What's what?

Bugger! Should have had a bet on when Barbie-boy would regurgitate the Murdoch bullet-point about Windsor.

Just spotted this comment at the bottom of this article

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/12/queensland-governm...

Political staffers:

Bill Shorten’s current chief of staff, former Queensland Labor state secretary Cameron Milner, has also worked with Adani. He was director of Milner Strategic Services & Next Level Holdings, which is co-owned by former Liberal staffer David Moore and was reportedly providing advice to Adani on the controversial Adani Carmichael coal project.

Ben Myers worked for Queensland Gas Company, and went on be Queensland LNP premier Campbell Newman’s chief of staff.

Mitch Grayson worked as a staffer for Queensland LNP premier Campbell Newman in 2012 and, by early 2013, had joined Santos. Later, he re-joined Premier Newman’s office.

Stephen Galilee, who worked as chief of staff to Ian Macfarlane as Liberal federal resources minister for three years, and chief of staff to Mike Baird as NSW treasurer and shadow treasurer, went on to be CEO of the NSW Minerals Council.

Geoff Walsh, former adviser to Labor prime ministers Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, and a former national secretary of the Labor party, was made director of public affairs at BHP in 2007.

Claire Wilkinson, spent a year as a senior media adviser for Labor resources minister Martin Ferguson before getting a job as a senior external affairs adviser for Royal Dutch Shell. She is now at Total E&P.

Brad Williams, who spent four years as Mark Vaile’s chief of staff, went on to become the manager for government affairs at Inpex – an oil and gas company that has approval for a $34bn LNG project near Darwin. He is now working in government relations at another mining company, South32.

Shaughn Morgan worked as adviser to Jeff Shaw, NSW Labor’s attorney general, before becoming the manager of government and external relations at AGL.

Lisa Harrington was a senior adviser to Mike Baird before becoming the head of government relations at AGL Energy.

Sarah Macnamara worked at AGL before becoming chief of staff to federal Liberal resources minister Ian Macfarlane, and was resource policy adviser to Liberal PM Tony Abbott.

Robert Underdown was senior adviser to Liberal resources minister Ian Macfarlane before becoming the manager of the government and public policy group at Santos.

Caroline Hutcherson was senior media adviser to the then Liberal NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher before working as a senior adviser to Santos, and going on to work as a senior adviser to NSW Liberal premier Mike Baird.

Alexandra Gibson was an adviser to Christopher Pyne, before becoming a policy adviser to APPEA, the oil and gas lobby group.

Paul Fennelly was the director of the Queensland Department of State Development, Trade and Innovation before becoming the CEO of APPEA.

Chris Ward was an adviser to the Queensland treasurer and to the consumer affairs minister in the federal Labor government under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, before taking a job as media manager at APPEA.

Charles Perrottet was senior media adviser to the then Liberal NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher, then an executive of the NSW Liberal party before becoming a government affairs analyst at BP Australia.

Andrew Humpherson was chief of staff to the then Liberal NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher before working as a consultant to the NSW Minerals Council.

Emma Browning was a media adviser for the then Liberal NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher before becoming director of government relations at the NSW Minerals Council.

Brad Emery was a media adviser to federal Liberal minister Peter Dutton before working as director of media and public affairs at the NSW Minerals Council.

Chris Rath was media and public affairs manager at the NSW Minerals Council before working as an adviser to NSW Liberal resources minister Anthony Roberts.

Lindsay Hermes was media and communications manager at the NSW Minerals Council before working as an adviser to federal Liberal resources minister Ian Macfarlane.

As I have waffled many times, mk1, all governments, local, state, and federal, no longer govern for the people.. They govern for big business and multi nationals.... Democracy is broken....

talkingturkey wrote:

Bugger! Should have had a bet on when Barbie-boy would regurgitate the Murdoch bullet-point about Windsor.

sooooo predictable, like pulling flathead from the bay .... cast the bait and reel him in.

mk1 wrote:

Just spotted this comment at the bottom of this article

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/mar/12/queensland-governm...

Political staffers:

Bill Shorten’s current chief of staff, former Queensland Labor state secretary Cameron Milner, has also worked with Adani. He was director of Milner Strategic Services & Next Level Holdings, which is co-owned by former Liberal staffer David Moore and was reportedly providing advice to Adani on the controversial Adani Carmichael coal project.

Ben Myers worked for Queensland Gas Company, and went on be Queensland LNP premier Campbell Newman’s chief of staff.

Mitch Grayson worked as a staffer for Queensland LNP premier Campbell Newman in 2012 and, by early 2013, had joined Santos. Later, he re-joined Premier Newman’s office.

Stephen Galilee, who worked as chief of staff to Ian Macfarlane as Liberal federal resources minister for three years, and chief of staff to Mike Baird as NSW treasurer and shadow treasurer, went on to be CEO of the NSW Minerals Council.

Geoff Walsh, former adviser to Labor prime ministers Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, and a former national secretary of the Labor party, was made director of public affairs at BHP in 2007.

Claire Wilkinson, spent a year as a senior media adviser for Labor resources minister Martin Ferguson before getting a job as a senior external affairs adviser for Royal Dutch Shell. She is now at Total E&P.

