The Balmainiacs

Now that I have your attention with a bit of "poetic license", or "bloggers license" about deep throats etc.. I must now go back into the past.

Not being one to dwell on the past like some others, of past glories or alleged grievances. I must look at history because those that ignore history are destined to repeat the wrongs of history.

I go back to the 18th September 1909. This date exactly 100 years ago to the day of the publishing of this blog, is a very black day in Rugby League history.

This day marks the day of that infamous no show game in the playoffs for the Premiers of 1909. This game featured South Sydney as minor premiers and Balmain as the second placed team. Balmain decided to not play, the play off games, and of course, you ask, why.

Well I will allow the following to educate you on what happened on that black day. The lead up to it and the very surprising findings of why this occurred.

I have in my blog the full transcript from the website, plus my comments in blue. I have also provided a link to that web site.

This is the website that contains these very surprising and damaging revelations.

The Balmainiacs of 1909

Sean Fagan of RL1908.com

Balmain were referred to many critics as 'The Balmainiacs'. It was the most dramatic action ever taken by a rugby league club - the 1909 Balmain team forfeited the premiership Final (18th September 1909).

Arguments have raged as to what led to Balmain's actions, and the day's events have caused the 'Tigers' and the South Sydney Rabbitohs to generally harbour nothing but ill-will towards each other ever-since.

Maybe the two dinasours, Bradasouris and BobsTrex may come to blows?

The seeds of the dramatic events of 1909 lay in the years before rugby league was formed, back when Balmain and Souths were rugby union clubs.

In 1900 the Metropolitan Rugby Union (MRU) replaced the private clubs of the 1800s with district clubs. This was done to more evenly distribute the talent between clubs, and to build upon the growing support for suburban based clubs.

While Balmain had use of 'the best ground in the colony' in Birchgrove Park [Oval], the MRU inexplicably ignored its 'home-and-away' scheduling for club matches, and refused to allocate South Sydney matches anywhere but at the SCG or Sports Ground.

Between 1900 and 1906, Souths and Balmain had met 14 times, yet the 'red-and-greens' had only twice been required to play at Birchgrove.

Why would South Sydney expect to slum it at Balmain anyway.

While most clubs trained indoors at night or on fields under moonlight, Souths and Easts had exclusive use of the lights of the Sports Ground. Understandably, other clubs, particularly Balmain and Norths felt that Souths and Easts were receiving favourable treatment.

The newspapers and opposing fans had come to call the Balmain club "the Balmainiacs". Unafraid to vent their feelings, especially at home games, Balmain were not the most popular club amongst Sydney 'rugbyites'.

When the opportunity came to join the newly formed rugby league in the early months of 1908, most rugby union clubs lost approximately half of their players and members. In Balmain's case, the League got just about everybody.

When the Balmain Union club held its first meeting of 1908, all the district's League supporters attended and voted against the election of every official for the coming season.

While they really had no cause to even be at the Union club's meeting, the presence of the League supporters prevented the Union club from being formed for the coming season. The MRU organised the follow-up meeting for the same night as the next Balmain League meeting, just so it could carry on its business.

By the start of the 1909 season, the NSWRL was in a dire financial crisis - its founding fathers, James Giltinan, Victor Trumper and 'Harry' Hoyle, all lost their positions.

Under the stewardship of North Sydney's Alexander Knox, the NSWRL convinced the clubs to forgo their gate receipts from matches, and hand it all over to the League.

It quickly became apparent to Knox that the only club attracting reasonable crowds was Balmain at Birchgrove Park. Consequently, Balmain were given a home game in almost every round. As a result, they enjoyed great on-field success and climbed the premiership ladder. Balmain reached the Final against South Sydney.

However, as Souths had won the minor premiership by two points, the NSWRL play-offs system meant that Balmain had to beat them in the Final, and then beat them again in a second Final to claim the title. It seemed unlikely.

Balmain lobbied the NSWRL to schedule the Final at Wentworth Park, which was half-way between the two districts. The League refused, and put the match on at the Agricultural Ground - Souths home field.

Balmain's complaints were quickly overtaken by outside events when more than half of the 1908 Wallabies team suddenly defected to rugby league for a series of matches against the Kangaroos. The Final was postponed indefinitely.

