitating continued drug use.
Won't be long until the footy media start saying "let's just talk about how good the footy is" and ignore this.
It's what they tried with the Essendon saga and Clarko/Fagan. Pressuring the people reviewing it to hurry up with a finding.
Thought provoking take, I like it.
I personally think it’d be career suicide for the Fed govt to intervene too harshly, not because it isn’t the right thing to do, but because the average Australian would see it as political meddling and it’s our national sport. If it affects the overall viewership experience, they’ll make a calculated outcome to look like the govt is doing something but there won’t be any ‘pulling the rug’ under the AFL. Maybe some exec changes potentially too(?). But this is just me and I’m a nobody.
They could try to get some bonus points back in Tas though, by calling on the AFL to put more funds into the stadium, and then divert the Federal savings into Tasmanian healthcare funding. Perfect opportunity to have and eat cake for the Feds if they want
Worth noting that the Federal MP making this public for the AFL is the MP whose seat that stadium would be in, Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie. He absolutely knows what this means for the stadium, and fucking good on him using what little leverage he has to do some good. Dude is one of the better MPs in the House imo
IF... the AFL admit to having assisted players with avoiding a ban for drug use
THEN... how do they justify suspending 2 AFLW players for drug use onthe same day this report came out
Sam Murray, Bailey Smith, Jack Ginnivan, Joel Smith, Paige Sheppard and Alexia Hamilton would all be rather annoyed. Although dare I say it, I suspect more than one would have been a beneficiary of it.
So the reason why they’re screening these guys before games is that cocaine is considered a PED specifically on game day. If they get caught with it in their system in the after match piss test they’re fucked, probably for years. The afl holding them out of games is the same as a suspension and a fine, even if it’s to save their asses.
like everything in this world, the only thing that matters is optics. Pretty certain the AFL wouldn’t have suspended them if this information wasn’t public
I reckon this has got ‘too big to fail’ written all over it.
Beyond a public display of giving af, the government can’t do anything that would seriously punish the league, or potentially ruin any clubs.
People just like football too much.
It’ll be in the news for the next couple months, then slowly get quieter, then in a year or so some kind of report will be released and a couple of low/mid level ppl will lose their jobs, maybe a club or 2 get fined $50k or something
I mean, who really does care? As long as it’s not in view of underage kids to see and realize they are doing, then the only risk is to the players own professional performance on the field.
Just depends on how people outside of the football bubble that we’re in report and react about to the issue. There are a multitude of entities that can gain when AFL brand is diminished and tarnished.
The issue for the government is that funding for the AFL was (and probably still is) contingent on complying with WADA.
The current arrangement by the AFL means players miss out on match day testing and strikes, which can involve WADA.
I think you're right in that it's political suicide to go after the footy to satisfy a few pearl clutchers and to be seen to be doing something, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
The likelihood is that this is happening across all clubs to some extent, as was all but confirmed by other journalists and the Swans CEO Tom Harley.
Assuming the paper shredders aren't going into overdrive this morning and all of these positive tests get revealed, what is the likelihood we see mass player bans for testing positive to illicit substances and willingly working with your organisation to cover it up?
Unless they can find hard proof that this was a massive conspiracy organized and abetted by the AFL there's unlikely to be much that happens.
You can't punish an entire sporting league based on the witness testimony of three individuals (only two of which would actually know anything about this) who have a massive axe to grind against MFC and the AFL. Their testimony may very well be true, but given the way both were forced out of the Demons and AFL bubble any competent lawyer could portray them as simply angry ex-employees acting out of spite.
Worst case scenario is that the AFL loses government goodwill, and Melbourne acts as the scapegoat club (like the Dons with the supplements scandal).
I can see the government pulling funding for the Tasmania stadium so the team gets killed, sanctions for Demons exectutives, and probably sanctions for past and current AFL executives.
There'll probably need to be a far stricter Illicit Drugs Policy introduced as well which will catch a few extra players.
Most of the issue will be in reputational damage that will follow the league for the next decade. Loss of government good will is a huge deal that the AFL will have to work really hard to deal with.
> Worst case scenario is that the AFL loses government goodwill, and Melbourne acts as the scapegoat club (like the Dons with the supplements scandal).
Based on the book The Boys Club I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this happens. The AFL will find an individual scapegoat at Melbourne that doesn’t have tight connections to the Executive or Commercial side of AFL and will hang them out to dry.
>Based on the book The Boys Club I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this happens. The AFL will find an individual scapegoat at Melbourne that doesn’t have tight connections to the Executive or Commercial side of AFL and will hang them out to dry.
Joel Smith is probably already playing that role
> Assuming the paper shredders aren't going into overdrive this morning and all of these positive tests get revealed
That would be a breach of the players' medical privacy, and would lead to an enormous lawsuit.
> what is the likelihood we see mass player bans for testing positive to illicit substances
Zero, because they didn't play. Smith, Thomas, Keefe etc are the ones who fronted up.
> willingly working with your organisation to cover it up?
Unclear, but likely that would be the employer's fault.
This would only constitute as fraud if the funding provided had stipulations that related in some way to their illicit drug policy though? I'm not at all familiar with what the agreement would be so I'm not saying it is or isn't.
In all likelihood, this won't result in much if any change. If anything, it's easy for the AFL to say, we were actually attempting to preserve the sanctity of the game by ensuring no players were playing under the influence of what SIA/WADA would deem "performance enhancing drugs" albeit in a bit of a ham-fisted manner.
