The other day I quoted Big Whispering Jack's assertion that, and I paraphrase....
"Wayne Jackson had been able to keep Patrick Smith happy by feeding him information."
To be charitable, I don't find this practice particularly evil. As long as the journo isn't claiming wise visionary status and as long as we dumb readers are aware of it. After all, if I know the background I've got a better shot at making up my own mind. Don't I?
I've a suspicion something like this may have happened when Smith was the only journo who backed the umpire over the Nicholson/Lloyd double free. How come he had the umpire's story well before all the other scribblers?
However, if the following cosy couplet is anything to go by, it seems the trend might be set to continue. The issue is Carlton's salary cap penalties and Patrick Smith's dismissal of suggestions the AFL was too hard on the Blues.
First Patrick paves the way in Tuesday's Australian....
To understand how outraged the commission was at Carlton's endemic cheating, the club was treated with some leniency after Stephen Silvagni and Craig Bradley voluntarily reported schemes to pay them illegally. Thank heavens they did, otherwise Carlton may not have got into the draft until 2006. No, the punishment has been handed down and you expect will not be revisited. Carlton's plight has everything to do with poor management and nothing to do with the draft. And the AFL couldn't care less.
The way clear, Jacko consolidates the position in yesterday's Herald Sun....
Jackson was unrepentant last night when asked whether the penalty was too harsh and revealed that if it hadn't been for Elliott's successor, Ian Collins, coming forward to the AFL, the news would have been worse for the Blues. "The penalty was not inappropriate," Jackson said at the Hawthorn's president dinner at the MCG. "This was a club that cheated and rorted over a period of years and they deserved everything they got and, arguably, quite some more. The AFL Commission gave due account to Carlton because they did come forward. If it wasn't for Ian Collins, and the Craig Bradleys, and Steve Silvagnis of this world, the penalty on Carlton would have been greater than it was."
One, Smith pounds out an article critical of Carlton. Two, Jackson makes a statement critical of Carlton. It may just be a coincidence, but if it happens too often it's liable to lead people to surmise Jackson and Smith are in cahoots.
A clinical one-two or a lucky coincidence? Make up your own mind.
PS: I agree with Smith and Jackson. The Carlton penalties were too light.
Update: Scott Wickstein, still in posession of his wits after the Crow's soft loss yesterday, make's the point about Smith's recent non-use of of the term "Calamity Castle" for Telstra Dome. Good point. And Smith even tried on the slippery eel last Friday....
First called Colonial Stadium and now Telstra Dome, it was called many other things by the public who queued for hours for tickets even when the stadium was quarter full. These people called it very different names � Calamity Castle, the House of Horrors being the most polite versions.
The public? These people? Tongue in cheek? Surely Patrick invented "Calamity Castle".
Comments