One-Eyed Richmond Forum
Football => View from the Outer => Topic started by: one-eyed on January 31, 2011, 03:45:09 PM
-
Hinch doing another AFL story after 4pm on 3aw. SEN saying Collingwood is ducking for cover.
-
Hinch doing another AFL story after 4pm on 3aw. SEN saying Collingwood is ducking for cover.
this the pharmaceutical rumor i think
-
AFL denying it
-
Allegedly human growth hormones
:birthday
-
Allegedly human growth hormones
:birthday
For who knows. They're disappointed
No naming anyone please (even in jest we can get into some very serious trouble) - you should all know the drill by now.
-
AFL denying it
How can you deny something that's is merely an allegation ???
Stupid,Lying stuffing Dogs.
Dimitriou-u crooked eff.
-
Another AFL Scandal?
There’s a football rumour starting to spread around Melbourne that if true would be one of the biggest scandals the AFL has ever faced. And for once it is not a sex scandal. And it does not involve St. Kilda.
[Although St. Kilda players and fans will be mightily interested in it.]
I’ve been fed tips about it for the past couple of weeks.
It has started to ‘grow legs’, as they say in the business, on several Internet chat sites and the Sunday Age had a nibble at it yesterday. In The Heckler column, which is anonymous, and under the regular segment called The Dirt, it said: ‘Which prominent football club is facing persistent allegations that top players have been using human growth hormone, a banned substance?’
One of my informants has named the club and has claimed that six Australian athletes ‘tested positive to a new hard to detect illegal performance enhancing substance’. This supposedly included two AFL footballers around Finals time.
One source emphatically told me that AFL ‘powerheads’ have held recent secret crisis meetings about it all with reports of sanctions against the club and bans on the players. Even claims that there have been attempts to supress it all – which would be impossible if all, or any, of it is true.
That doesn’t quite gel, because AFL Supremo Andrew Demetriou has been on leave. And something this serous would not be talked about, or decided on, without him being there. Without him taking control.
I don’t plan to take this any further, or say any more about it, until I talk to him personally, because if true a bomb will go off that will make the Melbourne Storm sanctions look like Play School.
As I told one informant: ‘You hear some weird rumours in this business and then they turn out to be rubbish. But then look at all the rumours about St. Kilda and photos and see how that turned out’.
The Corporate Affairs Manager for the AFL, Brian Walsh, told us a short time ago that they have been fielding these rumours for three and a half weeks. And in his words ‘they are rubbish’ and ‘ incorrect’. Another AFL rep said the club named was Collingwood.
Just to stress: We know what a breeding ground the Internet and Facebook and iPhones can be. The St. Kilda photo scandal proved that. But Facebook and Twitter often can’t –or deliberately don’t -- separate fact from fiction.
So it is a case of Proceed with Caution. It sounds corny but…. Watch this space.
http://www.hinch.net/hinch-says-2011/January/31-01-11.1.html
-
Just a reminder: and yes we do harp on it and we've probably done it to death
But no direct naming any player or official (even in jest). Legally we can get into some serious trouble if we allow posts to appear here (especially rumours) and then name a someone or make an allegation against anyone without any concrete proof.
As I have said many times I am not saying we agree with it but it is how the law stands and like it or not we have to abide by it
-
Allegedly human growth hormones
:birthday
For who knows. They're disappointed
No naming anyone please (even in jest we can get into some very serious trouble) - you should all know the drill by now.
What the stuff are you on about Davey?
-
Definitions of Without prejudice
Not affecting nor considering other possibly related issues; Without affecting a legal interest
A "without prejudice" statement is made without an intention to affect the legal rights of any person. The term "without prejudice" is generally used in the course of negotiations to indicate that a particular conversation or letter is not to be later tendered as evidence in court. ...
á Without prejudice offers the protection of privilege to participants.á It means that the information exchanged during the process cannot be used in any future proceedings regarding the issue unless this same information can be discovered through other means.
So what's the problem?
-
it's all protein mate
-
without prejudice,
"without prejudice" is not the issue here
What consitutes defamation is
Whether you agree or not this is the legal issue we deal with
I think you will find that trying to use "without prejudice" as a defence with regard to defamation aint gonna cut it
-
I once laid a defamation case on a Collingwood supporters chest
-
Try the chewbacka defence if without prejudice doesnt cut it, Ox
-
I once laid a defamation case on a Collingwood supporters chest
Man, I'd pay to see that. :bow
Was her name?
-
No offence but I reckon it's a pack of rubbish!
I KNEW Shane Warne was rooting Liz Hurley for a fact.
Why can't I post it on a public forum. ?
They can't prove it wrong cos it's right.
It comes out In the media and ngaf !!
Freedom of speech or effing communism?
I don't believe any club would care enough to pursue legal action and think you may be overly paranoid.
Besides, it's within the realms of possibility the moderators of the board just happened to miss the presence of any such post in which case the prosecutor should therefore pursue the actual poster.
Give them my name and number and tell them to bring condoms.
-
So if a turd rapist like Craig Hutchison breaks a story or even speculates over any currently active topic, were permitted to "speak" about it on our forum so long as he has???
Makes me lol.
-
Whether we agree with it or not it it's the law Ox (defamation act 2005). By the way AFAIK the onus is on the defendant (the one making the defamatory claims) to prove what they are saying about another person is true rather than the other way around. If a story comes out in the media first then any legal risk is on their shoulders; not ours.
I don't believe any club would care enough to pursue legal action and think you may be overly paranoid.
An old Hawthorn fan forum called Hawk Headquarters was basically forced to shutdown a few years ago due to defamatory claims by one poster towards a Hawthorn player on their forum. Sorry Ox we aren't willing to take or test out that risk.