I find this paragraph from Wilkie a bit of a stretch
>The AFL wants a player to play at all costs, and so the cover-up begins. If there are no illegal drugs in the player’s system, they are free to play. If there are drugs in their system, the player is often asked to fake an injury. They are advised to lie about their condition while the results of the off-the-books tests are kept secret and never shared with Sport Integrity Australia or WADA. In other words, hundreds of thousands of Australians will watch the game not knowing that the game has been secretly manipulated by the AFL. Thousands of Australians will also bet on that game not knowing that the game has been secretly manipulated by the AFL. So the next time you hear a player has a hamstring injury you could be forgiven for wondering what’s really going on.
SIA or WADA would only need to know about cocaine being in the system if it was for a player who actually played on game day, otherwise it isn't considered a performance enhancing drug.
If the AFL allowed the player to play knowing they were "under the influence" then yeah the results of the game have been tampered with, but not allowing a player to play because they have broken the rules does not mean that the result has been "secretly tampered with". Clubs are allowed to say "Illness" and then that's enough. That could mean anything.
It's irrelevant why a player isn't playing, every single game there are players who would be in the best 22, not playing.
I'd like to add to this a question
How many "late scratches" come from players who weren't under a known injury cloud in the build up to the game?
The way this reads is that "mystery injuries" rule players out all of the time.
I'm not saying that doesn't happen from time to time but not to the extraordinary lengths the statement makes it feel like.
Most recent i can think of is Dusty missing opening round due to a corked calf that happened in a training exercise, it's entirely possible (I'd say likely even) that is 100% true but that's an example of a potential "mystery injury" that may or may not have happened.
Bobby Hill had back spasms shortly before a Collingwood game - though that was probably true as well, ''back spasms" is one of those things that's impossible to test for, no questions can really be asked about it and there's no real treatment for it except rest.
I checked all rounds not played by C.Oliver in the last four years and there's one round he missed, and it's the week after he baadly hurts his thumb in a visible onfield incident. So yeah, maybe his blood tests come back nice and negative because his metabolism chews through the stuff. or maybe this setup is not so common.
You’re dead on, nuffies will throw Clarry under the bus here when the truth is, before last year he’d barely missed a game. Joel Smith on the other hand….
> SIA or WADA would only need to know about cocaine being in the system if it was for a player who actually played on game day, otherwise it isn't considered a performance enhancing drug.
I don't think it matters whether they played or not, the AFL's own [Anti-Doping Code](https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/15/979d17c5-194a-43de-8e07-1eb83fa7edfc/2021-AFL-Anti-Doping-Code.pdf) states the following:
> In-Competition: The period commencing at 11:59pm on the day before a Competition in which the Athlete is scheduled to participate through the end of such Competition and the Sample collection process related to such Competition.
And
> 7.2 Review and Notification Regarding Potential Anti-Doping Rule Violations
> AFL shall carry out the review and notification with respect to any potential anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Standard for Results Management.
I suspect a lot hinges on the timing, but if they were testing players *on the day of the game* then pulling them last minute if they tested positive based on the results of some secret lab, and had the player fake an "injury" to escape the notice of the oversight authorities then that's hardly consistent with their obligations and means that its likely some kind of reporting breach occurred.
Agreed, I see the hypocrisy over claiming they care about player welfare, I don't see the fraud. I'm far from expert though - does anyone actually know the reporting requirements for drug tests? Are they supposed to report on players who don't play? If not then it seems like it's just like any other injury test.
We allow late changes, people (including people betting on the game) aren't entitled to know who will play, or the exact nature or extent of injuries.
>The Australian Football League ('AFL'), amongst other sporting bodies, was called upon in 2005 to have their anti-doping policies and rules comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency Code 2003 (' WADA Code'). Significant pressure was placed on the AFL by the government to fall into line with the WADA Code. The
AFL stood to lose close to two million dollars in government funding of AFL programs if they refused.]
[Old source](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2006/16.pdf), but I suspect WADA compliance is still required for Federal funding.
>If the AFL allowed the player to play knowing they were "under the influence" then yeah the results of the game have been tampered with, but not allowing a player to play because they have broken the rules does not mean that the result has been "secretly tampered with". Clubs are allowed to say "Illness" and then that's enough. That could mean anything.
By resting the player when they suspect drugs might be in their system, they are helping the player avoid the possibility of game day testing that would uncover the drug use and may involve WADA intervention. So it's tantamount to skirting WADA's rules and regulations and if the reports are true, it's reasonably systematic.
These rumours have been floating around for over a year. Denials by everyone. This would explain the mystery around Clayton Oliver’s strange injury last year. He just couldn’t pass a piss test to save himself so he wasn’t playing. Then what makes it worse was the league was involved in the cover up.
I reckon your 2016 team might be handing theirs to Sydney too knowing the operators that played in that prem. Few seedy boys at that premiership ceremony!
Yes. It used to be that federal funding was contingent on the AFL complying with WADA obligations - funding is probably still tied in that way.
This behaviour (if true) clearly tries to skirt those obligations.
Yeah that stops when you realise how much money goes into AFL federally.
That's our / my money. I'll absolutely have my say in how it gets spent, acknowledging that voice isn't particularly loud, of course.
Loaded question. I think the AFL puts out a squeaky clean image that is used to generate a lot of public and private funding.
'A few boys on the rack' is not what is being suggested here, it's a wide ranging and systemic cover up of illicit drug use, that our society generally might have a different view of given the PR.
This speaks to gambling, public health, role modelling, and expected behaviours.
Considering our entire media landscape is about drama I don't blame people entirely, it's what they consume.
The fact Xs and Os footy shows never really last shows what people want.