Knox publicly criticised the NSWRL officials who were involved in 'bringing-down' the NSWRU via paying huge sums to the Wallabies. Other officials didn't see a problem with the League's actions, and Knox soon lost his position on the NSWRL.

Funded by entrepreneur James Joynton-Smith, the three 'Wallabies v Kangaroos' matches did not earn enough gate-money to fully cover his costs or those of the NSWRL. So a fourth game was arranged. To increase interest and gate-takings, the NSWRL scheduled the Final on the under-card.

Balmain were seemingly aggrieved at the demotion of importance of the Final, and asked the NSWRL to ensure it was played on a separate day. They also argued that their players' labour should not go towards paying money owed to Joynton-Smith and the NSWRL. The League refused and Balmain announced that they would not play.

What a disgrace, would that happen today, I would hope not.

On the day of the Final the Balmain players arrived outside the ground in the early afternoon, well before the scheduled kick-off time of 2 o'clock. They then picketed the entrance, endeavouring to convince patrons not to enter.

Disgraceful, what a low act against the NSWRL that was.

Despite very heavy rain and the protests of the Balmain footballers, enough of a crowd turned up to clear the debts of Joynton-Smith and the NSWRL. Balmain stuck to their word and did not appear on the field. Souths kicked-off, picked up the ball and scored a try. The referee awarded them the match, and with it the 1909 premiership.

Now that was a disgraceful affair for a club to act in such a manner. But wait, is that the worst, is there something else to this very tawdry affair, to this very black day in NSWRL history. I would say that this is the worst thing that a club could do. But no, there is more to this very grubby affair. Read on.

In the days that followed a public meeting was held at Balmain to decide what to do about challenging Souths being credited as premiers. It then became apparent what Balmain had been trying to achieve. The first speaker at the meeting was North Sydney's Alexander Knox. He had convinced Balmain to forfeit the Final in the hope that the NSWRL would not earn enough money to pay off its debts or be able to reimburse Joynton-Smith.

With the NSWRL bankrupted, Balmain and Norths officials would lead the formation of a new rugby league body - one in which they, and not South Sydney and Easts, would be the dominant office-holders. With little hope of winning the premiership, Balmain felt they had more to gain by causing the NSWRL to collapse.

Well, what a disgraceful act of "TREASON" that was. Balmain and North Sydney should have been expelled from the NSWRL for such a dastardly act. An act of naked greed and a grab for power.

Further meetings were held, attempting to instigate legal proceedings and investigate forming a new League, but they eventually stalled.

In the opening round of the 1910 competition, the NSWRL scheduled a 're-match' between Souths and Balmain at Birchgrove Park to appease the local supporters.

'The Balmainiacs' responded by establishing a record crowd for a NSWRL club match of over 5,000. The home team though were beaten 13-5 in a very tough and physical encounter.

Go you mighty Rabbits.

The Referee thought it necessary to praise the Birchgrove crowd for their behaviour, offering, "Naturally they like to see their favourites win, and what district does not? In the present instance, however, their team had to play second fiddle, but as sports they took the defeat in good spirit, and liberally applauded the visitors."

At the first NSWRL meeting of 1910, Norths'
Alexander Knox was banned from rugby league
for life.

So he should have been, and also with the Balmain and North Sydney clubs. Shame on them.

Shame, Shame, Shame.

This is the lesson of history we should all learn. No club or person is greater than the game. Balmain and North Sydney tried to dominate by stealth and lost out.

This has no bearing on the club Balmain or the amalgamated clubs Wests Tigers now. It is just a glimpse into the past, a past we should not forget so we don't repeat the sins of the past.

Here ends my sermon.

Kyle and Jackie O

Kyle and Jackie O have a radio show on 2Day FM. They had a segment called “Lie Detector”. They accepted participation from a mother who wanted to quiz her reluctant daughter on such things as wagging school, taking drugs, and having sex.
The daughter is 14 years old.
They had a lie detector and lie detector user in the studio with the mother and daughter. The daughter was reluctant to participate which is obvious from the transcript below. The daughter was hooked up to the lie detector.
What do you all think.

Transcript

[intro music]

Jackie O: Here’s a little quick recap before we do the Lie Detector.

Mum: Um, last Thursday night she went to bed at nine o’clock. I gave her a kiss goodnight, and 2:30 in the morning I got a knock on the door from two undercover police bringing her home.