Brad Williams, who spent four years as Mark Vaile’s chief of staff, went on to become the manager for government affairs at Inpex – an oil and gas company that has approval for a $34bn LNG project near Darwin. He is now working in government relations at another mining company, South32.

Shaughn Morgan worked as adviser to Jeff Shaw, NSW Labor’s attorney general, before becoming the manager of government and external relations at AGL.

Lisa Harrington was a senior adviser to Mike Baird before becoming the head of government relations at AGL Energy.

Sarah Macnamara worked at AGL before becoming chief of staff to federal Liberal resources minister Ian Macfarlane, and was resource policy adviser to Liberal PM Tony Abbott.

Robert Underdown was senior adviser to Liberal resources minister Ian Macfarlane before becoming the manager of the government and public policy group at Santos.

Caroline Hutcherson was senior media adviser to the then Liberal NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher before working as a senior adviser to Santos, and going on to work as a senior adviser to NSW Liberal premier Mike Baird.

Alexandra Gibson was an adviser to Christopher Pyne, before becoming a policy adviser to APPEA, the oil and gas lobby group.

Paul Fennelly was the director of the Queensland Department of State Development, Trade and Innovation before becoming the CEO of APPEA.

Chris Ward was an adviser to the Queensland treasurer and to the consumer affairs minister in the federal Labor government under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, before taking a job as media manager at APPEA.

Charles Perrottet was senior media adviser to the then Liberal NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher, then an executive of the NSW Liberal party before becoming a government affairs analyst at BP Australia.

Andrew Humpherson was chief of staff to the then Liberal NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher before working as a consultant to the NSW Minerals Council.

Emma Browning was a media adviser for the then Liberal NSW resources minister Chris Hartcher before becoming director of government relations at the NSW Minerals Council.

Brad Emery was a media adviser to federal Liberal minister Peter Dutton before working as director of media and public affairs at the NSW Minerals Council.

Chris Rath was media and public affairs manager at the NSW Minerals Council before working as an adviser to NSW Liberal resources minister Anthony Roberts.

Lindsay Hermes was media and communications manager at the NSW Minerals Council before working as an adviser to federal Liberal resources minister Ian Macfarlane.

That's it , right there in black in white, that list spells = CORRUPTION.

Always remember the political storm when Peter Reith (the truth overboard guy) resigned from Parliament as Australia's defence minister only to immediately score a "consultant" position with a company trying to sell the Australian Government some massive defence procurement that Peter Reith himself was dealing with as Defence Minister.

At the time there was talk (no action) of making parliamentarians wait 3 years before they could take on roles such as Reith's given the preserved and actual conflict of interest.

It seems from Mk1's list nothing has changed and its exactly why people and the community should take the law into their own hands when disrupting dodgy coal and CSG mine proposals.

tonybarber wrote:

Heh, SD, so you reckon that 90% of farmers are against mining ? Doubt it, they make good money from it in most cases. Tony Windsor made a few bob. There was a query from farmers when some were paid more than others for mining access. There are controls on CSG in NSW. Sure some people don't like it and are suspicious of the process.
Regardless, people can protest and can make a difference in a fair way. Maybe look at AGL pulling out of Gloucester in CSG.

"At The Channon and Keerong, 99 per cent of residents have declared their communities 'CSG free.' In Dunoon the figure is 98.5 per cent, Goolmangar/Coffee Camp 97 per cent, North
Lismore 93 per cent and in Ewingar 97 per cent."

But it's more than that, barbs..... It's a continuation of the erosion of our rights.... Something fascists like yourself actually want...

SD, what general erosion of rights do you think is occurring.

While Murdoch tries to dig the dirt on Windsor profiting from selling land to miners, lest we forget Barnaby Beetroot's farming 'experiment', hey?

https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/barnaby-joyce...

Nothing to see here.

Yes SD. I remember reading a similar (larger) list between the SEC and the banking industry on wallstreet prior to the 2008 crisis. Mind you all the dodgiest financial dealings are always ran out of the London offices which has always been friendly to financial raiders.

Now I am digging into the memory banks here but see if this rings a bell - the head of macquarie was married to the head/deputy head of the ACCC at the time that macquarie bought sydney airport. Ring a bell anyone?

Mk1 ..... not London but the City of London, not splitting hairs here, but the City of London predates the English Parliament and is a law unto itself and is one of the major international hubs for money laundering commonly called tax haven profit shifting.

Yes floyd, aware of that but don't really see the point in separating the two as the mindset is endemic to the dodgy UK financial approach and the UK govt has done nothing to curtail The City - which is effective condonement. So The City's approach is the London/UK approach. if it wasn't, they would have curtailed The City long ago.

happyasS wrote:

SD, what general erosion of rights do you think is occurring.

A joke question?

Sarcasm?

Seriously? I "reasonably believe" you are being serious, which is a worry...

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/greg-barns-bill-threatens-to-e...

http://hrlc.org.au/new-western-australian-bill-threatens-protest-rights/

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mining-protesters-face-seven-years-jail-under-...