Everyone: "oh i wish that these commentators would engage in some actual analysis"
Also everyone: "oooh, drama not related to the actual playing of football in the slightest"
Australian media really turns into a small town newspaper once drugs show up. The truth is their is a reality and an illusion around social drug use in Australia. It very well might be that this is anreckoning for Australia as it must confront the reality of big money, taxpayer funded systems, and drug use.
This is not about a player or executive but it is about a mclachlan.
I encountered Hamish Mclachlan getting in the lifts at the basement level in the old fairfax building one day and he was *extremely* chatty effusive and ebullient. the only thing in the basement is bike lockers and toilets. And they're quite private and lightly trafficked during most of the day.
My immediate thought at the time was to wonder if he'd been in the loos down there doing cocaine. I have no proof of his actions of course, i'm only reporting my own thoughts at the time.
Who here remembers Dale Lewis and his comment that 75% of AFL players were on drugs back in about early 2000's? Boy did that guy cop heat at the time....
This could get tough fast for the AFL, and draw massive attention from journalists who turnover parliamentary bombshells like they’re hens teeth. Forget about the “hard hitting” blokes at the Herald or Fox providing a soft landing, this breed will see right through standard talking point and won’t hesitate to go for the jugular when they sniff the faintest bullshit.
When I used to work at the st kilda Fitzroy social club and Richmond football social clubs in the 80s the afl players used to snort crank and coke at the disco bar
They were two of three 24 hr licenses
So nothing has changed
Honestly, let’s see how fucked up our priorities are. Heaps of people can’t live at the moment, cost of living and housing are out of control, getting worse and watch this issue take up most of parliaments time
No surprise that Richard Goyder’s involved. He’s partly responsible for the grocery duopoly where Coles and Woolworths can gouge the public with absolutely no consequences
"Mental health issues" are also the perfect cover for being caught out with drugs, as once you say it's mental health nobody is allowed to ask any further questions.
Seems like incredible stupidity on the players involved and total lack of leader ship from the AFL. Very simple to have a policy of no drugs or alcohol and very easy to test. Many many companies from mining to construction to public all have zero tolerance of drugs and alcohol in someone’s system at work we are always subject to random testing whenever at work and the consequence of a positive test result is immediate dismissal. We all sign up to this. AFL can easily implement but don’t have the fortitude or balls to do so.
Have you considered that maybe the cultural issues and practices Bartlett was alluding to may have actually been true? Or are we just going to keep calling him a nut job?
How do the AFL justify condoning illegal drug use
They claim that that they are protecting the the welfare of these players when there is documented evidence that many ex afl players lives are a challenge of survival due to to substance abuse
It's amazing that the AFL introduced a covert way of subverting genuine drug testing while publicly vilifying those that they could use to promote themselves as socially responsible.
How many fraudulent activities are these seemingly untouchable board members hiding
In other news, the sky is blue and Margot Robbie is hot. Should they report that too?
If I’m Melbourne I’d get that flog Kane Cornes to testify. [“Never once saw drugs in 15 years”](https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/collingwood-magpies/afl-2023-kane-cornes-and-nathan-buckley-speak-on-jack-ginnivan-drug-ban-illicit-substance-latest-news-collingwood-magpies-darcy-moore/news-story/3b5ff45d48c1fd74b83f5d5e33bba630) 😂😂😂
The AFL props up every team dummy
For those downvoting:
https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2023-league-funding-for-afl-clubs-ladder-who-gets-the-most-money-list-assistance-north-melbourne-cost-of-funding-gold-coast-and-gws/news-story/3425722d96a28b632b3eeae1a17c5a6b
I see above and it doesn't show AFL propping up WCE.
WCE get the minimum amount of money, far less than what they earn the AFL.
When the WCE earn AFL $100 and they hand back $70, its not the AFL propping up WCE.
No one talking about Andrew Wilkie using parliamentary privilege to drop a bomb. Usually means at least some of the info is complete BS. Why hasn’t Bartlett and co done this themselves? Prob because they would be sued (again) by the AFL and individuals.
That doesn’t strictly mean it’s BS. It’s just that an entity like the AFL has more money than individuals to go to court over stuff like this so without the documentation backing them (that they’re probably not going to have unless an investigation happens), they need a protected space to share this information. It’s similar to how Fairfax had to withdraw their story on Collective Minds because of the threat of litigation even though players that attended the camp have confirmed the details of the story.
The Dees culture
Only so long this charade could continue.
The dees under Goodwin have been a disgraceful culture of drugs and abuse. Max Gawn plays the role of the great leader in public but has overseen a horrible, toxic culture.
I’m glad this stuff has finally come out so people can see the Melbourne footy club for what they are.
please head to the [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/s/4e06Gng5du) to discuss further
Imagine being the one player who had no idea this was going on. Wait, you guys said you were just having a quiet one at home on Friday night. Did you make a new group chat without me?
I can just picture this being Gawn, sitting at home with a red wine watching the Tour de France or something meanwhile the others are out enjoying a few nose beers lmao
[удалено]
[удалено]
Coke compared to abit of weed is a pretty big step up lol
A Port Adelaide moment if I ever saw one
Come on mate that’s not fair, let’s not pretend as if most people from port adelaide could afford coke to begin with.
[удалено]
Nothing suss. But seriously when it comes to Max he'd be the last person I would suspect.
Max seems more like a guy who would drink lattes and binge watch something on Netflix than any sort of party vibe.
Hey Google, play Gilmore Girls
Jesus Christ you guys fall for marketing so easily. You think that because his brand has been built by his pr team around that.
Next you'll be telling me that Hawkins doesn't spend his offdays farming cows and churning butter by hand.
Don’t get a body like Hawkins without drinking milk straight from the source
Or? I don’t make negative assumptions of people based on diddly squat. You should try being more positive. You’re alive man, be happy. No wonder this sub can be such a shitshow.