Jackie: What’s your worst fear? Is it the sex, is it the lying, is it possibly doing drugs, smoking… what do you think?

Mum: Um… drugs and sex. And older boys.

Jackie: Yeah.

Mum: Yeah, and older boys.

Jackie: Do you think – has she actually told you she’s had sex before, or do you think she’s a virgin?

Mum: I think she – might have had sex before.

Jackie: Right, but she hasn’t said anything?

Mum: No.

Kyle: Have you asked about the drugs? And things like that?

Mum: Yes, I know for a fact that she’s been smoking marijuana.

Kyle: Right, so she’s admitted that, has she?

Jackie: So you want to know if she’s doing anything harder than marijuana then?

Mum: Yes, yes.

Jackie: Alright, we have her hooked up to the Lie Detector! She’s not happy! I just saw her listening to that [bleep]

Daughter: I’m scared. It’s not fair.

Jackie: It wouldn’t be fair on any kid, I tell you. No – they’re sympathising…

Kyle: Is that true, Charles? Is that true?

Charles: That is true.

?Kyle: She is scared, everyone, yeah.

Jackie: Yeah. Mum, you have a series of questions that you’re going to ask your daughter, and [name bleeped], you reply either Yes or No, and then it will be picked up on the Lie Detector whether [with a laugh in her voice] you are telling the truth or you are lying. Ok Mum, what do you want to start with?

Mum: OK, about school. [name bleeped] recently started a new school, and I want to know: Have you wagged at your new school?

Daughter: I have not wagged at my new school.

Jackie: So the answer would be no?

Daughter: No, I haven’t.

Charles: Now, that’s a fail.

Daughter: I haven’t wagged! Are you kidding me?

Charles: I’m just calling it…

Daughter: I haven’t bloody wagged!

Jackie [laughing]: Poor Charles is going to cop it this morning!

Kyle: You’re not within arms reach there are you Charles?

Jackie: Yeah he is!

Daughter: He is.

Jackie: So the Lie Detector’s saying you have…

Daughter: I haven’t wagged!

Jackie: What’s happening here, Charles?

Charles: Well maybe she’s skipped a class or something like that.

Jackie: Have you done that, skipped a class?

Daughter: No! I haven’t!

Mum: Have you left there early?

Daughter: No. I haven’t.

Kyle: Could it come up a fail – like, have you had a sick day or something, where you bunged on a bit of a sickie, and you thought …

Daughter: Oh, yeah, plenty of them.

Kyle: Could that be it? Yep.

Jackie: Well, that’s it apparently. Yep. Ok, what’s your next question, Mum?

Mum: OK. Have you had sex?

Daughter: [quieter] I’ve already told you the story of this. And don’t look at me and smile, because it’s not funny. [louder, announcing with bravado] OH, OK. I got raped when I was twelve years old.

[silence]

Kyle: Right. And is that the, is that the only experience you’ve had?

[huffing sound - is this the daughter fake-laughing in disbelief?]

Mum: I only found out about that, um, a couple of months ago. Yes, I knew about that.

Daughter: And yet you still asked me the question.

Mum: The question was, have you had sex other than that.

Jackie: [name bleeped] I’m really sorry, we didn’t actually know that that was the case, and I think that we might actually abort this segment. I had no idea that you’ve been through that, so I’m really sorry. And we’ll just let you off the hook, I think. I think it’s best not to continue. Are you alright? It’s ok, you just take a breather, it’s fine.

We always have counselling services here. [Name bleeped] Have you had any counselling over this issue?

Mum: No, she’ hasn’t.

Jackie: OK, well we have all the right people in place if you need any help or support in regards to that. Which it sounds like you might. I’m really sorry; I had no idea that this had happened to you. I don’t think we would have gone ahead with that had we known.

OK honey, we’ll just let you go for a while.

I’m sorry, I didn’t realise that that was…

Kyle: OK, Mum, sorry. Look we needed to, we, that’s something we probably should have known before we started this.

?Mum: Yeah, definitely.

Kyle: So let’s do that, let’s get you – if you guys haven’t had any counselling, or any, anyone to talk to about that, we’re happy to pick up the bill for that. We’ve got ‘em here. Do you want that, Mum?

Mum: [quietly] Yes, I think that would be good. That would be good.

