Confessions of a Bulldog: inside football's darkest scandal

[Timmah]

He's not "on a pedestal" you goose, he's actually got some sway in the matter. You're using a supposed book deal as an excuse?

The Stateline article you've read - that interview - THREE years old. Book deal happened? Nope.

 

[bartman]

He's not "on a pedestal" you goose, he's actually got some sway in the matter. You're using a supposed book deal as an excuse?

And the fact he was only in charge of the investigation for three days, yet everything he says about the whole matter is apparently gospel... And the correct expression might be "had some sway" for three days, once.

The Stateline article you've read - that interview - THREE years old. Book deal happened? Nope.

:lol: Exactly! Even spruiking for a publishing deal for his "memoirs" about the case as part of that Stateline story didn't work for him. Would have had to be the lead for a bit more than three days to get a publish house interested, I'd suspect.

For something he was so passionate about getting "closure" on, have we heard a peep from him since three years ago? Didn't think so...

 

[Timmah]

Where does it say he was only involved three days? You seem to have used it as a backstop in your argument but I can't see it anywhere...

 

[Dogs Of War]

Timmah, give it up. Let's believe that some people are going to believe whatever they want, no matter what evidence you put in front of them.

Just be thankful the club has moved on and fixed a lot of the issues that created the situation.

 

[bartman]

Where does it say he was only involved three days? You seem to have used it as a backstop in your argument but I can't see it anywhere...

Come on Timmah, keep up... opening paragraph of the Stateline link. http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2006/s1737619.htm

Now, Gary McEvoy, the police officer in charge of the first few days of the investigation, has spoken to Stateline and given his account of the matter. As you will see, the Bulldogs' reputation is not the only casualty from the Coffs Harbour affair. Sharon O'Neill reports.

My whole point about why I'd want to hear a response from Maroney or Bretton to McEvoy's claims about the investigation is based around him only being in charge for a few days, and not necessarily having the whole story to base his claims on.

Dogs of War, I have never said that I believe the Bulldogs committed rape. I have admitted that no illegal activity was proved, and that the laying of charges (for which there was not enough evidence) is the basis for which that would have to have been tested.

I therefore don't believe the Bulldogs were "guilty" - that's a red herring that Timmah has introduced, and persists in beating himself around the head with. My comments were all in relation to why Magnay is justified in writing the article she wrote last week, and my belief that it reflects a divided public view that "something untoward" (note, I'm not saying "illegal") happened in Coffs, that brought the game into disrepute.

On the one hand Tim seems to agree with that last bit, but then he's getting himself twisted in thinking that to admit that some/half/most people still believe the Bulldogs' behaviour in Coffs was "bad" (note: I'm not saying illegal") means you are claiming some form of guilt over some hypothetical charges that were never laid...?

I feel sorry for you guys as fans, especially if you cop people saying much more than I'm simply trying to say in this thread. But with paranoid, reactionary attitudes like the one Tim is showing, it's no wonder that the issue hasn't been put completely behind the club. An important part of over coming "grief" starts with acceptance...

 

[Dogs Of War]

I didn't say you believed they committed rape. I said, let you believe what you want to believe. I don't really care as what happened, has happened. And in retrospect, it was probably one of the best things to happen for the Dogs to change there culture off the field. As seen 5 years later with the club looking a lot different to then. Much more like the club I started following in 1980.

 

[bartman]

I didn't say you believed they committed rape. I said, let you believe what you want to believe.

That's cool. I was just filling you in on the pages of tripe from Timmah you might have missed.

I don't really care as what happened, has happened. And in retrospect, it was probably one of the best things to happen for the Dogs to change there culture off the field. As seen 5 years later with the club looking a lot different to then. Much more like the club I started following in 1980.

I agree with you there. Sometimes adversity creates developments that wouldn't otherwise have developed. There's no doubt that the Dogs operation is a lot better in many ways than it was at the time of Coffs.

But Timmah's wish that everyone bow to some inconclusive "evidence" in McEvoy's quotes and all sing from the same hymnbook in terms of our personal opinions on the events that did happen is both idealistic and offensive imo, and deserving of comment.

 

[ibeme]

Come on Timmah, keep up... opening paragraph of the Stateline link. http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2006/s1737619.htm

Just because he was only in charge for three days, does not mean that he wasn't involved in the investigation for the duration. That's basically the crux of what McEvoy has an issue with. He disagreed with the direction of the investigation, to such a point that he and other investigators hav since left the force.

Despite everything, after weeks of further investigation, the evidence still supports what McEvoy is saying, and what they believed to be the case three days into the investigation.

 

[Timmah]

I'm arguing the toss because it's up for discussion now, I haven't wantonly brought it up from nowhere.