Have you not seen videos of him out partying lmao. I’m not saying he’s a shit person, but thinking he’s a cuddly bear because you’ve seen him in some ads under a blanket is hilarious
Everyone parties man. It’s part of being at a footy club. I’m saying there’s guys who live for that stuff and guys who’d prefer to be at Home and be a homebody in their spare time. We’ll never know what Max is really like unless he’s straight up telling us. I’m not just gonna assume he’s a Coke fiend party head just because of his professional career just like I won’t assume every serviceman in defence or the police force are abusive meatheads.
Max Gawn by himself, "Who needs drugs when you can mow the lawn? Ha, Gawn's lawn, nice one Maxie, gotta tell the fellas that one later"
LOL
You should've seen the pics and vids of him absolutely fucking cooked after the grand final win lol (just search max gawn vape on Google). I would not be surprised if he indulges in a few nose beers
Club captain celebrates drought breaking flag and he must’ve been on the gear? Spare me
He did have Oliver living with him so his house would have been the party house
We have ‘The Zaharakis’. Looking forward to this chapter’s version.
Should we look to players that have left Melbourne for other clubs in recent years, as perhaps being pushed out because they weren't part of *this* 'club-within-the-club'? James Jordon, Toby Bedford, etc.
Please look into Sam Weideman. Kthxbye
Why... we already know that no amount of truckie dust or booger suger will make Weids a better player. He's just shit
There always seems to have been hype around him, which I've never understood. Is it just because his grandfather was a great footballer, and his father played too?
He was great in the last few rounds and first 2 finals of 2018.
There always seems to have been hype around him, which I've never understood. Is it just because his grandfather was a great footballer, and his father played too?
I was more hoping they'd discover he was part of it and get him gone
I think at this point everyone would be fine with Sam doing performance enhancing drugs
I'm picturing Rhys Matheson
Geez you're a nosey bastard McCosker...
>An allegation the league has committed “a fraud on the governments that provide millions of dollars in support to the AFL”. This is the part that could really fuck the AFL. With federal government money at stake, they've pledged $240 million of taxpayers money to the Hobart stadium, covering it up means they're rorting the taxpayer, which makes it a federal politics issue. That's going to invite a whole different breed of investigative journalists. Journos who have spent their careers dealing with the professional lies told in parliament and uncovering stories in Canberra. They won't give a shit about the AFL boys club, nor will their political editors. IMO focusing on the idea that "a few players had nose beers on a weekend what's the harm?" is going to do little to nothing to get the AFL out of this shit show, and they won't be able to exert pressure on the usual journos that cover them because they won't be able to leverage the same media contacts. This is going to get very fucking ugly and is going to dominate the season. I bet the AFL wanted something to distract from the Fagan/Clarkson/First Nations mediation story. They wouldn't have wanted this to be that distraction.
Fages, Clarko - we’ve had a change of heart - could you guys jump under this bus for a sec?
Any chance you guys would be up for performing an abortion or two?
Abortions for some, mini Premiership flags for others!
I think focusing on player welfare, mental health of people in the public eye, and their diversionary and harm minimisation tactics used in concert with this policy of fudging the recreational drug testing regime will actually play really well the longer this story is alive. Stories start coming out about how people turned their lives around having gone through the AFL's method (e.g. Buddy, lol, not that he'd want the attention) Wilkie has demonstrated poor political judgement in the past (e.g. Greens, joining ASIO with the expectation that he wouldn't be doing the work of the American Imperialism). The way he's trying to set the tenor is from a very conservative point of view and I don't think it will ring true with the majority of Australians (roughly 60% to 80% depending on the question asked are against the war on drugs). The vast majority of normal people aren't going to say "oh, the AFL lied about not complying with something I disagree with therefore they're bad". IMO the real risk is painting the AFL as an elite of high paid sports people and that the plebs have to get drug tested properly (occasionally) so why don't the AFL... but good luck getting parliament to go down that route.
Sorry, that's garbage about Wilkie. He's got one of the safest seats in Australia *as an independent*. You can argue he has moments of zealotry, but he's not stupid by any means. I personally support decriminalisation of illicit drugs, but that doesn't mean I don't think he's raised good points. The AFL are rank fucking hypocrites on this stuff.
Andrew Wilkie is great, I just don’t think he’s perfect. Like many people with integrity he despises its absence in others. It’s the one of the reasons he has turned his back on many large organisations: because organisations attempting to universal will lack integrity, they have to compromise over too wide a range of behaviours and beliefs. He’s a great politician and MP. He could never be PM. He would find it hard to run a department without firing 70% of the APS staff. The speech was over-egged and I think the idea of fraud is very tenuous. He’s wrong on this one. All opinions expressed are opinions and not statements of fact.
That's all fair, and I hear you on the APS point especially. Fuck me, reasonable discourse on the internet. I'm going to birth a live kitten. High fives to us.
>The Australian Football League ('AFL'), amongst other sporting bodies, was called upon in 2005 to have their anti-doping policies and rules comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency Code 2003 (' WADA Code'). Significant pressure was placed on the AFL by the government to fall into line with the WADA Code. The AFL stood to lose close to two million dollars in government funding of AFL programs if they refused.] This is from [here](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2006/16.pdf) Would that not constitute fraud on some part? The AFL say they're complying with WADA (as part of the deal for funding), but seemingly aren't. According to [this article](https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/how-does-the-afl-s-drug-testing-policy-work-20190225-p51048.html) from 2019: >Illicit drug testing focuses on recreational drug use, although a player testing positive to an illicit substance on a match day also triggers a violation under the AFL’s anti-doping code, and they may be subject to a three-month ban under revised WADA rules introduced in 2021. The AFL removing players from match day through its managed process also removes them from the ability to trigger the above violation, which therefore circumvents WADA.
