Mark Robinson has lost the plot

Was that a knock at the door I heard?

 

...but on to the matter at hand.

I think the core issue here is the question of 'ethics in sports journalism' and the utter lack of it that we're all feeling as readers. Now I guess we could all take the easy way out and simply not read sports journalism that does not hold sufficient ethics, but honestly I think the far more interesting, effective and worthwhile approach would be to organise some kind of internet activist group to incessantly and strongly remind these sports journalists on social media of the ethical responsibilities we expect and have a long storied history of being present in the respected field of sports journalism.

 

That's a cause that I could support.

I have respect for Greg Baum and Gerard Whately, but not many others in the field of sports journalism.

 

Robbo wrong on Jobe's Brownlow: Francis Leach

http://www.sen.com.au/news/afl/02-16/robbo-wrong-on-jobes-brownlow-francis-leach#51myTsjYeWw8HXch.97

SEN Breakfast host Francis Leach believes there's still a mentality within the AFL community that believes it shouldn't have to abide by the WADA code and the penalty handed down to the 34 past and present Essendon players.

"Robbo's article for me reflects a view within the AFL that it's somehow special, that there's some sort of Australian exceptionalism that means we're different and above the standards that should apply to everyone else," Leach said on SEN.

"It's basically a hermit kingdom mentality, it's the North Korea approach to life, that somehow the rules don't apply to you. It shows that AFL is a big game in town, but it's a small fish run by small minds when it comes to dealing with the rest of the world."

 

After reading that article I actually can't discern any coherent argument that Mark Robinson puts forward.

It just seems like a bunch of random thoughts assembled in short paragraphs and sentences that have been written down on the back of a paper napkin by someone who has had a couple of ales.

Of course, the easy thing to do here is to insert a joke about Robbo and drinking, but that would actually detract from the point that this guy is chief football writer at the biggest selling daily newspaper in Australia, yet is so clearly a homer, can't string a coherent sentence or thought together and when called upon to critically analyse an issue related to his "beat" has shown an inability and unwillingness to do so (on TV, radio and in print).

As a journo I reckon it is a disgrace that someone without even the remotest scrap of an idea can hold such a position, get paid handsomely and yet continue to spill out utterly ill-informed and poorly written drivel to those who are actually looking for some insight.

And not just on the Essendon issue - an issue where he has been consistently wrong. On many issues related to football. I never rated Mike Sheahan really highly to be honest when he was the Hun's chief footy writer, but a good portion of what Sheahan put forward made sense on some level - far more than I could say for the current incumbent.

More widely, this trend of football writers beating up all manner of yarn, inserting themselves into the story, becoming moral and community arbiters ... it is pretty vile. Insightful, straight up football coverage is virtually impossible to find - instead we get the ill informed ramblings of people like Robbo, pronouncements from up on high, journos playing judge, jury and executioner before any of the facts of an issue are known.

People will switch off. They are switching off, and they will look towards alternatives for sports coverage - dedicated and knowledgeable sports sites, online coverage, etc.

 

I know I've switched off. Barely read any AFL media that I'm not referred to as fantasy relevant.

But people won't switch off, they love the drama.

 

So, going back to my questions, how does making it optional, deter from the fact they didn't declare anything? If there was nothing to hide, they should have listed it and it would have been evidence for their case that they actively did everything in their power to know what they were a part of. It's clear they didn't. It even seems they went to great lengths to hide what was happening.




Hiding from two doctors anything you were taking so they could help treat your heart condition. Can't wrap my head around not putting your own health first such as this example.

So no, still not swayed that the players should escape culpability.

 

And going back to the other half of my question

One should know what the norm is, before they draw conclusions from it.

 

Unfortunately whatever the norm might be, individual athletes have that strict personal liability hanging over their heads.

It isn't fair if the club offers them no guidance or support - or even actively encourages them to lie. But that is unfortunately the playing field that all AFL players operate on. And not knowing this isn't an excuse. It might be an explanation, but in the plain black and white terms these types of situations are adjudicated under, there's no leeway.

My question would be whether the training for players on such matters is adequate. I wouldn't trust anything the players association may serve up given their efforts through this whole debacle either.

But those are the rules. And if you break them, then there's penalties.