Now ad this bullshit to the "lock out laws", the right to travel for pensioners, picking on non criminal bikie groups like vietnam vets etc, and perhaps the penny might drop....

FFS....

Woweee, what's the correlation between those three states, I wonder? Is there one? Answers on the back of a micro-dot.

Sheepdog wrote:

happyasS wrote:

SD, what general erosion of rights do you think is occurring.

A joke question?

Sarcasm?

Seriously? I "reasonably believe" you are being serious, which is a worry...

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/greg-barns-bill-threatens-to-e...

http://hrlc.org.au/new-western-australian-bill-threatens-protest-rights/

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mining-protesters-face-seven-years-jail-under-...

Now ad this bullshit to the "lock out laws", the right to travel for pensioners, picking on non criminal bikie groups like vietnam vets etc, and perhaps the penny might drop....

FFS....

don't be worried about me SD....you've got enough on your plate already. :)

all three links are related to mining protestors. I was referring to what you call a continued erosion of our rights and reference to fascists. so what are you talking about?

this was one of your examples below.... (fair enough)

https://www.laborherald.com.au/economy/overseas-pensioner-travel-cut-gov...

if so....then you would ask why the government should continue to pay a full pension to someone who has been out of the country for more than 26 weeks. the pension is not a right....it is an entitlement. a worthy one at that no doubt. but I think it is a fair question to ask nonetheless that someone who is not using the pension for the purpose of living in the country of origin maybe shouldn't get the full amount.

rights and entitlements are not the same thing and you know that. rights need to be enduring and stand the test of time. entitlements come and go. protesting is a right....it should be protected but that's not to say there shouldn't be limits. damaging equipment on a mine is not a right nor an entitlement. it is just plain criminal activity and one that of your three examples is actually trying to discourage. as for bringing potential harm to yourself as a protester like elaborately bolting yourself to the drive training of a truck; well it should be discouraged for obvious reasons. I would think common sense would prevail and legalities are not needed but it seems some people are more interested in shock tactics than trying to effect any actual change.

Not a big reader, happyass? From the Dog's first link alone:

"The proposed law has an extraordinarily wide definition of a protest and a protester. Any protest about anything in Tasmania is caught by this law. That is no exaggeration. There are some carve-outs such as industrial activity, but even they are narrowly defined."

"If you commit an offence against this law it results in a Supreme Court action no matter how minor the alleged offence. And there is mandatory jail for second-time offenders of at least three months — once again irrespective of the nature of the offence.

Mandatory jail terms are never a good idea because they lead to injustice and they can destroy lives. Furthermore, what is being created here is the idea that if you are a protester you should get a greater penalty because of that fact. Equality before the law is shredded.

Make no mistake, this is nasty legislation. It is also unnecessary. When it comes to protests, Tasmania Police has an armoury of existing laws with which to charge a person — criminal damage, assault, hinder or obstruct police, trespass etc."

"All of this erosion of fundamental rights and liberties in the context of a society that does not have human rights legislation. At least if Tasmania were a Canadian province the Hodgman Government’s proposals would be found to be in breach of that nation’s Charters of Rights and Freedoms.

This columnist has never been a great supporter of the more extreme end of forestry and mining protests. But when it comes to rights and freedoms and ensuring the state respects those rights, we are on the same page."

Not a big reader, happyass? From the Dog's first link alone:
quote]

ok, on the 1st link lets look at that......what was that really about? logging, not mining, ill grant you that. but its the same shit....environmentalists taking it too the extreme. and in nearly 2 years how many people have been convicted under this law for non-environmental related protests? none. so the crap back in 2014 about how the law would convict any and all protesting regardless of issue is just that.

laws and legislation mean nothing until they have been tested in a court of law. you can read whatever you want into legislation, until a precedent is set there is nothing to get excited about. the maximum penalty for cutting down a large tree in your backyard is $40,000. how many people get slapped this fine? none.

so as for SD's erosion of rights? well the only "privileges" I see eroded are environmentalists wanting to break shit, risk their safety, cause massive delays, cause massive costs, cause environmental damage themselves such as fillings cars full of concrete, risk others safety by blocking road access during fire seasons....and then repeating it all again months later; same location, same shit.

my right to free speech is well protected already. the pen is mightier than the sword.

Happy, your write;
"if so....then you would ask why the government should continue to pay a full pension to someone who has been out of the country for more than 26 weeks. the pension is not a right....it is an entitlement. a worthy one at that no doubt. but I think it is a fair question to ask nonetheless that someone who is not using the pension for the purpose of living in the country of origin maybe shouldn't get the full amount."

Firstly it's being changed to six weeks, not 26 weeks.... Big difference, mate.... Secondly, why can't a pensioner go on a 6 month stay in let's say England? Who the hell are you or Abbott or Turnbull to say what a 70 yo lady can or can't do? The only reason this 6 week law has been brought in is because of a very small minority who have found it is a lot cheaper to live in the Phillipines for 25 weeks , return for one week, and then go back... Because of a few thousand, every one suffers..... But what it also shows is how outrageous the cost of living has become for the elderly in Australia, that some resort to doing what i have described.... Perhaps they should set up a business overseas and not pay tax, yeah?
Your "not a right but an entitlement " is straight out of the far right wing handbook.... Ok.... We'll go with "entitlement"...... Hockey can get his Pension whilst working and staying in New york.... He's entitled.... Why can't Mrs Jones?