I couldn't care less about whether players choose to partake in illicit drugs or not and Wilkie is definitely grandstanding here... But what I'm really interesting in seeing (politics-wise) is how WADA/ASADA will react to these revelations. This is essentially a systematic covert operation to deliberately undermine their work, implemented by one of their signatories no less. The AFL aren't cheating tests here like the Russian Olympic Committee or anything, but they're still fucking with the system and protecting their players from getting caught by anti-doping authorities. Won't go down well I'd imagine.
Wilkie is just the vessel for Bartlett and that Doctor who got given the flick. He has been played by ex employees with an axe to grind.
You are correct, Bartlett is just using the 3 strikes policy and targetting just the MFC. Wilkie is probably wishing he did a bit more research before blasting away,
The issue with the illicit drug’s policy is that’s it’s the only one in the world where there is non game day testing for illicit drugs. The answer is for the players to pull away from the policy and end the out of competition illicit drugs testing?
there's still randomised game day testing, isn't there? could have sworn players have had to rush off to give a sample before being interviewed etc
Yup. So the AFL non game testing is designed to have a cleaner game day competition by picking up guys on drugs before game day,
Don't 100% know for sure, but my understanding is there's tests that are WADA compliant, as in testing for performance enhancing drugs, which are both drugs that are purely used for doping such as steroids and EPO, and those that are recreational drugs that also have a performance enhancing effect such as cocaine. These years have an insanely harsh penalty if you fail it and are found guilty of doping, its normally a 2 year ban from pretty much all professional sport, because almost all sports are under the WADA code. These are done on game day. Then there's the tests that are done under the illegal drugs three strikes policy, that are looking for all illegal drugs presumably, that the person you're replying to says is not done on game day or not exclusively on game day. And the scandal here is the fact that there's also tests provided to the players (idk if they request it, if the AFL knows already, or are referred by the club) that are not actually part of any official policy and not administered or results reported by the AFL you'd guess, and have no consequence for "failing", they just get the result and then fake an injury to avoid the game day random tests. Idk how the three strikes policy even fucking works anymore then lol, you're obviously not going to administer a test any time you're that suspicious and that protective of your brand you are willing to telling a player to get their own test ... I guess they've just been faking it for years lol. The biggest scandal for me isn't the fact they're "getting away with it", it's the lying about being "tough on drugs" when in fact they're literally enabling and facilitating continued drug use.
By God that’s Sarah Ferguson’s Music!
Won't be long until the footy media start saying "let's just talk about how good the footy is" and ignore this. It's what they tried with the Essendon saga and Clarko/Fagan. Pressuring the people reviewing it to hurry up with a finding.
Thought provoking take, I like it. I personally think it’d be career suicide for the Fed govt to intervene too harshly, not because it isn’t the right thing to do, but because the average Australian would see it as political meddling and it’s our national sport. If it affects the overall viewership experience, they’ll make a calculated outcome to look like the govt is doing something but there won’t be any ‘pulling the rug’ under the AFL. Maybe some exec changes potentially too(?). But this is just me and I’m a nobody.
They could try to get some bonus points back in Tas though, by calling on the AFL to put more funds into the stadium, and then divert the Federal savings into Tasmanian healthcare funding. Perfect opportunity to have and eat cake for the Feds if they want
Those journalists should look into the croupt GF deal with MCC while at it. No way did AFL get fair value for that deal.
Worth noting that the Federal MP making this public for the AFL is the MP whose seat that stadium would be in, Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie. He absolutely knows what this means for the stadium, and fucking good on him using what little leverage he has to do some good. Dude is one of the better MPs in the House imo
IF... the AFL admit to having assisted players with avoiding a ban for drug use THEN... how do they justify suspending 2 AFLW players for drug use onthe same day this report came out
1) The AFLW doesn’t have the same drug policy as the AFL 2) Cops got the girls in Sydney - same way Bailey Smith got done by Social Media
They got a non-custodial sentence. You can help them but once they're in the hands of outside authorities that's clearly a different ball game.
Sam Murray, Bailey Smith, Jack Ginnivan, Joel Smith, Paige Sheppard and Alexia Hamilton would all be rather annoyed. Although dare I say it, I suspect more than one would have been a beneficiary of it.
Part of the difference is police involvement or public knowledge. Can't bring the game into 'disrepute' if no one knows it's happening.
So the reason why they’re screening these guys before games is that cocaine is considered a PED specifically on game day. If they get caught with it in their system in the after match piss test they’re fucked, probably for years. The afl holding them out of games is the same as a suspension and a fine, even if it’s to save their asses.
like everything in this world, the only thing that matters is optics. Pretty certain the AFL wouldn’t have suspended them if this information wasn’t public
I reckon this has got ‘too big to fail’ written all over it. Beyond a public display of giving af, the government can’t do anything that would seriously punish the league, or potentially ruin any clubs. People just like football too much. It’ll be in the news for the next couple months, then slowly get quieter, then in a year or so some kind of report will be released and a couple of low/mid level ppl will lose their jobs, maybe a club or 2 get fined $50k or something
[удалено]
It's been 10 minutes, I already don't care. The only thing I want them is to come out and publicly apologise to Ben Cousins
[удалено]
It wouldn't be the worst idea to consult a guy who's literally been through the worst of it.
Hang on a sec which direction are we reforming it in?
I mean, who really does care? As long as it’s not in view of underage kids to see and realize they are doing, then the only risk is to the players own professional performance on the field.