Kyle: OK, well that might um, that might, going through that might answer some of the questions that you guys are having difficulty communicating with.

Mum: OK. Yup.

Kyle: OK, [name bleeped] Thanks for coming in, darl. Sorry about that. OK, we’re out, everyone. Jackie’s got some news coming up.

[outro music]

Well that is it.

What a disgusting child exploited little episode in Australian radio history.

I cannot understand how anyone thinking in a rational way would think that it is ok to do this.

I think Kyle and Jackie O are not fit to be on radio again. They should be immediately sacked and probably the radio station lose it's license. It all depends on how much the radio station executives knew of the sordid stunt.

Over to you bloggers.

Here is the reaction of Kyle and Jackie O 2 Day FM

Update, Simon Singh's article made Lawyer friendly

Here is a "Lawyer Friendly" version of Simon Singh's original article in the Guardian that brought on the libel case.

Beware the spinal trap

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Bowing to the Exclusive Bretheren

I was reading the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) over my corn flakes this morning when I suddenly gagged and coughed milk and corn flakes all over the newspaper.
The article that I gagged on was by David Marr about a Tasmanian mans fight for access to his children in the Family Court.
The man and his wife were both in the Exclusive Bretheren with their 8 children. The man left the sect in 2003 and subsequently lost access to his children. At that time 3 of his children were of child age and he started Family Court action to get access to the 3 children.
Quoting from the SMH.
"After a three-year battle in the Family Court, he was granted limited access to the two youngest. In a 100-page judgment, Justice Robert Benjamin declared the steps taken by the Brethren to discourage the children from seeing their father "psychologically cruel, unacceptable and abusive".
Access started in 2007. After the visits to their father, the children allegedly wrote heartbreaking letters objecting to their visits. The sect deny that they coach children to write letters of protest.
This court action was vigorously opposed by the mother and of course the church. The mother, one of her children (I assume was one of the adult children) and one of the children in law were threatened with prison for failing to facilitate access.
The mother used the leading family law silk Noel Ackman plus a supporting legal team. You would of course expect the sect to pay for the court action but they deny this and say individual members have given the mother money for the court action. Pigs fly as well.
The father was broke spending $100,000 on the 5 years of litigation.
This story is now more complex with the mother now being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. The family allegedly blamed the father for the cancer. How cruel and totally lacking in any logic are these people.
Now it continues with the father wanting new access plus custody of the youngest child. The mother wants the ex husband to have no custody in the event of her death.
Now this is what made me gag.
Quoting from the SMH.
"Justice Sally Brown declared the faith of the children the "crucial factor" in the case and sided with the mother and the church. She took no account of the sect's long history of trouble with the Family Court and did not address the role the Brethren had played - and may still be playing - in the extreme hostility of the children to visiting their father. The hostility was to be honoured: "It is not realistic to expect them to go against the … teaching of their church. Though she found Peter was a loving father with a comfortable home in which children could live, she birched him for his attitude to the sect; for embarrassing his children by putting birthday greetings in newspapers; for seeking custody of only one child and not two; and for claiming the Brethren had robbed his children of autonomy. Wasn't his own departure, she asked, proof the sect allowed debate and dissent? But he was 46 when he left and his children are 15 and 10. In a remarkable finding by a Family Court judge, Peter was even castigated for seeking to enforce the earlier orders of the court. A door that had been ajar was shut, said the judge. "The continuation of the litigation after [the mother's] diagnosis in May 2007 has driven both children from their father. In their best interests, the litigation must end."
The father has now lost any chance of custody and has lost all access.
Quoting the SMH again.
"It may be that viewing this terrible and tangled situation, Justice Brown found a fair and secular outcome just too hard - too hard on the children, too hard on their dying mother, too hard in the face of the implacable hostility of the Brethren.
But her decision has reward the sect's intransigence. Once again the Family Court has flinched.
Athol Greene insists these cases are rare and that the church will submit to the law while continuing to argue that the best outcome for these children is to remain solely within the Brethren.
"You won't change us," he says, fixing me with his old eyes. "You. Won't. Change. Us.""
How horrid is this, I could not believe that the Family Court would fold to the demands of a cruel sect that separates families because one parent is not a part of the sect.
We need individual rights, maybe a Bill of Rights that can overide this madness.
This has saddened me greatly.
Exclusive Bretheren SMH article

Update on Simon Singh

Just an update on Simon Singh.
He is coming to Australia and he will be speaking at,
Seymour Theatre Centre
Corner of City Rd and Cleveland St, CHIPPENDALE Sydney
When: July 15, 2009 6:00 PM.