And the argument about those pesky environmentalists.... Where's your favorite untouched surf break in Australia, mate? Be careful...... This is wedge politics at it's best.....

Talking about 'rights' here seems to be a bit of an anachronism. You only have to see what the response is when one puts forward an argument contrary to another. Relax gents, the right to protest is safe.

Sheepdog wrote:

Happy, your write;
"if so....then you would ask why the government should continue to pay a full pension to someone who has been out of the country for more than 26 weeks. the pension is not a right....it is an entitlement. a worthy one at that no doubt. but I think it is a fair question to ask nonetheless that someone who is not using the pension for the purpose of living in the country of origin maybe shouldn't get the full amount."

Firstly it's being changed to six weeks, not 26 weeks.... Big difference, mate.... Secondly, why can't a pensioner go on a 6 month stay in let's say England? Who the hell are you or Abbott or Turnbull to say what a 70 yo lady can or can't do? The only reason this 6 week law has been brought in is because of a very small minority who have found it is a lot cheaper to live in the Phillipines for 25 weeks , return for one week, and then go back... Because of a few thousand, every one suffers..... But what it also shows is how outrageous the cost of living has become for the elderly in Australia, that some resort to doing what i have described.... Perhaps they should set up a business overseas and not pay tax, yeah?
Your "not a right but an entitlement " is straight out of the far right wing handbook.... Ok.... We'll go with "entitlement"...... Hockey can get his Pension whilst working and staying in New york.... He's entitled.... Why can't Mrs Jones?

And the argument about those pesky environmentalists.... Where's your favorite untouched surf break in Australia, mate? Be careful...... This is wedge politics at it's best.....

SD. Mrs Jones gets the full pension whilst overseas if shes been a resident for 35 years. but why should the Australian taxpayer fund someone who migrated here late in life and then wants to spend 6 months of every year back home? in these instances both countries need to share the pension costs. is one country supposed to bear the full burden? as for the middle group of migrant pensioners who just want to go back home for +6 weeks and will be affected by the changes. yes indeed, they are affected no doubt. SD, you are going to see this space get very ugly into the future with an aging population.

You made an interesting comment about the pension laws changing because of just a few who challenge/test the system. But don't you think your comment is ironic? The very anti-protest laws your whole thread is about have themselves come about because of a select few pushing the boundaries beyond what they were designed to accommodate.

Removing civil liberties is important when signs of unrest are on the horizon. Ironically maintaining control over the,'right', to protest does nothing but make the conflict more volatile. If people feel strongly enough about an idea they will protest regardless of the consequences (see self immolation).

How do you use laws to control, "4-5 million people being laid off" ?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-14/thousands-angry-unemployed-chin...

happyasS wrote:

Sheepdog wrote:

Happy, your write;
"if so....then you would ask why the government should continue to pay a full pension to someone who has been out of the country for more than 26 weeks. the pension is not a right....it is an entitlement. a worthy one at that no doubt. but I think it is a fair question to ask nonetheless that someone who is not using the pension for the purpose of living in the country of origin maybe shouldn't get the full amount."

Firstly it's being changed to six weeks, not 26 weeks.... Big difference, mate.... Secondly, why can't a pensioner go on a 6 month stay in let's say England? Who the hell are you or Abbott or Turnbull to say what a 70 yo lady can or can't do? The only reason this 6 week law has been brought in is because of a very small minority who have found it is a lot cheaper to live in the Phillipines for 25 weeks , return for one week, and then go back... Because of a few thousand, every one suffers..... But what it also shows is how outrageous the cost of living has become for the elderly in Australia, that some resort to doing what i have described.... Perhaps they should set up a business overseas and not pay tax, yeah?
Your "not a right but an entitlement " is straight out of the far right wing handbook.... Ok.... We'll go with "entitlement"...... Hockey can get his Pension whilst working and staying in New york.... He's entitled.... Why can't Mrs Jones?

And the argument about those pesky environmentalists.... Where's your favorite untouched surf break in Australia, mate? Be careful...... This is wedge politics at it's best.....

SD. Mrs Jones gets the full pension whilst overseas if shes been a resident for 35 years. but why should the Australian taxpayer fund someone who migrated here late in life and then wants to spend 6 months of every year back home? in these instances both countries need to share the pension costs. is one country supposed to bear the full burden? as for the middle group of migrant pensioners who just want to go back home for +6 weeks and will be affected by the changes. yes indeed, they are affected no doubt. SD, you are going to see this space get very ugly into the future with an aging population.

You made an interesting comment about the pension laws changing because of just a few who challenge/test the system. But don't you think your comment is ironic? The very anti-protest laws your whole thread is about have themselves come about because of a select few pushing the boundaries beyond what they were designed to accommodate.