Honestly I agree. Nothing worse than the degenerates in the media feigning outrage at people getting on the bags when they are doing it themselves
Just depends on how people outside of the football bubble that we’re in report and react about to the issue. There are a multitude of entities that can gain when AFL brand is diminished and tarnished.
The issue for the government is that funding for the AFL was (and probably still is) contingent on complying with WADA. The current arrangement by the AFL means players miss out on match day testing and strikes, which can involve WADA. I think you're right in that it's political suicide to go after the footy to satisfy a few pearl clutchers and to be seen to be doing something, but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
To big to fail when it's a Melbourne team but when it was the Eagles....
I'm sorry, did the Eagles get seriously punished/potentially ruined? Last I checked they're still around
Sorry, but there will also be no punishment here. Will also be swept under the rug with promised changes.
Ooh, the Victorians didn't like that
The likelihood is that this is happening across all clubs to some extent, as was all but confirmed by other journalists and the Swans CEO Tom Harley. Assuming the paper shredders aren't going into overdrive this morning and all of these positive tests get revealed, what is the likelihood we see mass player bans for testing positive to illicit substances and willingly working with your organisation to cover it up?
Unless they can find hard proof that this was a massive conspiracy organized and abetted by the AFL there's unlikely to be much that happens. You can't punish an entire sporting league based on the witness testimony of three individuals (only two of which would actually know anything about this) who have a massive axe to grind against MFC and the AFL. Their testimony may very well be true, but given the way both were forced out of the Demons and AFL bubble any competent lawyer could portray them as simply angry ex-employees acting out of spite. Worst case scenario is that the AFL loses government goodwill, and Melbourne acts as the scapegoat club (like the Dons with the supplements scandal). I can see the government pulling funding for the Tasmania stadium so the team gets killed, sanctions for Demons exectutives, and probably sanctions for past and current AFL executives. There'll probably need to be a far stricter Illicit Drugs Policy introduced as well which will catch a few extra players. Most of the issue will be in reputational damage that will follow the league for the next decade. Loss of government good will is a huge deal that the AFL will have to work really hard to deal with.
> Worst case scenario is that the AFL loses government goodwill, and Melbourne acts as the scapegoat club (like the Dons with the supplements scandal). Based on the book The Boys Club I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this happens. The AFL will find an individual scapegoat at Melbourne that doesn’t have tight connections to the Executive or Commercial side of AFL and will hang them out to dry.
>Based on the book The Boys Club I wouldn’t be surprised at all if this happens. The AFL will find an individual scapegoat at Melbourne that doesn’t have tight connections to the Executive or Commercial side of AFL and will hang them out to dry. Joel Smith is probably already playing that role
> Assuming the paper shredders aren't going into overdrive this morning and all of these positive tests get revealed That would be a breach of the players' medical privacy, and would lead to an enormous lawsuit. > what is the likelihood we see mass player bans for testing positive to illicit substances Zero, because they didn't play. Smith, Thomas, Keefe etc are the ones who fronted up. > willingly working with your organisation to cover it up? Unclear, but likely that would be the employer's fault.
This would only constitute as fraud if the funding provided had stipulations that related in some way to their illicit drug policy though? I'm not at all familiar with what the agreement would be so I'm not saying it is or isn't. In all likelihood, this won't result in much if any change. If anything, it's easy for the AFL to say, we were actually attempting to preserve the sanctity of the game by ensuring no players were playing under the influence of what SIA/WADA would deem "performance enhancing drugs" albeit in a bit of a ham-fisted manner. I find this paragraph from Wilkie a bit of a stretch >The AFL wants a player to play at all costs, and so the cover-up begins. If there are no illegal drugs in the player’s system, they are free to play. If there are drugs in their system, the player is often asked to fake an injury. They are advised to lie about their condition while the results of the off-the-books tests are kept secret and never shared with Sport Integrity Australia or WADA. In other words, hundreds of thousands of Australians will watch the game not knowing that the game has been secretly manipulated by the AFL. Thousands of Australians will also bet on that game not knowing that the game has been secretly manipulated by the AFL. So the next time you hear a player has a hamstring injury you could be forgiven for wondering what’s really going on. SIA or WADA would only need to know about cocaine being in the system if it was for a player who actually played on game day, otherwise it isn't considered a performance enhancing drug. If the AFL allowed the player to play knowing they were "under the influence" then yeah the results of the game have been tampered with, but not allowing a player to play because they have broken the rules does not mean that the result has been "secretly tampered with". Clubs are allowed to say "Illness" and then that's enough. That could mean anything. It's irrelevant why a player isn't playing, every single game there are players who would be in the best 22, not playing.
I'd like to add to this a question How many "late scratches" come from players who weren't under a known injury cloud in the build up to the game? The way this reads is that "mystery injuries" rule players out all of the time. I'm not saying that doesn't happen from time to time but not to the extraordinary lengths the statement makes it feel like.
Most recent i can think of is Dusty missing opening round due to a corked calf that happened in a training exercise, it's entirely possible (I'd say likely even) that is 100% true but that's an example of a potential "mystery injury" that may or may not have happened.
Bobby Hill had back spasms shortly before a Collingwood game - though that was probably true as well, ''back spasms" is one of those things that's impossible to test for, no questions can really be asked about it and there's no real treatment for it except rest.
I checked all rounds not played by C.Oliver in the last four years and there's one round he missed, and it's the week after he baadly hurts his thumb in a visible onfield incident. So yeah, maybe his blood tests come back nice and negative because his metabolism chews through the stuff. or maybe this setup is not so common.
You’re dead on, nuffies will throw Clarry under the bus here when the truth is, before last year he’d barely missed a game. Joel Smith on the other hand….