 

No doubt that strict liability applies, just pointing out that people claim "deliberately deceived" when then don't know enough to make such claims.

 

My inherent belief is that if your employer says "this is a good thing, it will make you better, as a professional organisation we wouldn't ask you to do anything illegal", the payers can hardly be blamed for accepting the line..
Clearly it was wrong, and thus the inevitable and thoroughly warranted million dollar claims coming against the bombers. on every level their governance was inadequate.

 

Your point isn't changing any of the reality of what we know about the players' actions though. What happened was wrong and they themselves had plenty of opportunity (including those forms) to show that they were doing their due diligence and making sure they were aware what's going in their bodies (which is always the athletes responsibility) but didn't, despite all the anti-doping training they receive[d] and it is also quite clear from what's in the CAS report they chose to hide what was happening - even from their own doctors.

That's not painting the picture you seem to be implying. That's not the players being innocent bystanders in all this. I'd say the only one that's looks like that ends up being the club doctor, which I must say surprises me.

So they have to accept the consequences of their actions. As all athletes accept when they sign up to the WADA code, which for all its faults, is still the best anti-doping code in sports the world has right now.

Is what we know the whole truth? Of course not, but only those involved know that and it's been covered up constantly for years by those parties. We are never going to know the full truth unless Hird/Dank decide to go full backflip on their statements and write a tell-all book. What we have in the CAS report is as much truth as has been uncovered. That's what we have to work with in understanding what went on.

But its clear from what we know that's not just what happened and what I think is worse is if we accept this, then that allows players to get off from any culpability for their own actions. Strict liability and responsibility for what goes into an athletes body is one of the most fundamental principals in trying to combat anti-doping.

 

Walesy and Len - don't get me wrong, I have no doubt that the players were deceived.

I've argued/debated with a number of my Richmond supporting brethren - a selected few of whom wanted Essendon and the players bombed back to the Stone Age - that the regime in place at Essendon ought to carry the weight of what went on.

I've always felt that we're talking about young guys here - some of whom are barely out of their teens - who trusted their employer to do the right thing. As you pointed out above Len, if the club says everything is hunky dory, is a 19-year-old guy in his first full time footballing job (maybe struggling to break into the side, etc) going to rock the boat?

Probably not. It would take an extraordinary courage of character to speak up in this circumstance.

Ultimately though, those players end up being responsible for what goes into their bodies. That they trusted their club is some mitigation on this. That they didn't declare stuff as they should isn't a great look.

For every point of debate in one direction, there is a counter-point in the other. That makes it hard.

Personally though I'm not unsympathetic towards the players - particularly the kids. It doesn't mean I wish they would have gotten off, but I do have some sympathy. I have none for the club though.

What I would now hope is that those players who were deceived and who trusted their employer take that employer to court and extract some civil damages. That club has played a very real role in ruining their lives, their livelihoods, possibly their health, and caused undue stress for them, their loved ones, partners, etc.

 

Once the players vs Essendon court proceedings are tabled, I'm comfortably satisfied that Essendon Football Club will end up back in the Stone Age.

You would hardly expect all of the 12 suspended players to remain at the club beyond 2016.

 

This is largely my thoughts too Chris, they may have been dumb, there may even have been one or two knowingly complicit somehow, but effectively their employer shafted them, the settlement of those claims will make the fines handed down by the AFL look like a slap on the wrist.

One thing though, I am glad the players got suspended, if Ameet Saad can be banned for 2 years for a milkshake additive that appeared to be a one off, than 12 months for systemic "doping" feels light

 

Yes. And if that is the case, then so be it. But this type of thing needs to come from the players - they are the primary "wronged party" here.

 

That is the thing about backdated penalties.

 

Did anyone else catch the comedy hour on SEN earlier this morning, when Peter Jess was on the radio followed by Paul Marsh?

Peter, who admitted that the appeal he was recommending to his player (NLM) was mainly based on emotion and was a "low probability" of success, clearly expected the AFLPA to stump up some of the $$$ to fund the appeal.

Within the hour, Paul Marsh was on the same radio program vehemently denying that any funding would be given by AFLPA to an appeal against the CAS finding.

Comedy gold.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-02-05/aflpa-wont-fund-essendon-34-legal-bills-marsh