You' didn't address the "untouched surf break" question.... or the wedge... If these laws can be used for csg mining protesters, it can be a very quick jump to use these laws on development protesters.. And instead of having folk like Happy demonizing the residents of eg - Lismore as all "greeny troublemakers, we'll have tradies and real estate agents and developers demonizing those environmental scummy surfies locking themselves to trees at double Island point trying to stop a mega resort.... "Bloody trouble makers.. Lock em' up I say.... What about the jobs... They were the same protesters that were at Broken Head and at Wreck bay.... The government laws were changed... People that dont want the economy to prosper just should get out of the way...."

And btw, a person should be allowed to spend their pension how they see fit, at the local supermarket, piss it against the wall, the pub, or travel.... When restrictions are made on Pollies pensions (those who set the pension rules), I may change my mind. But whilst Joe Hockey is double dipping, Mrs Jones should be able to donate all her pension to the "help the starving africans" if she sees fit..... Or are you gonna tell people which charities they can donate to as well, happy?

I hardly ever surf true untouched areas anymore what with having a family now, the time for those surf trips is over for me until a later date. I followed the news on smiths beach as it was one of the places Id go with mates and my heritage back to 1930's and earlier was in that area and further south. some of my youth was spent fishing down in Albany and without doubt for me the albany coastline is the nicest in aus. theres still plenty of king george down there but there a little harder to find than 30 years ago. instead of picking up 30 in one hour its more like 1 in 30 minutes. but I also recognize with continued population growth that some spoiling of areas with development is going to happen. whether its a new resort or 10,000 city slickers feet trampling the vegetation looking for their own personal nature fix, all that really matters at the end of the day is the planning done in advance to minimize the inevitable impact. theres simply too many people.

there is always scope for misusing laws to attack protestors widely. at the end of the day its about how the law is interpreted by initially the law enforcement depts. and then the wider justice depts. I would hate to see the right to protest disappear and in reality it never will because rights like that are fundamental to being human. but a protest should have a goal which is to effect change. chaining yourself to equipment because you got emotional at the sight of the earless legless lizard is wasted energy. everything nowdays is performed through the stroke of a pen, and so where vigilante protestors fail, others can succeed.

Adding to this, we need to make a clear distinction between laws relating to energy & resources (hence mining) and others laws and regulations. You will find that both major parties will always support laws whereby the government will always have access / control of resources on the land. There is a difference.

TB, I don't get your point. could you elaborate some more.

Various forms of protest have been and continue to be effective.

HA, you will find that both political parties will support each other when it comes to access to energy or mineral resources on the land. Whereas the other policy issues are more aligned to politics. Each flavour of government will make sure that the government of the day has control of access, regardless.
http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/landholders-and-community/landh...

floyd wrote:

Sheepster, can't and will not argue about anything you're saying about Essendon. But why stop there? The AFL, Dank, the Age/C Wilson, ASADA, WADA and CAS equally all have questions to answer. Sure I'm an Essendon supporter but I want all the facts to come out because I like proper process and we didn't get it. Apparently Dank will be calling former senior people at Essendon to the witness box regarding this issue of records, because they existed at the cub but have been destroyed. Why? This maybe bullshit so we will have to wait and see. Just like Milne was trialled by the media so was Hird; he may have been trusting, a poor coach, whatever, but never will I believe he deliberately set out to cheat the system, its a bloody mess but lets see all the facts come out.

Hey Floyd, did you watch Four Corners last night? Still in denial mate? Go the Bombers.......

the thing is i'm big on process and the process from day one on this sorry saga was rooted.

by process i mean the process of investigation to find guilt or innocence.

i'm not going to recall the blow by blow history of how i see the process was wrong but let me summarise by saying ASADA should have solely investigated Essendon/Dank etc and the AFL should have stayed out of it. The AFL's involvement was all about getting a "scalp" ... Hird (hence the AFL leaks to the press) and product protection and it had little to do with finding out what exactly happened.

Oddly, we still don't know what the players took, either that's incompetence or flaws with the legislation, records did exist at one stage at the club by where are they now? Dank should know but apparently the law is powerless in forcing him to tell ... WTF

Shit poor process.

If banned substances were taken that i see more fault with the club than players ... the WADA code was only just being introduced into the AFL at the time and we have seen recently with sharapova along with over 100 international athletes being caught with the same drug how WADA's advice to sports and players can be lets be kind and say "less than perfect".

at the end of the day i reckon hird and the players got duped, there was no deliberate intent but things went off the rails badly ... the club and hird has paid the right price (dr reid????_) but i feel for the players being caught up in all this, personally i want them to get off at appeal.

Floyd, your passion for the Bombers is evident but IMO is still clouding some of the blatant facts from your view. I agree this issue has been been done to death but it just seems to be an issue that keeps on giving. Maybe if the Bombers came clean (the whole club) from the start, the media wouldn't still be interested. Let's hope some positives come out in the end, maybe even "process" might be the winner.....