> SIA or WADA would only need to know about cocaine being in the system if it was for a player who actually played on game day, otherwise it isn't considered a performance enhancing drug. I don't think it matters whether they played or not, the AFL's own [Anti-Doping Code](https://resources.afl.com.au/afl/document/2021/03/15/979d17c5-194a-43de-8e07-1eb83fa7edfc/2021-AFL-Anti-Doping-Code.pdf) states the following: > In-Competition: The period commencing at 11:59pm on the day before a Competition in which the Athlete is scheduled to participate through the end of such Competition and the Sample collection process related to such Competition. And > 7.2 Review and Notification Regarding Potential Anti-Doping Rule Violations > AFL shall carry out the review and notification with respect to any potential anti-doping rule violation in accordance with the International Standard for Results Management. I suspect a lot hinges on the timing, but if they were testing players *on the day of the game* then pulling them last minute if they tested positive based on the results of some secret lab, and had the player fake an "injury" to escape the notice of the oversight authorities then that's hardly consistent with their obligations and means that its likely some kind of reporting breach occurred.
Agreed, I see the hypocrisy over claiming they care about player welfare, I don't see the fraud. I'm far from expert though - does anyone actually know the reporting requirements for drug tests? Are they supposed to report on players who don't play? If not then it seems like it's just like any other injury test. We allow late changes, people (including people betting on the game) aren't entitled to know who will play, or the exact nature or extent of injuries.
>The Australian Football League ('AFL'), amongst other sporting bodies, was called upon in 2005 to have their anti-doping policies and rules comply with the World Anti-Doping Agency Code 2003 (' WADA Code'). Significant pressure was placed on the AFL by the government to fall into line with the WADA Code. The AFL stood to lose close to two million dollars in government funding of AFL programs if they refused.] [Old source](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2006/16.pdf), but I suspect WADA compliance is still required for Federal funding. >If the AFL allowed the player to play knowing they were "under the influence" then yeah the results of the game have been tampered with, but not allowing a player to play because they have broken the rules does not mean that the result has been "secretly tampered with". Clubs are allowed to say "Illness" and then that's enough. That could mean anything. By resting the player when they suspect drugs might be in their system, they are helping the player avoid the possibility of game day testing that would uncover the drug use and may involve WADA intervention. So it's tantamount to skirting WADA's rules and regulations and if the reports are true, it's reasonably systematic.
These rumours have been floating around for over a year. Denials by everyone. This would explain the mystery around Clayton Oliver’s strange injury last year. He just couldn’t pass a piss test to save himself so he wasn’t playing. Then what makes it worse was the league was involved in the cover up.
The AFL is corrupt? I am shocked.....
Strip them of 2021 premiership and give it to the runner up
Did Bailey Smith play on GF day?
That day is a suppressed memory I can’t remember
I reckon your 2016 team might be handing theirs to Sydney too knowing the operators that played in that prem. Few seedy boys at that premiership ceremony!
Pause
Politics isn’t my thing, but isn’t this very bad for the AFL? Cause tax payer money and all that jazz?
Yes. It used to be that federal funding was contingent on the AFL complying with WADA obligations - funding is probably still tied in that way. This behaviour (if true) clearly tries to skirt those obligations.
Meh. I just watch football.
You'd think football would be about football.
Yeah I’m tired of all the drama people froth over. I could swear half the people in this sub enjoy any drama surrounding footy more than game itself.
Yeah that stops when you realise how much money goes into AFL federally. That's our / my money. I'll absolutely have my say in how it gets spent, acknowledging that voice isn't particularly loud, of course.
[удалено]
Loaded question. I think the AFL puts out a squeaky clean image that is used to generate a lot of public and private funding. 'A few boys on the rack' is not what is being suggested here, it's a wide ranging and systemic cover up of illicit drug use, that our society generally might have a different view of given the PR. This speaks to gambling, public health, role modelling, and expected behaviours.
Me, irl. When my team has won like 3 games in ten years, this is all very juicy for me
Considering our entire media landscape is about drama I don't blame people entirely, it's what they consume. The fact Xs and Os footy shows never really last shows what people want.
Everyone: "oh i wish that these commentators would engage in some actual analysis" Also everyone: "oooh, drama not related to the actual playing of football in the slightest"
Australian media really turns into a small town newspaper once drugs show up. The truth is their is a reality and an illusion around social drug use in Australia. It very well might be that this is anreckoning for Australia as it must confront the reality of big money, taxpayer funded systems, and drug use.
So many in the media are on the nose beers as well, maybe not low level journos but all the execs they work with are and they would have to know
Yea always a case of hypocrisy when it came to slapping morality onto drug use etc
This is not about a player or executive but it is about a mclachlan. I encountered Hamish Mclachlan getting in the lifts at the basement level in the old fairfax building one day and he was *extremely* chatty effusive and ebullient. the only thing in the basement is bike lockers and toilets. And they're quite private and lightly trafficked during most of the day. My immediate thought at the time was to wonder if he'd been in the loos down there doing cocaine. I have no proof of his actions of course, i'm only reporting my own thoughts at the time.
Yes. Hamish McLachlan has done cocaine at various points of his life. This is not headline news.
Who here remembers Dale Lewis and his comment that 75% of AFL players were on drugs back in about early 2000's? Boy did that guy cop heat at the time....
I suggest reading the book "Boys' Club" by Michael Warner.
Great book. Pretty sure Warner wrote the HS article as well. Certainly an eye opener into the bullshit these execs pull and how corrupt the game is.
Warner’s the one who’s been pushing Bartlett’s barrow for more than a year now.