Here he is being interviewed on Lateline ABC TV last night. He is talking of the current libel case.

Acupuncture in Emergency Departments

I have read in todays Sydney Morning Herald that Victorian Emergency Departments are going to trial acupuncture for the treatment of acute migraine, back pain and ankle injuries. Quoting the Herald, "The National Health and Medical Research Council has granted more than $400,000 for a three-year clinical trial in which 400 people will receive drug therapy, acupuncture or both to treat pain."
Apparently there has been a pilot study run at Northern Hospital in Epping, Victoria. This pilot study has allegedly shown promise with managing pain and nausea.
An Emergency Physician Robyn Parker said that patient who turned up at the Emergency Department were given the option of being treated by final year or graduate acupuncture students from RMIT in conjunction with standard medical treatment. Allegedly patients reported a significant reduction in pain and most said they would have it again.
In this multiple Emergency Department trial traditional Chinese medicine practitioners will be employed to carry out the acupuncture.
The lead researcher, Marc Cohen, a professor of complementary medicine at RMIT, said that the patients pain levels will be assessed every hour up until they leave Emergency and for several days afterwards to see which treatment worked best.
What worries me about these trials if carried out the way the pilot study was, is the unscientific way the trials are formulated. I am no scientist but surely a proper clinical trial is double blinded. The pilot study if going on reports in the SMH was not blinded at all. Any improvement in pain and nausea could be put down to the placebo effect. Pain and nausea are very subjective symptons so the placebo effect needs to be ruled out.
According to the authors of the book "Trick or Treatment", Simon Singh and Professor Edzard Ernst a Complementary Medicine Professor. The conditions where acupuncture has possibly shown some benefit in properly conducted trials are, pelvic and back pain during pregnancy, low back pain, headaches, post-operative nausea and vomiting, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, neck disorders and bed wetting.
They do stress that essentially acupuncture seems to only have a placebo effect.
I think much caution should be placed on the findings of this trial once it is finished because as I see it, it will be done in a very unscientific way. I hope I am wrong and they will do randomised double blind studies.

UK Chiropractors in Crisis

You may have been aware of the recent libel case in the UK courts concerning the British Chiropractic Association and the British science writer Simon Singh. The preliminary hearing for the libel case brought against Simon Singh by the British Chiropractic Association was heard in early May.
Mr Justice Eady held:
1. that what Dr Singh had published was defamatory of the BCA in exactly the way the BCA had claimed; and
2. that Dr Singh’s allegations were not comment but were serious defamatory allegations of fact against the BCA.
Dr Singh’s application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was refused by the Judge. Dr Singh has indicated, however, that he proposes to challenge that decision at the Court of Appeal and he now has three weeks to lodge that challenge.
Mr Justice Eady ordered Dr Singh to pay the BCA’s costs of the hearing within 28 days.
Since then there has been a great deal of interest in the sceptical, scientific community regarding this case.
A legal blogger "Jack of Kent" Has this on his blog.
This is the offical text of the ruling of the English High Court on the question of meaning at the preliminary hearing of British Chiropractic Association v Simon Singh on 7 May 2009.
The scientists are concerned because of the libel laws in Britain are so severe that any scientific challenge to a claim made by a person or organisation whether scientific or pseudoscientific can possibly be defamatory.
Dr, Singh has decided to appeal. He has this to say.
Since then many complaints have gone in about the claims made by Chiropractors in particularly their claim to "fix" childhood asthma, colic, whiplash.
Their is one big Chiropractic comglomerate McTimoney Chiropractors that have sent a "secret" email to all of their members. The secret letter is below.
So it seems that this ruling has come back to bite the British Chiropractors.
A secret letter to chiropractors.
Keep libel laws out of science
I will keep you all updated on this case as it progresses.

Cosmic Ordering Update

It has now been about one month since I sent my order to the universe. Has world poverty been eliminated? Has all of the worlds brutal dictators gone, has abundant clean water supplied to everyone on this planet. I don't think so. If it has please let me know ASAP.