Rabbits68 wrote:

Floyd, your passion for the Bombers is evident but IMO is still clouding some of the blatant facts from your view. I agree this issue has been been done to death but it just seems to be an issue that keeps on giving. Maybe if the Bombers came clean (the whole club) from the start, the media wouldn't still be interested. Let's hope some positives come out in the end, maybe even "process" might be the winner.....

my family has been involved in the past in an international sport at a level bordering on elite - we all hate drugs in sport but all say there needs to clear and proper processes.

i truly believe the club (except for maybe a couple of football managers who quickly left the scene when all this blew up) did fully co-operate with all concerned to their determent especially with the internal and AFL lead investigations .... its was ASADA's job alone to do and they along with everyone else messed up badly .... poor process.

equally i think hird did not deliberately set out to cheat ... he was a rookie coach at a big club and so decisions which should have been his weren't (see above comment about managers leaving club soon after the blow up). people in the club lied to hird and the players but as coach hird has taken the fall ... a tragic circumstance for hird and players.

i just want all the truth to come out -- the role of the departed ASADA head, the AFLs role, how ASADA agreed to let the AFL in on the investigation, the illegal leaks to the media, why records were lost at the club, Danks role and liability .... we are likely to never know because there is too much $$$ involved and the image of the game to uphold at all costs

.......... the scalp has been got and they want the players too ... i have no faith in WADA to get anything right

"i just want all the truth to come out -- the role of the departed ASADA head, the AFLs role, how ASADA agreed to let the AFL in on the investigation, the illegal leaks to the media, why records were lost at the club, Danks role and liability .... we are likely to never know because there is too much $$$ involved and the image of the game to uphold at all costs"

Hmmmmm. Did ASADA inject the players?

cheap shot sheepster, ok lets give the cops the same poor processes and lets them run riot ..... you good with that sheepster? or do we want the cops to follow the law?

No, floyd.. Not a cheap shot... And as I said to you in a one on one, i feel ya pain, mate.... But Bombers fans need to stop lashing out at the whistle blowers so to speak.... And I don't think you answered Rabbits question. Did you watch 4 corners? It said and uncovered more in that 45 minutes than all other "journalists" have in 3 years..... And as for Essendon just recently taking that young bloke to court for "costs" associated with him wanting to know what was put in his body, Fuuuuuck.... At the end of 4 corners, the show stated that after approaching the club, the club DROPPED the case and now wont chase costs from the young guy.....
Fuckn disgraceful, man..... You members need to take hatchets and pitch forks down there.....

sheepo,

watched the 4 corners - my point_ still no-one knows what was given - why? poor process. that ex player took on the club & AFL in the courts .... as they say sheepy if there is a choice b/w going to court & eating dog shit always eat the dog shit.

now all clubs ... all clubs have supplements programs chasing that advantage and on a spectrum essendon was up one end but what is legal or even moral is often a grey line ... let me tell you something ......

my physiotherapist formerly worked at a AFL club. that club had an absolute legend and 300 game plus champion. for the last 2 years of preseason and weekly training and game time that champion player had to have pain killing injections into a foot plus strapping plus (because of the strapping) a larger size boot. game day his foot was injected with a pain killer, foot strapped before the game and redone again at 1/2 time just so he could get through a game ...... i see this player (retired) occasionally now he has a massive limp when he walks ....... sheepster what happened to that player for 2 years is (or was) completely legal according to the AFL and all the anti-drug officials ....... i say that should have been illegal before we even start talking about the morality of it.

Lets have a bet here sheepy about Sharapova, there is plenty of information about to say WADA stuffed up advising the sporting world that the drug she and 100s of other athletes were taking was put on the banned list after they had it on the "review" list for 12 months and after they (WADA) knew about its use for 10 years .... ( the banned drug essendon players were meant to have taken was legal to 2012) ..... anyway back to Sharapova ... under current rules she is facing an automatic 2 year ban for the doping infringement ... my guess is she (and the 100s of others caught in the net) will get off completely or some minimum slap of the wrist like 3-6 months ... at the end of the season .... lets have good laws and good process .... one without the other doesn't work.

Hmmmmm. Did ASADA inject the players?

exactly! !

your biasness on this issue is rather nauseating floyd

hird and the players are all involved in injections that are known to be hush hush and you blame everyone else. they all knew what was going on and they all covered it up....for a long time

whole club should have a significant ban (years) if afl is really serious about drugs

and wsl...now there's another thread!!

excuses for sharapova now? are you into roids too?

sharapova has a team of minders whose jobs are to advise her on such things and her excuse is she didn't cluck on a link.

it's bullshit like this that the public are sick and tired of. just like politicians doing wrong and using weasal words to explain otherwise. PR people should be jailed for the mmisinformation they spread, it's warping society

i hope you were called as a witness sypkan to the CAS hearing, you obviously knew what was happening at essendon in intimate detail not that you have read or comprehended what i have previously said on the topic. to (painfully) recap ... i oppose drug use in sport but if you have laws let them be policed correctly ... its the shit poor processes i object to ... keystone cops stuff ... lack of professionalism in law making and investigation ... get my drift ... ASADA and WADA are light years away from the standards required as proven by the essendon and sharapova cases

no I wasn't there, but if they had nothing to hide they would have come out and proved otherwise instead it's one big cover up after cover up and you constantly defend the players and hird, if you really think they had no idea...well....