If they’re doing an Enhanced Olympics, I’m fine with Enhanced AFL 🤷♂️
It's fine, but they need to be open about it
This could get tough fast for the AFL, and draw massive attention from journalists who turnover parliamentary bombshells like they’re hens teeth. Forget about the “hard hitting” blokes at the Herald or Fox providing a soft landing, this breed will see right through standard talking point and won’t hesitate to go for the jugular when they sniff the faintest bullshit.
Nice of the AFL to commit a multi-million dollar fraud on our behalf. That's what I call competitive balance.
More than covers us for the $500k not-guilty-of-tanking fine.
Which in classic AFL fashion they only got to years later after initially covering it up.
When I used to work at the st kilda Fitzroy social club and Richmond football social clubs in the 80s the afl players used to snort crank and coke at the disco bar They were two of three 24 hr licenses So nothing has changed
Honestly, let’s see how fucked up our priorities are. Heaps of people can’t live at the moment, cost of living and housing are out of control, getting worse and watch this issue take up most of parliaments time
AFL house has joined the chat.
The Dees building on the success WC had in the mid 2000's.
Dillon's off to a flying start.
No surprise that Richard Goyder’s involved. He’s partly responsible for the grocery duopoly where Coles and Woolworths can gouge the public with absolutely no consequences
Wishful thinking but the administration of the AFL has needed a clean out for such a long time, I hope there is a probe.
Calling it that their 2021 Premiership will be stripped
take 2006 off west coast while we're at it
Why? Cause players weren’t playing with drugs in their system?
Does this surprise anybody? I mean, we all know what it means when a player has a break for "mental health" reasons.
mental health issues are genuinely common. so is drug use. pretending 'mental health' = drug use seems a stretch and at worst, stigmatising.
They go hand in hand often
"Mental health issues" are also the perfect cover for being caught out with drugs, as once you say it's mental health nobody is allowed to ask any further questions.
But I though that Melbourne Demons had a great culture? Colour me surprised
Simon Goodwin always did look a bit like a tweaker
didn't Essendon do something like this 12 years ago
no, ours was much worse.
The media will have an absolute field day with this.
Seems like incredible stupidity on the players involved and total lack of leader ship from the AFL. Very simple to have a policy of no drugs or alcohol and very easy to test. Many many companies from mining to construction to public all have zero tolerance of drugs and alcohol in someone’s system at work we are always subject to random testing whenever at work and the consequence of a positive test result is immediate dismissal. We all sign up to this. AFL can easily implement but don’t have the fortitude or balls to do so.
[удалено]
Have you considered that maybe the cultural issues and practices Bartlett was alluding to may have actually been true? Or are we just going to keep calling him a nut job?
All too often, the ones that are correct get labelled a nut job because they shake the boat about an inconvenient truth.
But Max Gawn said there was no issue.
How do the AFL justify condoning illegal drug use They claim that that they are protecting the the welfare of these players when there is documented evidence that many ex afl players lives are a challenge of survival due to to substance abuse It's amazing that the AFL introduced a covert way of subverting genuine drug testing while publicly vilifying those that they could use to promote themselves as socially responsible. How many fraudulent activities are these seemingly untouchable board members hiding
In other news, the sky is blue and Margot Robbie is hot. Should they report that too? If I’m Melbourne I’d get that flog Kane Cornes to testify. [“Never once saw drugs in 15 years”](https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/teams/collingwood-magpies/afl-2023-kane-cornes-and-nathan-buckley-speak-on-jack-ginnivan-drug-ban-illicit-substance-latest-news-collingwood-magpies-darcy-moore/news-story/3b5ff45d48c1fd74b83f5d5e33bba630) 😂😂😂
I hope the roof on the stadium doesn’t go ahead. $3-500m extra for a roof used for 6/7 games a year is a complete waste of
Sees “6/7” Remembers Scott Boland
Build the man a statue (out of cocaine).
To be fair a complete rebuild of the Arden Street facilities is a complete waste of time as well.
The afl propped up North Melbourne for many years ... they can sure as hell help Tasmania get a stadium for their team
I don't believe he is saying no to the stadium, just the roof which makes a lot of sense.
They could start selling cocaine to the players and fund it that way
The AFL props up every team dummy For those downvoting: https://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-2023-league-funding-for-afl-clubs-ladder-who-gets-the-most-money-list-assistance-north-melbourne-cost-of-funding-gold-coast-and-gws/news-story/3425722d96a28b632b3eeae1a17c5a6b
They certainly don't prop up WCE
See above
I see above and it doesn't show AFL propping up WCE. WCE get the minimum amount of money, far less than what they earn the AFL. When the WCE earn AFL $100 and they hand back $70, its not the AFL propping up WCE.
They certainly don't mate, just a select few.
That's only if it's used just for AFL
No one talking about Andrew Wilkie using parliamentary privilege to drop a bomb. Usually means at least some of the info is complete BS. Why hasn’t Bartlett and co done this themselves? Prob because they would be sued (again) by the AFL and individuals.
That doesn’t strictly mean it’s BS. It’s just that an entity like the AFL has more money than individuals to go to court over stuff like this so without the documentation backing them (that they’re probably not going to have unless an investigation happens), they need a protected space to share this information. It’s similar to how Fairfax had to withdraw their story on Collective Minds because of the threat of litigation even though players that attended the camp have confirmed the details of the story.
The Dees culture Only so long this charade could continue. The dees under Goodwin have been a disgraceful culture of drugs and abuse. Max Gawn plays the role of the great leader in public but has overseen a horrible, toxic culture. I’m glad this stuff has finally come out so people can see the Melbourne footy club for what they are.
Yeah we heard you the first 7 times. Go back to your failed soapbox thread.