I'm not bagging you personally floyd, I just find it interesting that a seemingly rational man like yourself can defend the indefensible. its a weird love crew have for their footy teams. a love that clouds objectivity more than patriotism and war, I just don't get it.

you're probably right regarding WADA and ASADA, but that doesn't change the fact that the whole of essendon were involved in some seriously shady behaviour, and ignorance is the worst excuse, it's insulting

The AFL did not want a scalp, Floyd.
They wanted to cover it up and get them off.

here's why essendon (and we) are fucked

and we're all in on it, a culture of whatever it takes, denial, and damage control.

so many layers of leaches, and self interested folk, it's impossible to discern what's what. but we all love it, because anything negativie is...well just so negative, and the truth is...just so inconvenient. as long as the public are on side who cares, false sentiment is better than reality.

I look forward to a good old public stoning of the voodoo bankers when it all falls in a heap

Essendon and the Economy — Unnatural Bedfellows

How the Essendon drugs scandal describes the world
A tale of three worlds
Donald the dictator

By Vern Gowdie on the Gold Coast

Terror once again dominates the news headlines. Unfortunately, you get the sense this type of headline is going to become an all too familiar sight.

This is probably why the markets, after an initial negative reaction, recovered to finish modestly in the red.

The wider repercussions of these attacks will be felt in the broader community, and how it reacts to it.

The tragedy in Brussels will certainly intensify calls to tighten Europe’s borders.

Anti-immigration parties are likely to receive a wave of new support. Establishment parties will be forced to take a tougher stance. Compounds will replace compassion.

Tensions are set to increase

The Aussie dollar surged against the UK pound…an indication markets are getting more concerned about the Brits voting to leave the Eurozone.

While Europe struggles with terror attacks, refugees, negative interest rates, a failing socialist system, the consequences of more QE, and the uprising of fringe political parties, here in Australia the footy season is set to get underway.

What I know about the AFL can be written on the back of one of our new $1 postage stamps — with room to spare.

With that confession out of the way, it was with interest I watched this week’s Four Corners program on the Essendon ‘supplements’ scandal.

In 2012, Essendon, in its determination to win the premiership were looking for a performance edge. That elusive edge led the club to engage the services of sports scientist Stephen Dank.

Dank’s now infamous supplements program was administered to the players during the pre-season.

The regular season started well enough. The Bombers were winning, and the ‘supplement’ program appeared to be achieving its performance-enhancing aim.

Then winning turned to losing. This was not an acceptable outcome to the powerbrokers at the club.

What was their solution? Inject the players with more voodoo medicine…

According to Four Corners, Chinese manufactured peptides — not meant for human consumption — were administered to players. The playing group was also injected with substances from vials that came in a box marked ‘for equine use only’.

It appears that anything and everything — no matter how bizarre or dangerous — was used in this blinkered quest for a flag.

The Four Corners story followed the trials and tribulations of Hal Hunter, a rookie determined to find out exactly what the club was putting into his body.

Did this chemical cocktail increase the likelihood of cancer? Was it nothing more than a harmful placebo?

Mucking around with the natural order of things almost always has ramifications. Hunter wants to find out — and rightly so — what they may be.

The unintended consequences of this pursuit for premiership glory may take years to be revealed.

Essendon’s public naming and shaming is becoming an all too common occurrence. The sporting world — athletics, cycling, swimming, tennis, rugby league, etc. — is rife with drug scandals.

The sports industry is always looking for an edge.

Big money brings big temptation.

To some degree, we, the spectators, have played our part in creating the need for performance enhancing drug use.

We (as a society) want to see bigger, stronger and faster athletes…we want to see records broken and teams winning. We love winners. We want to be stimulated by people and teams that continually push the boundaries.

Watching Lance Armstrong in his glory days inspired many people to wear Lycra. People were in awe of his story — overcoming cancer to win the Tour de France seven years in a row.

We wanted to believe the fairy tale. When Armstrong revealed his big lie, we felt cheated. Armstrong was vilified for his deception.

In a time long ago — think back to Roger Bannister breaking the four minute mile — sports people achieved results with training and talent. My wife’s aunt competed in the 1952 Helsinki Olympics. Talk with her about her training program and you’re immediately taken back to an age of innocence.

The work was done on the training paddock, not in a laboratory. The results were genuine sweat of the brow — efforts not manufactured in a test tube.

Therein lies the parallel between the sporting world and the global economy.

Over the same period, our economic performance has transformed from ‘genuine’, to ‘manufactured’.

Back in the 1950s, economic performance was determined by a natural order.

People saved. That, in turn, created a pool of available capital for investment. Loans from the capital base went into productive investments. Production created profitability, which, in turn, financed consumption.

Savings; investment; productivity; consumption. This was the natural order.

Economic progress (or lack thereof) was a reflection of the effort put in on the ‘training paddock’. Save first, consume later.

Artificial stimulants and/or supplements were not necessary. People accepted that effort and sacrifice would bring their own in rewards in due course.

The era of innocence is long gone. In the economy and sporting arena, honest toil has given way to dishonest advantage.

By my reckoning, the 1980s — East German athletes and banking deregulation — was when the loss of innocence became evident.

Consumption vaulted to first place, with savings relegated to a distant fourth position in this new, unnatural economic order.

Work hard, live within your means, pay down debt and save for the future was a training regime for economic losers.

The new winning high performance program, developed by the economic scientists, was: live beyond your means, go deeper into debt, don’t save and let the markets do the heavy lifting for your retirement.

The economic supplement program was successful for many years. Why?

We started with low debt and high interest rates. This combination provided plenty of scope for debt-funded consumption.

Each year, the economic scientists made the supplements cheaper and more abundant. The combination of fractional banking and downward trending interest rates delivered gold medal economic performances.

Growth, like winning, was addictive.

The Western world was hooked on these lifestyle-enhancing drugs.

There appeared to be no side effects; asset values increased, welfare handouts became more generous, and lifestyles expanded in line with credit card usage.

After watching the Western world’s record-breaking performances, the developing world wanted what we had. Growth was fast tracked in China, which in turn flowed to other emerging markets.

Everyone was on the juice.

The economic scientists were completely oblivious to the debt toxicity building in the system. They were getting high on the adulation.

The unintended consequences of this unnatural economic order became evident in 2008.

Rather than go back to the paddock, detox and do the hard yards, the scientists’ response was ‘we’ll manufacture even more stimulants and give them away for next to nothing’.

More debt was the solution to a debt problem.

When Essendon faltered, Stephen Dank adopted the ‘we need more stimulants’ approach. He’s been rightly condemned for this cavalier approach to player welfare.

Yet when our central bankers apply the same principle, world leaders and economic elites fete their actions.

Central banks are putting the welfare of the global economy at risk, and there is barely a peep from the mainstream. Talk about double standards. Perhaps they are too ignorant of the facts to see the correlation.

Or maybe they are playing the ‘go along to get along’ game? Whatever the motive — ignorance, stupidity or compliance — by not holding these mad scientists to account, they are not doing the public any favours.

Central banks taking interest rates into the negative is a symptom of an economy that’s completely and utterly dependent on debt for its performance. Without debt, the growth model collapses.

While the official data — unemployment, inflation, and GDP growth — all indicate the system is somewhat healthy, the truth is these are doctored results…the equivalent of swapping a urine sample.

We’re being given false readings. The data does not reflect the extent of the damage done to the ‘economic body’ by prolonged substance abuse.

Interest rates going into the negative are a clear indication of how toxic the debt has become.

The central bankers want us to believe in the fairy tale. The truth is that this is a nightmare.

Like the Essendon players, we (society) have been used as test subjects in an experiment to create economic results that could not be produced naturally.

The sustained use of, and the total dependency on, debt has weakened our economic body to the point that it no longer functions normally.

Nature and history both tells us this cannot, and will not, continue.

Negative interest rates are a sign we’re in the final stage of the economic body shutting down.

In desperation, central bankers are literally trying to force-feed debt down the throat of the economy.

In due course, central bankers will face the public shame and ridicule afforded to drug cheats.

There will be plenty of enquiries and inquisitions, but that’ll do the person in the street — with a truckload of debt and risk assets — a fat lot of good.

Start your own detox program. Go back to the natural order — save first, pay down debt, and consume later.

Vern Gowdie,
Editor, The Daily Reckoning

banks, footy clubs, internet commenters all subscribers to the george costanza school of management

https://m.

Sypkan, you sure you are not on Danks peptides. Equating the Essendon saga with world economics is imaginative and would require a copious amount of equine juice, me thinks.

afl is a consumer product no different to buying a new tv. people put very high demands on what they pay to see. drugs compromises the product because we've been told it compromises it. people start asking the question; did we get what we paid for? was the other team REALLY better than our team? did we lose because....[insert] ? and when it goes balls up people demand to know what happened. they paid for it right? they "own" the game.

there is no real right or wrong...the rules are made up. and the higher in demand the product is the more scrutiny it will come under, more rules, more fans, more pressure. the team pushes the boundaries because we as consumers expect them to win, win at all costs but if u take any drugs then your out, we don't want to know you. your a cheat. but if you don't win or are not winning, or are playing badly then what am I paying you for. ive come from a family of footy fanatics. there were times when if our team was playing bad that dad would just leave the ground in disgust. and that's not uncommon, Id see many fans do it. "my time is not worth this ". its an example that underlies the high intensity fans have for the game.

we "say" win or lose we're with you but is that really true. if you want to start placing blame then you also have to consider how we as consumers have made the product what it is. and it starts at an early age, parents on the sidelines. arguing with other parents of the opposite team...."your kid did the wrong thing".....or instead shouting at the ump. calling out whatever. I see it.

nice Sypkan, hey how many gold medals at this years Olympics do you think will be clean? My guess will be about 1/3, big question marks over most countries except for a handful of western democracies ..... drug cheats are generally considered to be 10 years ahead of WADA

Also .... news on Melbourne TV tonight is reporting 1/4 of Collingwood players returned positive results to recreational drugs during the off season .... the AFL has this odd 3 strikes rule currently but you can self report yourself on the 3rd occasion and get off a ban ..... all very interesting these inconsistencies in and between sports .... in most amateur sports in the country one positive drug test to a recreation drug would see your sporting career over.